1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

So you have a couple of choices here, and you are free to add another if you think something is missing:

 

 

1) human beings are born in sin, incapable of making moral choices without accepting Jesus 

 

- atheists have no motivation or ability to make moral choices, that would include religious conversion (unless Jesus does something to them)

 

- humans are not moral agents, yet atheists have to exercise agency to choose Jesus (?)

 

(circular crap)

 

 

 

2) god built some morality into all humans (excuse for why atheists aren't rampaging around killing and raping)

 

- because of this inherent morality, atheists have motivation and agency to make moral choices, and tend to develop or adopt moral systems on their own (then it doesn't matter if their moral systems are founded in theism or not)

 

- theists renders own arguments against atheists' morality useless

 

 

(more circular crap)

 

 

 

What is your religion good for?

[Vardarac]

we were talking about ethics and morality.  Nothing jn the room of materialism can be the source for them

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Okay, look, my position is that subjective value, and therefore morality, arose initially from behaviors and desires that promoted survival and reproduction. Because these values are contextual, and because organisms vary naturally through the generations, it makes sense that these values are not always consistent between individuals - but the whole picture had to promote survival, or we would not be alive to talk about it.

 

Why do you think this is impossible?

 

 

 

Dont you understand what you are saying?

 

Gee, why don't you translate it for me.

[shadowhawk]

SH you don't even know the difference between morality and ethics, between normative ethics and applied ethics, between relativism and universalism, between moral obligation and moral agency.

 

You keep insisting atheists cannot be moral by themselves.  You maintain that atheists cannot have a moral philosophy without your religion.  This is all you talk about.

 

Yet you want us to choose a moral path, which you think is Christianity.

 

We would have to use our existing morality to choose something moral.

 

Like almost everything else involving morality, you claim one thing, while practicing another.  Unawares.  That means you don't truly believe some of the things you think you do.

 

This is more strawman talk.  I am talking about Atheism.  You are talking about me and carrying on both sides of the conversation.  Still I can't tell who is winning.   
 

[shadowhawk]

 

we were talking about ethics and morality.  Nothing jn the room of materialism can be the source for them

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Okay, look, my position is that subjective value, and therefore morality, arose initially from behaviors and desires that promoted survival and reproduction. Because these values are contextual, and because organisms vary naturally through the generations, it makes sense that these values are not always consistent between individuals - but the whole picture had to promote survival, or we would not be alive to talk about it.

 

Why do you think this is impossible?

 

 

 

Dont you understand what you are saying?

 

Gee, why don't you translate it for me.

 

Evidence?

 

[Duchykins]

 

SH you don't even know the difference between morality and ethics, between normative ethics and applied ethics, between relativism and universalism, between moral obligation and moral agency.

 

You keep insisting atheists cannot be moral by themselves.  You maintain that atheists cannot have a moral philosophy without your religion.  This is all you talk about.

 

Yet you want us to choose a moral path, which you think is Christianity.

 

We would have to use our existing morality to choose something moral.

 

Like almost everything else involving morality, you claim one thing, while practicing another.  Unawares.  That means you don't truly believe some of the things you think you do.

 

This is more strawman talk.  I am talking about Atheism.  You are talking about me and carrying on both sides of the conversation.  Still I can't tell who is winning.   
 

 

 

That was about atheism.  That was about misrepresenting atheism and using self-contradictory reasoning against secular morality.

 

You're still a moral relativist.

[Vardarac]

 

Evidence?

 

Symbiotic and cooperative relationships also exist among non-human animals. Yet we also see competitive or exploitative (parasitic) relationships between different organisms. This shows that a variety of successful strategies exist for survival and reproduction. Consequently, of such behaviors it would have to have been those that foster social bonds and stability that led to their valuation and their application in the formation of tribes and societies. If you need harder evidence to adopt the explanation, that's fine, but I think you'd have to provide evidence against it or for an alternative hypothesis in order for any such alternative hypothesis to be taken seriously.

 

Where does God come in? Can you point to him? I think he's utterly unnecessary in this picture.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

SH you don't even know the difference between morality and ethics, between normative ethics and applied ethics, between relativism and universalism, between moral obligation and moral agency.

 

You keep insisting atheists cannot be moral by themselves.  You maintain that atheists cannot have a moral philosophy without your religion.  This is all you talk about.

 

Yet you want us to choose a moral path, which you think is Christianity.

 

We would have to use our existing morality to choose something moral.

 

Like almost everything else involving morality, you claim one thing, while practicing another.  Unawares.  That means you don't truly believe some of the things you think you do.

 

This is more strawman talk.  I am talking about Atheism.  You are talking about me and carrying on both sides of the conversation.  Still I can't tell who is winning.   
 

 

 

That was about atheism.  That was about misrepresenting atheism and using self-contradictory reasoning against secular morality.

 

You're still a moral relativist.

 

Nonsense, My values are based on a moral path and therefore not relativist.  What you don't like is yours are.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vardarac]

Nonsense, My values are based on a moral path and therefore not relativist.

 

What makes your moral path more valuable or valid than someone else's?

[Duchykins]

 

Nonsense, My values are based on a moral path and therefore not relativist.  What you don't like is yours are.

 

 

 

 

If that were true then you wouldn't continue to dodge my (actually, our since I am not the only universalist that has posted in this thread) moral proclamations.

[shadowhawk]

You keep saying I am dodging you by pointing out the inadequacy of your relativism.   On atheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. If there is no real standard of right and wrong that exists for all time and all places, and applies to humans regardless of what they think, then there is no point bothering with moral discussions at all. All that the atheist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another. But there is no reason, on atheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others. On atheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. Both are making arbitrary statements of personal preference or cultural convention.  My moral paths are objective while yours are relativist. 

[Vardarac]

You keep saying I am dodging you by pointing out the inadequacy of your relativism.   On atheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. If there is no real standard of right and wrong that exists for all time and all places, and applies to humans regardless of what they think, then there is no point bothering with moral discussions at all. All that the atheist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another. But there is no reason, on atheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others. On atheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. Both are making arbitrary statements of personal preference or cultural convention.  My moral paths are objective while yours are relativist. 

 

What is the objective value of money?

[shadowhawk]

Money changes value, just follow the Consumer Price Index but you are not saying there are no objective values are you?  Given Atheism, I guess you are.

[Vardarac]

I am saying that if there are objective values, we have no way of recognizing them as such, of distinguishing them from just another set of relative values. My question for you is: So what?

[Duchykins]

...

 

On Jews, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Jew has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Judaism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Judaism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

[Duchykins]

Money changes value, just follow the Consumer Price Index but you are not saying there are no objective values are you?  Given Atheism, I guess you are.

 

 

If God told you to kill me, would you?

[shadowhawk]

Well your friend called me a relativist when it is you who are.  So given Atheism. morality is relativistic.  Just as I thought.  So what?  Think about it!

[Duchykins]

...

 

On black people, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the black has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on blacks, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On black culture, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On Christians, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Christian has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Christianity, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Christian doctrine, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On women, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the woman has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on women's morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On women's morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On gays, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the gay has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on homosexual morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On homosexual morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On atheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the atheist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on atheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On atheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On deists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the deist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on deism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On deism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On Americans, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the American has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on American culture, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On American culture, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On secularists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the secularist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on secularism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On secularism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

[Vardarac]

So what?  Think about it!

 

Like I said, the reason we can even have cohesive, civil societies is because there exists some degree of consistent agreement on valuing things like peace, stability, dignity, and freedom. If you think that morality is worthless unless someone bigger than everyone else dictates it, then you may as well throw out all your money because it has no objective value either.

 

While we're on the subject, aren't you called to sell all your possessions, give your money to the poor, and mimic Jesus?

Edited by Vardarac, 06 August 2015 - 10:27 PM.

[Duchykins]

...

 

On Mexicans, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Mexican has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Mexican culture, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Mexican culture, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On humanists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the humanist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on humanism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On humanism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On white people, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the white has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on white morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On white morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On Buddhists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Buddhist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Buddhism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Buddhism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On Hindus, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Hindu has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Hinduism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Hinduism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On lesbians, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the lesbian has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on lesbian morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On lesbian morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On Japanese, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the Japanese has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on Japanese culture, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On Japanese culture, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

[shadowhawk]

This is a repeat of hundreds of atheist attempts to derail the subject which is ATHEISM.  Sense God has not told me to do such a thing and it would be against Christianity to do so without reason don't worry.  However given Atheism I could see a case being made for it.

[Duchykins]

...

 

On atheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the atheism has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on atheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On atheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On men, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the man has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on male morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On male morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On conservatives, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the conservative has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on conservative morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On conservative morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On liberalism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the liberal has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on liberal morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On liberal morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On agnosticism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the agnostic has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on agnosticism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On agnosticism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On scientists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the scientist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on scientist's morality, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On scientist's morality, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

[Duchykins]

...

 

On pantheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the pantheist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on pantheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On pantheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On environmentalists, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the environmentalist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on environmentalism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On environmentalism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

...

 

On atheism, morality is like a unicorn. They don’t really have any reasons to believe that right and wrong are real. 

 

...

 

All that the atheist has is descriptions of what different groups of people have thought were moral for them at one time or another, in one place or another.

 

...

 

But there is no reason, on atheism, to prefer one moral practice that’s evolved like slavery or abortion, to any others.

 

...

 

On atheism, people who prefer slavery or abortion and people who don’t prefer slavery or don’t prefer abortion have the exact same warrant for their beliefs. 

 

...

 

If God told you to kill me, would you?

[shadowhawk]

You need 5 things for morality:

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

 

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

 

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

 

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.  Many atheists hold to determinism and there is no free will.

 

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

 

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

 

What is so interesting is that you condemn Theism based on your faulty understanding of it as if they are wrong.  You have no basis for saying that unless you can show evidence for Atheist morality.  In truth you are a relativist.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 August 2015 - 10:57 PM.

[Duchykins]

If God told you to kill me, would you?

[Duchykins]

I already stated following on more than one occasion:

 

 

1) many atheists that say they are moral relativists turn out to be moral universalists in practice.

 

 

 

2) many theists that say they are moral objectivists turn out to be moral relativists in practice.  

 

** some theists claim relativism or a humanistic universalism, but they usually turn out to be pretty removed from traditional religions 

 

 

YOU practice relativism.  We've seen you exercise RELATIVISTIC moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads.

 

WE (most atheists that have posted here) practice universalism.  You've seen us exercise UNIVERSALIST moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads here.

 

 

 

You have also turned out to be a bigot.  

 

I am disappointed in you, but I still believe you can be better than that, because you've demonstrated you can still be shamed into silence and changing the subject.

Edited by Duchykins, 06 August 2015 - 11:38 PM.

[Vardarac]

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

 

 

 

They may be justified in their own eyes, true enough. But why should, for example, the opinion of a violent thug's justification of his own actions matter to those of us who desire the keeping of a peaceful and compassionate society? They would find no justification among us. There is practical no need for objective moral dictates to uphold such a society if our preferences and values naturally align; our subjective values are toward its (our) preservation.

 

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

 

From a pragmatic standpoint, there would be the law, but supposing I could get away with doing something I feel is wrong, I wouldn't do it because to abstain aligns with my preference to do what I think is right. My preference to do something for the good of others and not merely for myself would outweigh a selfish "wrong from their (our) point of view". This is altriusm shaped by who I am and how I was conditioned. If that is my preference, then I am rational in behaving in accordance with it, and I would be irrational to behave against that preference if it is truly my preference.

 

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

 

Pride. I can succeed and find happiness without the need to tread on other people. I prefer that knowledge to potential success with respect to my other preferences through the alternative.

 

Moreover, if my values lean toward creating prosperity for myself and others, these will be my reward.

 

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.  Many atheists hold to determinism and there is no free will.

 

I do not know whether there is free will or not, but even if there were not, it would still mean that those who are insufficiently aligned with doing "good" by the rest of us would still be rationally detained since they are working against our preferences. Of course, the trick is to do so in a way that wouldn't violate our own values.

 

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

 

What does ultimate meaning matter, if something definitely matters today? You may die tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the enjoyment and value of what you are doing today doesn't and shouldn't exist.

 

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

 

 

Explain how theism rationally grounds any of these.
 

[shadowhawk]

I already stated following on more than one occasion:

 

 

1) many atheists that say they are moral relativists turn out to be moral universalists in practice.

 

 

 

2) many theists that say they are moral objectivists turn out to be moral relativists in practice.  

 

** some theists claim relativism or a humanistic universalism, but they usually turn out to be pretty removed from traditional religions 

 

 

YOU practice relativism.  We've seen you exercise RELATIVISTIC moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads.

 

WE (most atheists that have posted here) practice universalism.  You've seen us exercise UNIVERSALIST moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads here.

 

 

 

You have also turned out to be a bigot.  

 

I am disappointed in you, but I still believe you can be better than that, because you've demonstrated you can still be shamed into silence and changing the subject.

Nonsense.  More name calling without evidence.  Change the subject and make it be about me!  What ever universalism is and you claim to know every atheist is one! 

[shadowhawk]

 

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

 

 

 

They may be justified in their own eyes, true enough. But why should, for example, the opinion of a violent thug's justification of his own actions matter to those of us who desire the keeping of a peaceful and compassionate society? They would find no justification among us. There is practical no need for objective moral dictates to uphold such a society if our preferences and values naturally align; our subjective values are toward its (our) preservation.

 

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

 

From a pragmatic standpoint, there would be the law, but supposing I could get away with doing something I feel is wrong, I wouldn't do it because to abstain aligns with my preference to do what I think is right. My preference to do something for the good of others and not merely for myself would outweigh a selfish "wrong from their (our) point of view". This is altriusm shaped by who I am and how I was conditioned. If that is my preference, then I am rational in behaving in accordance with it, and I would be irrational to behave against that preference if it is truly my preference.

 

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

 

Pride. I can succeed and find happiness without the need to tread on other people. I prefer that knowledge to potential success with respect to my other preferences through the alternative.

 

Moreover, if my values lean toward creating prosperity for myself and others, these will be my reward.

 

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.  Many atheists hold to determinism and there is no free will.

 

I do not know whether there is free will or not, but even if there were not, it would still mean that those who are insufficiently aligned with doing "good" by the rest of us would still be rationally detained since they are working against our preferences. Of course, the trick is to do so in a way that wouldn't violate our own values.

 

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

 

What does ultimate meaning matter, if something definitely matters today? You may die tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that the enjoyment and value of what you are doing today doesn't and shouldn't exist.

 

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

 

 

Explain how theism rationally grounds any of these.
 

 

 

Shall I quote an Atheist in making this point?
 

[Vardarac]

What difference would it make if he were an atheist or not?

[Duchykins]

 

 

 

WE (most atheists that have posted here) practice universalism.  You've seen us exercise UNIVERSALIST moral reasoning dozens of times in a variety of threads here.

 

 

 

Nonsense.  More name calling without evidence.  Change the subject and make it be about me!  What ever universalism is and you claim to know every atheist is one! 

 

 

 

 

Still proving how little you know about morality and philosophy in general?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Universalism

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...us_Universalism

 

Non-religious Universalism[edit]

 

 

Universalism is not only a set of values, but a worldview to which any can subscribe if they observe and believe in the universality of the human experience — and that of all sentient life — and work to uphold the principles, ethics, and actions that safeguard these fundamental things.^[50]

 

Indeed, many Universalists may be attracted to the logic of universally applicable principles, rather than any belief or dogma. Human unity, solidarity, and the perceived need for a sustainable and socially conscious global order are among the tendencies of non-religious Universalist thought.^[51]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...al_universalism

 

 

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",^[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.^[2] Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.

 

In addition to the theories of moral realism, moral universalism includes other cognitivist moral theories, such as the subjectivist ideal observer theory and the divine command theory, and also the non-cognitivist moral theory of universal prescriptivism.^[3][4]

Edited by Duchykins, 07 August 2015 - 01:14 AM.