Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 05:51 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 05:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, sociopathy is an actual problem.

You call it a problem because they are abnormal, they lack morals, welcome back to circular argument territory. Why is sociopathy a problem?

Which part of "sociopaths are dangerous to the well-being of others" is hard to understand?

I have made no moral judgement, simply an objective fact.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 05:48 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 05:27 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  How do you explain cases of people giving up their lives to save someone else then?



People who lack empathy don't hesitate to kill or act violently as much as those who feel empathy.

I explain it in the same way people give up their lives for God, they are deluded and do it because fetishise martyrdom, for your approval, for the men of the world to gather around these saints and ponder and question what power they have to doing something so unnatural, that is their call.

Erm... no... they don't, again, that's a circular argument, I've asked you why things are bad, you say they lack empathy, you say lacking empathy is bad because it leads to violence and murder. God exists because God exists because God exists

Your post is seriously muddled. There is no circular argument being presented.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-12-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 05:48 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I explain it in the same way people give up their lives for God, they are deluded and do it because fetishise martyrdom, for your approval, for the men of the world to gather around these saints and ponder and question what power they have to doing something so unnatural, that is their call.

Erm... no... they don't, again, that's a circular argument, I've asked you why things are bad, you say they lack empathy, you say lacking empathy is bad because it leads to violence and murder. God exists because God exists because God exists

Your post is seriously muddled. There is no circular argument being presented.

why is killing and violence bad?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 05:51 PM)tear151 Wrote:  You call it a problem because they are abnormal, they lack morals, welcome back to circular argument territory. Why is sociopathy a problem?

Which part of "sociopaths are dangerous to the well-being of others" is hard to understand?

I have made no moral judgement, simply an objective fact.

why should i care about the well being of others, this isn't about whether it makes sense for you to punish me, it's about whether my actions are intrinsically moral or immoral.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:21 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
If I understand your argument it's:

"What do you believe?"
Basically a less assinine form of unitarianism. Everybody should be nice to each other.
OK but objectively. Why is everybody being nice to each other the right thing to do?
It's the best for social order.
OK but objectively. Why is reinforcing the social order the right thing to do?
Because I don't want to be harmed and my empathy means I can assume and sympathise when others feel the same way.
OK but objectively. Why is choosing that which makes us and others happier the right thing to do?
We've been shaped by evolution for it. The group that harmed each other the least would produce more.
OK but objectively. Why is following our evolutionary wonts the right thing to do?

Except nobodies said that they're being objective. (Or at least I haven't seen anybody say that in this thread.) It's an asthetic choice that the vast majority of people agree on and they can't turn off the part of them that makes that choice pleasing.

A generic religious person constructed of straw to whom I shall atribute certain traits says:
It's the will of god. God is objective. This is right.

S/he's just shifting the "moral burden of proof" a step away and then "god" is making the aesthetic choice and the chain goes down.

While you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm certain your position is more complicated than this.):

I'm amoral and I do things to avoid punishment.
OK but objectively. Why is avoiding punishment the right thing to do?
Because punishment is unpleasent.
OK but objectively. Why is that the right thing to do?
Because punishment decreases my utility.
OK but objectively. Why is maximising utility the right thing to do?
Because I've been evolutionarily shaped to want the wides range of choices.
OK but objectively. Why is following your evotionary wonts the right thing to do?

So the way I see it. Everybody is making the same, or at least a comparable, subjective choice with positive feedback from their "nature."

Am I correct @nd if so; why are you asking?

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
06-12-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:02 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your post is seriously muddled. There is no circular argument being presented.

why is killing and violence bad?

Because you wouldn't have it done to yourself.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:03 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Which part of "sociopaths are dangerous to the well-being of others" is hard to understand?

I have made no moral judgement, simply an objective fact.

why should i care about the well being of others, this isn't about whether it makes sense for you to punish me, it's about whether my actions are intrinsically moral or immoral.

There is no "intrinsically moral" since there is no absolute morality.

The closest thing we have is our evolved sense of basic morality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-12-2014, 06:29 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2014 06:34 PM by tear151.)
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:21 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  If I understand your argument it's:

"What do you believe?"
Basically a less assinine form of unitarianism. Everybody should be nice to each other.
OK but objectively. Why is everybody being nice to each other the right thing to do?
It's the best for social order.
OK but objectively. Why is reinforcing the social order the right thing to do?
Because I don't want to be harmed and my empathy means I can assume and sympathise when others feel the same way.
OK but objectively. Why is choosing that which makes us and others happier the right thing to do?
We've been shaped by evolution for it. The group that harmed each other the least would produce more.
OK but objectively. Why is following our evolutionary wants the right thing to do?

Except nobodies said that they're being objective. (Or at least I haven't seen anybody say that in this thread.) It's an asthetic choice that the vast majority of people agree on and they can't turn off the part of them that makes that choice pleasing.

A generic religious person constructed of straw to whom I shall atribute certain traits says:
It's the will of god. God is objective. This is right.

S/he's just shifting the "moral burden of proof" a step away and then "god" is making the aesthetic choice and the chain goes down.

While you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm certain your position is more complicated than this.):

I'm amoral and I do things to avoid punishment.
OK but objectively. Why is avoiding punishment the right thing to do?
Because punishment is unpleasant.
OK but objectively. Why is that the right thing to do?
Because punishment decreases my utility.
OK but objectively. Why is maximising utility the right thing to do?
Because I've been evolutionarily shaped to want the widest range of choices.
OK but objectively. Why is following your evolutionary wants the right thing to do?

So the way I see it. Everybody is making the same, or at least a comparable, subjective choice with positive feedback from their "nature."

Am I correct @nd if so; why are you asking?

I am amoral, I simply follow my will, my drives, my urges, I am an irrational agent that uses rationality to get what I want, the reasons for my behaviour are decided by the will.

NOTE: I am not saying that this is good or bad, simply because I will, as the will is what drives humans to do anything, it doesn't need to be justified, it just is, however the will is complex, most wills are manifestations of other, more fundamental drives like the sex drive and hunger and perhaps a nietzschean will to power. I reject empathy because I can actively reduce it to achieve the fundamental will, being held back by guilt doesn't benefit me

The people in this thread argue their morality is subjective, I simply don't believe them, if I went and stabbed someone they'd get angry, they'd tell me it was morally wrong, this subjective morality only exists in the confines of forums, for everyone who accepts morals will invariably force them on others, will expect others to follow maxims like don't kill, don't steal, as if these things are objectively bad, but what justifies such an odd assertion without God?

I run a page on facebook, I'll include a comic i made for it, it's far more... punchy and short

https://www.facebook.com/149183392441203...9e20df5067

(This was aimed at matt Dillahunty)

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 06:02 PM)tear151 Wrote:  why is killing and violence bad?

Because you wouldn't have it done to yourself.

That doesn't make any sense, why should I care?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: Do we as atheists REALLY have any basis for morals?
(06-12-2014 06:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2014 06:03 PM)tear151 Wrote:  why should i care about the well being of others, this isn't about whether it makes sense for you to punish me, it's about whether my actions are intrinsically moral or immoral.

There is no "intrinsically moral" since there is no absolute morality.

The closest thing we have is our evolved sense of basic morality.

Which I ignore, is there anything wrong with that? Why must that basic morality be followed?

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