Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 01:58 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 02:02 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
I don't think you've quite understood the nuances here, you think I'm saying something completely different to what I am, and I've explained it about 6 times.

This stuff was discussed about 13 pages ago or something in great length, please just read that.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
I guess not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 01:58 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I don't think you've quite understood the nuances here, you think I'm saying something completely different to what I am, and I've explained it about 6 times.

This stuff was discussed about 13 pages ago or something in great length, please just read that.

Nuance? Coming for the guy striving for absolute truths? Consider

Right... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 02:25 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 01:58 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I don't think you've quite understood the nuances here, you think I'm saying something completely different to what I am, and I've explained it about 6 times.

This stuff was discussed about 13 pages ago or something in great length, please just read that.

Nuance? Coming for the guy striving for absolute truths? Consider

Right... Dodgy

I fail to see how complex and intricate is mutually exclusive with wanting everything logically verified.

Yes I'm doing philosophy with a hammer, but the subtle analysis of the archeologist, not a sledgehammer used by builders.

Fine, if you want to be more specific

"I move on an asymptote toward absolute truth through clearer rational and reasoned understanding of the world, never sure if anything I know is truly absolute, only having inductive evidence, and reasoning in relation to that inductive evidence, to suggest it probably is"

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Would you agree with my earlier long winded definition on non moralistic rights?
Are you refering to the following?

(09-12-2014 12:03 PM)tear151 Wrote:  "Legally Justified self entitlement to certain wants based on it being part of the "social contract" or "Legal system" or "Code of ethics" (It doesn't matter what you call it) you agreed to (or were forced to comply too) and demanding to receive such wants, or the system faces possible non-compliance from you in the future"

I find your definition difficult to understand.

Personally I consider "rights" to be part of the moral language. As such I find it to be nonsensical. In the moral landscape you would not have a right to do wrong (immoral) things. For example if theft is considered immoral then you would not be perceived to have the right to steal from others. So it entirely depends on having a belief that some things are morally wrong otherwise everything would be a right and then the term "right" would be a superfluous label.
The other aspect of "rights" is with regards to categorising actions as being essential and separating those from the non essentials. e.g. The right to form a family is perceived as an essential part of human culture whereas the right to buy a kinder surprise is perceived as non essential. I can in someway agree with this aspect of "rights" although I do prefer to think of everything as being a "right". I would question any violation of rights by the governing body and want them to sufficiently explain why they deemed taking away this right (even a law against Kinder surprise) fulfilled the purpose for government.
For those of us fortunate enough to live in a free, modern, non theocratic country we take for granted certain "freedoms" or "rights" and are somewhat shocked/surprised to see when other countries do not afford those legal rights to their people. e.g. property rights in a communist country, the right to live in the city/town/location of your choice in a communist country, the right to education for women living in some Arab/Islamic country, the right to be a recognisable person (Hijab, Burqa, Abaya), the right to marriage, the right to freedom of/from religion...
Defining certain rights above others may provide the benefit of the people letting their government to be aware that certain freedoms are deemed of high importance. The UN have made an attempt at documenting which rights they deem to be essential or of great importance to humans http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I find it interesting that they did not point out (see article 16) that the right to marriage should be without limitation due to gender or sexual orientation given that this is a major violation in many countries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  No one 'gave' right. All rights were established by mankind.

How does mankind establish rights? Can mankind take back what it established? Are these rights established on some metaphorical stone, which cannot be broken?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 04:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  No one 'gave' right. All rights were established by mankind.

How does mankind establish rights? Can mankind take back what it established? Are these rights established on some metaphorical stone, which cannot be broken?

Maybe some day when you get big and go to school. you'll take a Civics class, and learn the answers to that question, which every senior in High School knows. (They don't teach it in Bible College).

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
09-12-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 12:31 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Would you agree with my earlier long winded definition on non moralistic rights?
Are you refering to the following?

(09-12-2014 12:03 PM)tear151 Wrote:  "Legally Justified self entitlement to certain wants based on it being part of the "social contract" or "Legal system" or "Code of ethics" (It doesn't matter what you call it) you agreed to (or were forced to comply too) and demanding to receive such wants, or the system faces possible non-compliance from you in the future"

I find your definition difficult to understand.

Personally I consider "rights" to be part of the moral language. As such I find it to be nonsensical. In the moral landscape you would not have a right to do wrong (immoral) things. For example if theft is considered immoral then you would not be perceived to have the right to steal from others. So it entirely depends on having a belief that some things are morally wrong otherwise everything would be a right and then the term "right" would be a superfluous label.
The other aspect of "rights" is with regards to categorising actions as being essential and separating those from the non essentials. e.g. The right to form a family is perceived as an essential part of human culture whereas the right to buy a kinder surprise is perceived as non essential. I can in someway agree with this aspect of "rights" although I do prefer to think of everything as being a "right". I would question any violation of rights by the governing body and want them to sufficiently explain why they deemed taking away this right (even a law against Kinder surprise) fulfilled the purpose for government.
For those of us fortunate enough to live in a free, modern, non theocratic country we take for granted certain "freedoms" or "rights" and are somewhat shocked/surprised to see when other countries do not afford those legal rights to their people. e.g. property rights in a communist country, the right to live in the city/town/location of your choice in a communist country, the right to education for women living in some Arab/Islamic country, the right to be a recognisable person (Hijab, Burqa, Abaya), the right to marriage, the right to freedom of/from religion...
Defining certain rights above others may provide the benefit of the people letting their government to be aware that certain freedoms are deemed of high importance. The UN have made an attempt at documenting which rights they deem to be essential or of great importance to humans http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
I find it interesting that they did not point out (see article 16) that the right to marriage should be without limitation due to gender or sexual orientation given that this is a major violation in many countries.

Its a very airtight way of saying

Rights are things we all want, that we expect to recieve in return for agreeing to the law.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 04:08 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 04:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(09-12-2014 04:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:58 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  No one 'gave' right. All rights were established by mankind.

How does mankind establish rights? Can mankind take back what it established? Are these rights established on some metaphorical stone, which cannot be broken?

That would be "metaphysical", not "metaphorical" you retard. Stones are't "metaphorical".
You think you can play with the big kids. You can't. Facepalm Weeping
They are not. They change all the time, just like the laws in the Bible.
Every right and legal injunction in the Bible came from the cultures that produced them, and most of them changed.
Not a god.

You can't. Facepalm
Weeping

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
09-12-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Philosophy is necessary, but not sufficient.
Many philosophical systems are logically correct, but do not obtain in reality.
The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive.

The only thing remaining is evidence based reality.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: