Basis for Atheist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 06:49 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Well, for me, my personal conception of morality is still one that is objective and woven into creation by the creator.
if morality is "objective" why does it change from time to time ? why does it differ in society&culture?

This is an EXCELLENT point and one a theist (or our pseudo deist) can't reconcile, for objective morality would not be a living breathing document able to be edited and updated. It would have to be set in stone, because it's objective, and according to holy texts, rape, incest, slavery and murder were considered (and still are to some extent) moral.

Checkmate, IndianAtheist. Bowing

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
12-02-2014, 07:32 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
At least I don't think sending people to hell is moral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 07:47 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2014 08:31 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 03:12 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Wow, a lot of responses.

I found it particularly funny to see all the responses assuming a negative implication from my question. I guess I hit a nerve.

It's not an assumption, you fucking moron.

Quote:However, like I said before, it was just a curiosity question, no implications intended.

You are a lying sack of shit.


Quote:
(11-02-2014 11:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  Your turn *deist* Wink

What about a God who just creates the universe and then leaves it to its own devices makes you feel that your morals are grounded in anything more solid than mine ?

....creator blah blah blah....bullshit blah blah blah...

A supposedly indifferent creator supposedly lays down a moral code for the creatures it doesn't give a fuck about? Hobo


[Image: 28343_superbatlogo.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 07:49 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 03:36 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Blah blah "objective morality" blah blah...

Word. Fucking. Salad.


Quote:Regardless of whether you guys like the source, I also find it interesting to see how universally the Golden Rule is accepted, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That's pretty interesting, you arrogant fuckwit, because "Golden Rule" reciprocal ethics didn't originate with your fairy tale god-boy, not by a long shot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 04:06 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(12-02-2014 03:46 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  So why do you need to insert a God source in this when you admit morals come from your experiences, reason, and other humans? Nothing is pre-woven in there if you use your own freaking brain and judgement to decide right and wrong. Sounds like you are on the same page on the rest of us - now just lose that God part that appears to be so difficult to shake. Do you want/need the God source to be there for some reason?

I could equally ask why you resist having a creator as part of it.


For the very same reason you would resist having the Invisible Pink Unicorn as part of it.


Quote:We are talking about the same tools, but from two different perspectives. I consider the creator to have given us the tools that we need to discover morality (ie. eyes to see, nerves to feel, intelligence with which to reason, etc), but you have a narrower scope, just looking at the tools themselves and not worrying about where they came from.


You haven't demonstrated with sufficient evidence that such a fairy tale creature exists. Until you do, quit talking at us as if it did, fuckwit.

Quote:I asked the question about objective morality because it seems to me that objective morality cannot exist without a creator bullshit blah blah blah...

An idealist would disagree. You are just wallowing in superstition and circular thinking. No surprise here.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2014 08:36 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 04:55 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  There's been a written version of the Golden Rule for probably as long as there has been writing.

Indeed.


For example, some 5-600 years before NOTlookingforanswers' mythical godboi was supposed to have existed, a man they call the Buddha spake thusly:



Veludvareyya Sutta, Discourse to the People of Bamboo Gate

Samyutta Nikaya, SN 55.7


"I will teach you, householders, a Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak."

"Yes, sir," those brahmin householders of Bamboo Gate replied. The Blessed One said this:

"What, householders, is the Dhamma exposition applicable to oneself?

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects."





He ALSO said, among many, many other things,:



Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, AN 3.65

"What do you think...? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes...."

"Now, what do you think...? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes..."

"Now, what do you think...? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes..."

"So what do you think...?: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"

"Unskillful..."

"Blameworthy or blameless?"

"Blameworthy..."

"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"

"Criticized by the wise..."

"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?"

"When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us."

...

"What do you think...? When lack of greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this ungreedy person, not overcome by greed, his mind not possessed by greed, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"What do you think...? When lack of aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this unaversive person, not overcome by aversion, his mind not possessed by aversion, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"What do you think...? When lack of delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this undeluded person, not overcome by delusion, his mind not possessed by delusion, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"So what do you think... Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"

"Skillful..."

"Blameworthy or blameless?"

"Blameless..."

"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"

"Praised by the wise..."

"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to welfare & to happiness, or not?"

"When adopted & carried out, they lead to welfare & to happiness. That is how it appears to us."

....



"Now..one who [practices as above] — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.





Just like everything else, x-tards ripped off reciprocal ethics and claimed they fucking invented it. And of course, delusional and ignorant fucktards like NOTlookinforandsers swallowed (and now pander) the lies hook, line, and sinker.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 08:16 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
Religion says homosexuals loving one another is wrong. Religion says blowing up a school full of girls who wish to learn is right.
Exorcise the dead ancestors, spirits, and gods from a culture, and no matter what religious nonsense from whence it sprang, morality boils down to 2 rules.

1) If what you are doing to, or for, someone is psychologically, or physically, agreeable to them, then you're doing "right".

2) If what you're doing to/for someone is causing unwanted pain, or anguish, then you're doing "wrong".


Recap.
Make someone laugh (even if they're gay)? Right.
Make someone cry out in pain (unless they've asked you to and assured you it's what they want)? Wrong.

*Disclaimer*
From time to time jerks deserve a taste of whatever they dish out to others.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
12-02-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
Most of my moral intuition was OBJECTIVELY imposed on me by genetic influences shaped by natural selection, as was yours. The residual was mostly learned from cultural influences. It is the latter that will likely result in any differences between my morality and yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like freetoreason's post
12-02-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
(12-02-2014 04:06 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  ...
I asked the question about objective morality because it seems to me that objective morality cannot exist without a creator,
...

Not quite but nearly.

There are two ways of knowing what are the absolutes (the extreme ends of an objective morality scale):
1. Divine command (a moral law-giver)
2. Hindsight

This does not mean that 'the divinity' is a creator. It simply does not follow.

It also means that this divinity is influencing us which negates our free-will ... obviously not applicable then, to your non-intervening, creator-divinity.

This also reveals the flaw in utilitarian / consequential models... we don't know the ultimate outcome of the universe (in terms of good/bad/right/wrong) i.e. we do not have ultimate hindsight

This does not mean, however, that we can't create an open-ended scale and plot stuff on it i.e. one thing is more objectively good or bad than another thing.

But we can only do this if first we make some assumptions i.e. that human well-being is valuable to the universe.

But we cannot be sure of this.

(12-02-2014 04:55 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  ...
I think that morality is objective, in that it is based on the well beings or others.

But this allows for situational morality. Example: a family is starving. Is it moral to steal food for their survival?

This is not the same as subjective morality, because it is still based on the objective morality of the well being of others.
...

Nope. That is subjective morality disguised as objective morality.
(discussed at length here)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
13-02-2014, 04:12 AM
RE: Basis for Atheist Morality
Here are some questions for the OP.

  1. If you wiped out the human race would morality still exist?
  2. If yes, then what are morals? If no then why assume a creator is necessary?
  3. If you did not have a brain would you still have a moral code?
  4. If yes then how can you have a moral code if you cannot sense, think or act? If no then why assume that morality is anything more than how the brain functions?
  5. If you accept that a moral code only exists in our brains, then why do we need the Bible to give us a moral code? Or are you suggesting that everyone who is not a Christian is a psychopath?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: