Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Most atheists" ? How in the hell would you know that ? Show us the poll. NOW. How many do you even know ? You intellectually dishonest, patronizing, self-righteous fool. Keep your preaching in your pants. YOU said you could easily make an argument. You FAILIED to do, so, even while blustering about how easy it was. You are a fucking liar. Make THE ARGUMENT now, or STFU.

Thanks for your entirely cool headed rational response. Calm down.

I am defining morals, as reasons to do things that are considered good, because they are good, rather than self interest, because without that distinction the two mean the same thing.

Mine is the negative position, my argument is your lack of evidence for morality beyond self interest. It is like how the atheist doesnt need to prove their position to theists.

If you disagree with my definition of morals then that was my fault for being unclear, still, calm down.
[/quote]

If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.
You have now changed your definitions. I told you many many posts ago what you are now saying. Self-interest IS a (moral) standard, and I told you they would be the same. You are too dense to get what you are reading. No one is getting excited. This BS thread is not worth the energy. It also was not addressed to you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-12-2014, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 12:35 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 12:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "Most atheists" ? How in the hell would you know that ? Show us the poll. NOW. How many do you even know ? You intellectually dishonest, patronizing, self-righteous fool. Keep your preaching in your pants. YOU said you could easily make an argument. You FAILIED to do, so, even while blustering about how easy it was. You are a fucking liar. Make THE ARGUMENT now, or STFU.

Thanks for your entirely cool headed rational response. Calm down.

I am defining morals, as reasons to do things that are considered good, because they are good, rather than self interest, because without that distinction the two mean the same thing.

Mine is the negative position, my argument is your lack of evidence for morality beyond self interest. It is like how the atheist doesnt need to prove their position to theists.

If you disagree with my definition of morals then that was my fault for being unclear, still, calm down.

If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.
You have now changed your definitions. I told you many many posts ago what you are now saying. Self-interest IS a (moral) standard, and I told you they would be the same. You are too dense to get what you are reading. No one is getting excited. This BS thread is not worth the energy. It also was not addressed to you.
[/quote]

That was my definition from the start and you assumed it wasn't, we had different definitions of morality. I'm sorry but you are just being incredibly rude, note that I've been incredibly civil to you, I have not outright used insults, you have, I have not insulted your intelligence (I have accused you of misinterpreting me, which you have since you used a different idea of morality than I did), and you've generally offered nothing but insults actually, I don't accept that morality is the way we deal with other people, it's statements about the goodness and badness of such interacts, I have made no statements about the goodness and badness of self interest, I've said that self interest need not be justified, there's a difference there.

If you define morals as simply "How we deal with other people", then yes, mine is a moral standard. If you define morals as "A set of standards in how we deal with other people", then maybe, but I repeat, I am not setting a standard, I'm saying that there fundamentally is no need for standards and that there is nothing good or bad about just acting on your whims, and our whims are beyond our control. My definition of morality is "An action if moral if there is a goodness to doing it, that is, even if it is against your interests, you should chose the moral action".

You're insults seem to because you assumed we had all the same definitions, which we didn't, that is why it is best to make sure you have understood someone fully before charging in and CALLING THEM OUT AS FOOLS AND LIARS IN ALL CAPS. If this were a philosophy seminar at my university, you would have been kicked out for misconduct by now.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  My definition of morality is "An action if moral if there is a goodness to doing it, that is, even if it is against your interests, you should chose the moral action".

How do you define "goodness"?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  That was my definition from the start and you assumed it wasn't, we had different definitions of morality. I'm sorry but you are just being incredibly rude, note that I've been incredibly civil to you, I have not outright used insults, you have, I have not insulted your intelligence (I have accused you of misinterpreting me, which you have since you used a different idea of morality than I did), and you've generally offered nothing but insults actually, I don't accept that morality is the way we deal with other people, it's statements about the goodness and badness of such interacts, I have made no statements about the goodness and badness of self interest, I've said that self interest need not be justified, there's a difference there.

I know what you're doing. Repeating it, (as others have pointed out to you), does not make it true. SELF INTEREST IS A STANDARD.
Isn't that special. You have your own personal definition of morality, and think somehow it's interesting, or relevant to talk about. Morality has many definitions. Nowhere has anyone ever, (except you) said morality is limited to how people TALK about what they do. Self interest may not need to be justified, but it's NOT THE ONLY consideration. Your definition is crap.

Have fun in your special little world.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-12-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:35 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  My definition of morality is "An action if moral if there is a goodness to doing it, that is, even if it is against your interests, you should chose the moral action".

How do you define "goodness"?

Whatever the person claiming morals separate from self interest claims it to be, generally that the actions is superior in some sense, to the self interested one, and that I should follow the "moral" action.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 12:51 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  That was my definition from the start and you assumed it wasn't, we had different definitions of morality. I'm sorry but you are just being incredibly rude, note that I've been incredibly civil to you, I have not outright used insults, you have, I have not insulted your intelligence (I have accused you of misinterpreting me, which you have since you used a different idea of morality than I did), and you've generally offered nothing but insults actually, I don't accept that morality is the way we deal with other people, it's statements about the goodness and badness of such interacts, I have made no statements about the goodness and badness of self interest, I've said that self interest need not be justified, there's a difference there.

I know what you're doing. Repeating it, (as others have pointed out to you), does not make it true. SELF INTEREST IS A STANDARD.
Isn't that special. You have your own personal definition of morality, and think somehow it's interesting, or relevant to talk about. Morality has many definitions. Nowhere has anyone ever, (except you) said morality is limited to how people TALK about what they do. Self interest may not need to be justified, but it's NOT THE ONLY consideration. Your definition is crap.

Have fun in your special little world.

Ok, I will, bye now. Sure, by your definition it is a moral standard, yes, wonderful. The semantics of it don't effect the actual ideas behind any of it. When someone says morality, we all have the same conception, and your definition is not only objectively correct, the words and definitions are actually relevant in terms of the ideas themselves, and you had every reasont to start shouting at me and calling me an ignorant fool because of that, you have enlightened me, can you stop insulting me now?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 10:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Why do you want to separate self interest from "morals"? Self intetests lead TO moral behavior.
I think morality is more complex than that, often people see altruism as an act of high moral behaviour and selfishness as an act of low moral standing.

(08-12-2014 10:53 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 10:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Why do you want to separate self interest from "morals"? Self intetests lead TO moral behavior.

Then why distinguish.the two? I agree, the problem is if they are the same thing the term morality isnt needed, people cling to the word moral so they can feel better about themselves, if thry cannot be seperated the word moral offers no explanatory power, and it leads to confusion.

The use of the word moral also means people will go back to objective morals without realising it.
Yes I agree.
The term "morality" means different things to different people. For some it means obeying god's law, for others it means following the communities social norms, for some it means maximising happiness and minimising harm. I find it quite confusing when a person says such and such is immoral, because that doesn't help me understand why they object. And sometimes you get people who claim that morality is subjective they then go and proclaim things such as "You can't do that because that is immoral" as if their own moral beliefs apply to others.

(08-12-2014 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 10:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Why do you want to separate self interest from "morals"? Self intetests lead TO moral behavior.

And what exactly makes behavior moral? If I act in certain instance for no purpose besides avoiding going to jail, would this make my act immoral? Are actions all that is relevant, do intentions not matter at all?
Yes, one would think that there are some qualifying criteria that can be placed on an act to help decide if it qualifies as being a moral act.


(08-12-2014 11:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT is, that at some point, behaviors that are judged to be injurious to the COMMUNITY were entailed with a civil punishment. Jail is a consequence. The act that injures a community is what is immoral.
But then obeying law isn't generally seen as morality. There is a large aspect of coercion going on. And there are some things that are seen as immoral but aren't against the law.

(08-12-2014 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most atheists are completely clueless as to how the concept of morality has been understand and developed historically.
I think it's a bit harsh to say clueless. There are many here that are quite well versed in moral philosophy. I think people on atheist forums are weary of theists trying to trick them (a.k.a. you can't have morals without god) or just can't understand how a society could function without a moral basis. We are exposed to moral beliefs from a young age, most movies, tv shows and cultural practices support moral beliefs.

(08-12-2014 12:09 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I am defining morals
I think it is hard to define morals at the best of times. I've attempted to do it on this forum, but its too hard here. I think it is an excercise best for philosophy forums.

(08-12-2014 12:20 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I asked for reasons to be moral that aren't self interested, I was bombarded with reasons why being moral is in my self interest XD
Yeah, I think it's difficult to have this discussion with people. I am enjoying reading your attempts though. Your trying to keep a cool head. I applaud you for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 12:50 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 12:57 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 10:49 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Why do you want to separate self interest from "morals"? Self intetests lead TO moral behavior.
I think morality is more complex than that, often people see altruism as an act of high moral behaviour and selfishness as an act of low moral standing.

(08-12-2014 10:53 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Then why distinguish.the two? I agree, the problem is if they are the same thing the term morality isnt needed, people cling to the word moral so they can feel better about themselves, if thry cannot be seperated the word moral offers no explanatory power, and it leads to confusion.

The use of the word moral also means people will go back to objective morals without realising it.
Yes I agree.
The term "morality" means different things to different people. For some it means obeying god's law, for others it means following the communities social norms, for some it means maximising happiness and minimising harm. I find it quite confusing when a person says such and such is immoral, because that doesn't help me understand why they object. And sometimes you get people who claim that morality is subjective they then go and proclaim things such as "You can't do that because that is immoral" as if their own moral beliefs apply to others.

(08-12-2014 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And what exactly makes behavior moral? If I act in certain instance for no purpose besides avoiding going to jail, would this make my act immoral? Are actions all that is relevant, do intentions not matter at all?
Yes, one would think that there are some qualifying criteria that can be placed on an act to help decide if it qualifies as being a moral act.


(08-12-2014 11:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT is, that at some point, behaviors that are judged to be injurious to the COMMUNITY were entailed with a civil punishment. Jail is a consequence. The act that injures a community is what is immoral.
But then obeying law isn't generally seen as morality. There is a large aspect of coercion going on. And there are some things that are seen as immoral but aren't against the law.

(08-12-2014 12:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most atheists are completely clueless as to how the concept of morality has been understand and developed historically.
I think it's a bit harsh to say clueless. There are many here that are quite well versed in moral philosophy. I think people on atheist forums are weary of theists trying to trick them (a.k.a. you can't have morals without god) or just can't understand how a society could function without a moral basis. We are exposed to moral beliefs from a young age, most movies, tv shows and cultural practices support moral beliefs.

(08-12-2014 12:09 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I am defining morals
I think it is hard to define morals at the best of times. I've attempted to do it on this forum, but its too hard here. I think it is an excercise best for philosophy forums.

(08-12-2014 12:20 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I asked for reasons to be moral that aren't self interested, I was bombarded with reasons why being moral is in my self interest XD
Yeah, I think it's difficult to have this discussion with people. I am enjoying reading your attempts though. Your trying to keep a cool head. I applaud you for that.

It's not that I'm trying to keep a cool head, I just don't take philosophy personally, I never have, thank for you the words on encouragement though... I needed that. It's like taking science personally, it just leads to error. Or you make a bold bombastic claim and feel the need to not look like a tosspot afterwards and that clouds your judgement... naming no names...

Yeah the accusations of being a theist troll were just eye roll worthy.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 01:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 12:43 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 12:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I know what you're doing. Repeating it, (as others have pointed out to you), does not make it true. SELF INTEREST IS A STANDARD.
Isn't that special. You have your own personal definition of morality, and think somehow it's interesting, or relevant to talk about. Morality has many definitions. Nowhere has anyone ever, (except you) said morality is limited to how people TALK about what they do. Self interest may not need to be justified, but it's NOT THE ONLY consideration. Your definition is crap.

Have fun in your special little world.

Ok, I will, bye now. Sure, by your definition it is a moral standard, yes, wonderful. The semantics of it don't effect the actual ideas behind any of it. When someone says morality, we all have the same conception, and your definition is not only objectively correct, the words and definitions are actually relevant in terms of the ideas themselves, and you had every reasont to start shouting at me and calling me an ignorant fool because of that, you have enlightened me, can you stop insulting me now?

That's seriously hilarious.
Maybe it's not in my self-interest to stop insulting you. Gasp
Thanks for just refuting your entire thread. Thumbsup YOU DO CARE how you are treated by others, and it matters to you.
If you are so incredibly childish that you think you can treat others without regard to their feelings, and NOT have that returned to you, you are to be pitied.
Laugh out load

(Your logic was no better than theist trolls).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2014, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2014 01:43 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(08-12-2014 01:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-12-2014 12:43 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Ok, I will, bye now. Sure, by your definition it is a moral standard, yes, wonderful. The semantics of it don't effect the actual ideas behind any of it. When someone says morality, we all have the same conception, and your definition is not only objectively correct, the words and definitions are actually relevant in terms of the ideas themselves, and you had every reasont to start shouting at me and calling me an ignorant fool because of that, you have enlightened me, can you stop insulting me now?

That's seriously hilarious.
Maybe it's not in my self-interest to stop insulting you. Gasp
Thanks for just refuting your entire thread. Thumbsup YOU DO CARE how you are treated by others, and it matters to you.
If you are so incredibly childish that you think you can treat others without regard to their feelings, and NOT have that returned to you, you are to be pitied.
Laugh out load

(Your logic was no better than theist trolls).

Facepalm That was sarcastic, I can't believe you took that seriously... just... uh... no, I still don't accept your definitions, the concepts and arguments I've used, use my definitions, if you think I'm wrong by those ones, then I encourage to say why. to be honest yours is inconsistent because if whatever I choose to do is a moral system, that makes every action I do moral, it becomes meaningless. I want you to stop insulting me because it's getting the way of discourse, not because I'm offended. fine let me rephrase it (and if you accuse me of covering my tracks by pretending it was sarcastic I'm just going laugh at you and go because at that point you just aren't worth my time anymore)

"Stop insulting me if you intend to continue with this conversation as I'm in no way obligated to put up with it" Feel free if you want too, I'm not hurt by it, I'm just groaning more than anything. So is probably anyone reading this.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: