Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2016, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2016 11:47 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 02:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I'm mindful of misinterpreting others, and give plenty of opportunities for individuals to clarify any misinterpretations, routinely acknowledging these clarifications when cleared up.

Bullshit, the number of times that you have been told not to dictate to other people what they think as if you know better then they do is not a small number yet you continue to do it with such regularity as to be almost a compulsion.

You have strawmaned other peoples arguments and have repeatedly continued to do so after it has been pointed out. You're evasive and dishonest.

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-04-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're explicitly ignoring the way I define morality in order to reject what I say.
I have no intention to reject what you say. I'm not ignoring anything you say.
You have previously said that morality exists only within the context of a society. I disagree with this and have stated my reasons. But I understand that this is your position. We don't have to agree on this, I'm not going to be able to convince you and you are not going to be able to convince me.
(05-04-2016 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is a pointless and fruitless discussion of me trying to answer your questions.
I know you have tried, I understand you have put great effort into explaining your view, for some reason I am unable to sufficiently understand your view. I'm really hung up on the aspect that you claim society has a morality but are not able to clearly provide a method for deriving what that morality is.
You have said that you can infer it from observation of behaviours. But I understand that different people behave in different ways. And also I understand that there is a difference between behaviours and beliefs.

(05-04-2016 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your objections are still akin to saying that a species (or genus or family or order or phylum) doesn't and can't exist because individual traits and characters may vary.
This is a straw man isn't it.
We know species exist, because a dog can't procreate with a cat, they are different species. This is a clear method for discovering if two animals are of different species.
A method that 100 people can carry out and come to the same conclusions, that a cat and a dog are of different species.
This is very different from trying to claim that a group of cats like rabbits, when some cats in the group do, and some cats in the group don't.
Do you see what I am getting at? Being specific rather than vague, being precise rather than generalising and ignoring all the exceptions.

(05-04-2016 05:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For instance, show me where I ever said or implied that any one person speaks for the morals of a given society?
I have never said that this is what you have said or implied. So I don't know why you are asking me to do this.
What I have been trying to find out is how you can determine what the morality of a society is? By what method? I still don't know your answer to that. You have claimed "by inferrence" but that is so vague, are you assuming that if the majority of humans within a society don't do an action then it is because they believe that action to be wrong? And are you stating that if the majority don't do it then this represents the "morality of that society?".
I really don't understand how you can backup a statement of "the morality of X society is such and such".
Individuals have moral beliefs, societies don't. Societies are merely a collection of interacting individuals. The people within a society can hold onto a variety of diverse moral beliefs.
But anyway, I keep saying my same points over and over and you keep saying your same points over and over. We will never agree on this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2016, 05:41 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
(05-04-2016 04:47 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, not exactly.

With morality comes the “shoulds” and “oughts”.
If you are saying that within a particular society that gay sex is immoral then you are saying that people living within that society are morally obliged not to participate in gay sex.

But do gay people living in that society deem their love and physical expression to be immoral? Unless a church has confused them and warped their brain then no, they wouldn’t feel that obligation.

Society does not come with a set of subscribed morals.
Each individual gets to make that up for themselves as they see fit.

If you want to generalise, then word your phrase differently e.g. Texans tend to be friendly.
Or Kiwi’s tend to be accepting of various beliefs or non beliefs. Or that most kiwis think it is immoral to cheat on your wife/husband.

To claim that it is immoral within the NZ society to cheat on your spouse is certainly an overstatement and most likely just a projection of the claimant’s own moral beliefs. NZ doesn’t have a moral spokesman or a moral document of authority.

It's even talked about here repeatedly to no charge, the term morality and it's range isn't limited by the ought/should notions of morality. These topics aren't only focused on that version of it either.

When talking about the approval or personal moral values of people & groups It's talking about people's views of these moral actions and behaviors.

You apparently don't call it morality despite others calling it morality. Because it's still part of the philosophical meanings and discussion of morality. So what you even would instead call it I'm unaware of... just values I could guess, but I don't know. That's why I often do specify it as people's moral values.

When others sat morality it doesn't only equate obligation just because that's how you only want to interpret it.

I think there would be less confusion if we kept the word morality to the realm of "oughts" and "shoulds".

I think a lot of people might actually be conflating empathy and compassion with morality. This is perhaps the humanist approach. A humanist might think that people ought to be empathetic and compassionate towards other people. They would think that this is morality, and/or what is moral. Morality is a much broader term though, and in it's broadest sense, it only means what a person ought to do. For example, some people think gays ought to be stoned to death. They think it is moral to do such a thing. In this case morality has nothing to do with empathy and compassion.

Can we all agree that morality = ought to do it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2016, 09:03 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Its gonna be a long list since everyone's got their own idea.

There once was a time, when I'd have happily called myself a Humanist, and would've agreed with many of its values. But these days I'm a cynical fuck. I find myself giving less, and less of a shit about humanity, and caring more and more about trees and rocks.

So my addition to the code would be.

- Fuck man, for man is dickheaded and prone to being a bellend.



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
12-04-2016, 06:52 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Interesting scientific findings on morality. Many of these we have already talked to death on the Forum but yet I think it bears repeating seeing as how our resident theists seem so confused on the matter.

Pope Francis and Conscience: What Science Says About Morality
by Laura Geggel, Staff Writer | April 11, 2016 07:22am ET

The Catholic Church has rigorous language explaining what is right and what is wrong, but last week, Pope Francis urged people to look inward at their consciences while navigating moral dilemmas.

Instead of relying on the church for rules on how to handle the complexities of sex, marriage and family life, people should use their consciences as guides while also discussing the moral way to move forward with their pastors, said Pope Francis, according to news sources.

But conscience is a complex nut to crack, scientists say. Here's a look at five fascinating studies that have shed light on humans' (and animals') ability (or inability) to understand right from wrong.

1. Many animals are moral

There are myriad examples that suggest animals know right from wrong. In a past experiment, researchers found that hungry rhesus monkeys refused to shock their monkey pals, even if they could snag food for the harmful act, Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce wrote in their book "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals" (University of Chicago Press, 2009). Another past example involved a female gorilla named Binti Jua, who rescued an unconscious 3-year-old boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookfield Zoo in Illinois, Live Science reported in a previous article.

These events suggest that animals can be moral beings, Mark Rowlands, a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami in Florida and author of "Can Animals Be Moral?" (Oxford University Press, 2012), told Live Science.

Some experts argue that these "morals" are actually instincts, but Rowlands disagrees.

"I think what's at the heart of following morality is the emotions," Rowlands said. "Evidence suggests that animals can act on those sorts of emotions."

2. Religious people aren't more moral

Religion doesn't make people more moral, a study on American and Canadian adults suggests.

Researchers surveyed 1,252 adults with different political and religious backgrounds to chronicle the good and bad deeds they had committed, witnessed, heard about or were the target of throughout the day, Live Science reported.

Surprisingly, religious and nonreligious people reported committing a similar number of moral acts, the researchers found. The same held true for liberals and conservatives — it didn't matter what end of the political spectrum they were on; each had about the same morality.

However, there were some differences. Religious people reported that they felt more intense guilt, embarrassment and disgust after committing an immoral act when compared with the nonreligious people. The religious group also said that they experienced a greater sense of pride and gratefulness after they did a good moral deed compared with their nonreligious counterparts.

3. Do-gooders can be sneaky cheats

People who think of themselves as highly moral people can also be sneaky cheats, a 2007 study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found.

Researchers surveyed about 230 college students in an upper-level business class. The students answered 12 questions about the importance of personal qualities, such as generosity, willingness to work hard, honesty and compassion. They also reported whether they had engaged in 13 cheating behaviors, including using cheat sheets (crib notes) or copying, Live Science reported.

Cheating was rampant, the researchers found. More than 90 percent said they had partaken in at least one of the 13 cheating behaviors. More than 55 percent said they had benefited from an instructor's grading error, and 42 percent said they had copied from another person during a test.

Such "good" people tend to interpret their immoral actions in a way that makes those acts OK, study researcher Scott Reynolds, an associate professor of business ethics at the University of Washington in Seattle, told Live Science.

"If I cheat, then I'll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I'm going to help when I'm a doctor," Reynolds said, explaining one twist of logic.

4. People with OCD stress more about morality

Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) worry about morality more than people without OCD do, a 2012 study in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found.

Take this scenario, for instance: If you were hiding with your family from enemy soldiers in a basement while holding a crying baby, what would you do? Would you suffocate the baby, killing it but saving your family in the process?

In the study, researchers posed this question and others to 73 people with OCD and 73 people without OCD. Each participant lay in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine when they heard and deliberated on the question. This allowed researchers to measure the blood flow to different regions of the brain, Live Science reported.

"Faced with a problem of this type, people suffering from this type of anxiety disorder show that they worry considerably more," study researcher Carles Soriano, of the Hospital de Bellvitge in Barcelona, told Spanish news agency SINC.

In fact, the people with OCD had a higher degree of activation in the orbitofrontal cortex, a region associated with the decision-making processes and the development of moral sentiment, the researchers said.

"The data allows us, for the first time, to objectify the existence of cerebral dysfunctions related to alterations in complex cognitions, such as experiencing morality," Soriano said. "This allows us to expand further on the characterization of altered cerebral mechanisms in OCD."

5. Morality depends on culture

Culture can influence morality, a new international study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found.

The study involved 322 people from 10 populations on six continents. The people answered questions on how they made moral judgments, by explaining whether they thought people in made-up scenarios were good or bad. The scenarios included theft, physical violence and poisoning.

Each scenario included information about whether the act was unintentional or intentional.

Interestingly, people in Western societies said that intent mattered. For instance, if a person committed a crime unintentionally, the Westerners were more likely to report that it was less wrong. But, to people on the Fijian island of Yasawa and in two African populations, intent mattered less when it came to right and wrong, the researchers found.

For example, people in the African populations said that poisoning a water supply was wrong, regardless of whether it was done on purpose.

“People said things like, 'Well, even if you do it by accident, you should not be so careless,'" study lead researcher Clark Barrett, an anthropologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Live Science.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
12-04-2016, 08:20 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
1) Never use invisible friends or enemies as an excuse for anything.

... that about sums it up.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
12-04-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
I'd say that the moral and ethical standards of theists are lower than those of atheists (generalising here of course).

Theists can blame their imaginary god for a lot of society's collective misdemeanours, and thereby absolve themselves of any personal liability; the tired old "it was god's will" bullshit. Whereas atheists take these misdemeanours on the chin, and are more likely to say "I really need to try and sort that out to avoid it happening again". They don't blame some fanciful third-party influence for their lack of needed action, as do the theists all too often.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
15-04-2016, 04:05 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
The 13 atheist commandments:

1. There is no god
2. There is no god.
3. There is no god..
4. There is no god...
5. There is no god....
6. There is no god.....
7. There is no god......
8. There is no god.......
9. There is no god........
10. There is no god.........
11. There is no god..........
12. There is no god...........
13. There is no god............
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2016, 09:23 AM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
Be cool with everyone and don't intentionally try to harm anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mittens Deluxe's post
27-04-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Describe an Atheist Moral Code
1. Every sentient being owns himself.
2. Don't mess with things other people own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: