Basis for Atheist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
Or inaction

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
13-02-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:01 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Imagine objective morality as a formula (much like the formulas that would apply to gravity, electromagnetism, etc):

M = A x I x C

M = morality of the action
A = the action itself (ie. punching someone)
I = the intention (ie. did you intend to punch the person)
C = context (ie. was there consent? were you defending someone?)

There is an objective answer in every situation, you just need to plug in the variables. Just because the formula is more complicated than M=A does not mean that it then becomes subjective.
...
Sure, in the broad sense you could say gravity has moral implications (ie. it is immoral to drop a rock when someone is underneath), but I think that is a bit of a stretch. The real morality comes from what your action did to the person down below (ie. biology) and what your intention was in doing so.

How did you determine that 'intent' is moral factor?
How did you determine that consent and / or defense were moral factors?
How do you determine that the person whose head will be in contact with the rock has value? Compared to say, the person they were raping at the time of the rock-dropping?

You seem to have decided that human life and their pain/suffering are important to your deities plan. How do you know?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
13-02-2014, 12:15 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:01 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Imagine objective morality as a formula (much like the formulas that would apply to gravity, electromagnetism, etc):

M = A x I x C

M = morality of the action
A = the action itself (ie. punching someone)
I = the intention (ie. did you intend to punch the person)
C = context (ie. was there consent? were you defending someone?)

There is an objective answer in every situation, you just need to plug in the variables. Just because the formula is more complicated than M=A does not mean that it then becomes subjective.


Look at that.

You just came up with a reasonable heuristic to figure out if an action is moral or not.

It takes into consideration what I've been saying all along, that morality is concerns the well being of other sentient beings. It also takes into consideration that each situation can be critically examined to determine the most moral action to take, after examining the variables as they concern the well being of others.

Where was your god in your formula?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
13-02-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 11:33 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  If there are no sentient beings, there is no morality.

Morality requires moral agents.

Your geometry example fails, because triangles exist, even if there are no sentient beings to observe them. Morality does not exist if there are no moral agents.

Ok, so that you are saying is that you don't 'believe' in objective morality (which, you might recall was my question in the first place).

Aside from stating your belief, you haven't really given any reasons to justify it.



Quote:
Quote:2. Morals are the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong (pulled it off dictionary.com)

And when this is put into action, it concerns the well being of sentient beings.

Agreed.

Quote: You are the only deist I have ever met that believes in an afterlife.

I doubt that is the case, after all, I think a lot more people are deists than the ones who use the term (I was a deist before learning the term). Nevertheless, there are a few different types of deism (classical, modern and post-modern). Classical deism includes a belief in the afterlife, while the other two do not.

Quote:
Quote:4. The brain is a tool. It allows us to figure out what is moral or not, and it allows us to control our body in such a way as to do moral actions or immoral ones.

No god required.

I've always hated how often that response is thrown out on these forums. It is simply assuming your conclusion (that there isn't a God). And, considering that no atheist has been able to explain the existence of the universe without having a God, it is a presumptuous and unfounded assumption to make.


Quote:
Yes, many people here and other atheist forums have knee jerk reactions to anyone that believes in a god, and they try to pigeon hole them all into one catagory.

We're human after all.

Yeah, I understand that, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:15 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Look at that.

You just came up with a reasonable heuristic to figure out if an action is moral or not.

It takes into consideration what I've been saying all along, that morality is concerns the well being of other sentient beings. It also takes into consideration that each situation can be critically examined to determine the most moral action to take, after examining the variables as they concern the well being of others.

Where was your god in your formula?

He's the one who invented it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 11:36 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:18 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Btw, atheism requires just as much of a "special pleading" as deism, and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Oh...

You need to elaborate on this statement.


Please, I'll wait...

Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is the belief that there is no God. Therefore, the belief in atheism requires one to explain the existence of the universe without a sentient creator. Yet, atheists have absolutely zero way of doing so. Therefore, the belief in atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) requires a "special pleading" to explain how the universe can exist by only natural processes, when everything we know about natural processes shows us that none of those processes can be the cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lookingforanswers's post
13-02-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 11:37 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  You cannot prove that slavery was actually meant to be the correct moral decision since it was accepted as normal behavior for centuries. It could just be your own moral compass that views the practice as wrong. making things up as we go along just to make your God valid and accountable for good morals decisions. Maybe it is us humans with the good compass and it is God steering us to the immoral thoughts - just sayin you cannot prove this concept to be false.

Ummm, yeah, I definitely can. If you work under the assumption that God exists and objective morality exists, then God created that objective morality. In what reality would it make any sense for God to create moral good and evil, instill in humankind to revere good, and yet be evil?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:33 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  If there are no sentient beings, there is no morality.

Morality requires moral agents.

Your geometry example fails, because triangles exist, even if there are no sentient beings to observe them. Morality does not exist if there are no moral agents.

Ok, so that you are saying is that you don't 'believe' in objective morality (which, you might recall was my question in the first place).

Aside from stating your belief, you haven't really given any reasons to justify it.

I have stated several times that I do believe in objective morality.

Let me repeat...

We all live in the physical universe subject to the same physical laws.

It is objectively provable that (in the vast majority of cases): life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, comfort is preferable to pain, freedom is preferable to slavery, etc.

Since I want to live in a world where I am the beneficiary of the maximum amount of well being, it is very easy for me to extrapolate that others want the same thing. All it takes is a empathy and reason.

What else is needed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:20 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:15 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Look at that.

You just came up with a reasonable heuristic to figure out if an action is moral or not.

It takes into consideration what I've been saying all along, that morality is concerns the well being of other sentient beings. It also takes into consideration that each situation can be critically examined to determine the most moral action to take, after examining the variables as they concern the well being of others.

Where was your god in your formula?

He's the one who invented it.

What leads to that conclusion? Humans could just as easily have developed that concept themselves as societies evolved. I don't see why a deity needs to be involved in coming up with the concept you spelled out in your formula.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:40 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(13-02-2014 12:25 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:36 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Oh...

You need to elaborate on this statement.


Please, I'll wait...

Atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) is the belief that there is no God. Therefore, the belief in atheism requires one to explain the existence of the universe without a sentient creator. Yet, atheists have absolutely zero way of doing so. Therefore, the belief in atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) requires a "special pleading" to explain how the universe can exist by only natural processes, when everything we know about natural processes shows us that none of those processes can be the cause.

This incorrect.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the position that the case for the existence of a god has not met it's burden of proof.

There is no such thing as 'belief in atheism'. That is an incoherent statement.

But atheism does not require an explanation for the existence of the universe without a sentient creator. "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable response to the question, "Well, if there is no god, how did the universe get here?".

Even if the answer is currently unknown, that does not mean that 'god did it' becomes the next best answer by default.

Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive positions.

Atheism/theism concerns what one believes or doesn't believe. Agnosticism/gnosticism concerns what one claims to know, or what is knowable.

You do understand the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge', right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Simon Moon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: