Are there any atheist's are on here?

Post Reply New Topic

from observations on a Christian forum...Christians are NUTS!
f**k its eerie...I thought WP was nuts...

A further revelation. The whole world is NUTS! There are enough resources to sustain the present population, preserve the environment, protect the animals and live comfortably if everybody is willing to cooperate and hold demands down to a reasonable level. Instead we are all set to murder each other and complain about silly injustices. Go figure!

Doesn't that depend on the additional premise that the existence of moral values is a necessary consequence of the existence of a god? If that premise is necessary for the argument, is there any justification for it?

Well, usually God is defined in relationship to morality as one of the necessary characteristics of being God. So, I do not have to create an additional premise if most conceptions assume it.

Well look at it this way, people who are moral and ethical because of god do it because A. They fear hell and B. It earns them brownie points in heaven. Atheists act moral and ethical because its moral and ethical.

Yeah, I haven't fully understood why things as morality is something that would depent upon an existing diety, in fact it would be the opposite, because I doubt a diety would have an interest in us puny beings.

Umm.... actually, many theists believe that morality is dependent upon the existence of God. This notion is actually further argued with ideas such as the argument from morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

Not only that, but they tend to believe that God is morally perfect.

So, my statements weren't wrong, and your statements do not seem to reflect the theistic argument. Theists would not grant that atheists are as moral as theists, for one, they already think that atheists already are in defiance of a major part of morality by denying the existence of God. Not only that, but theist and atheist conceptions of morality can often be non-shared to a point where speaking of "moral and ethical" in relationship to both becomes nonsensical, the terms literally have different meanings even if they describe the same feeling.



Well, the idea is that this deity actually is anthropic, and is deeply concerned with mankind because mankind, unlike other creatures, has a spiritual nature.

That morality is absolute and given by god is a laughable concept.

What I think is the most problematic with the argument from morality is:

1) That there is a set standard that an alleged diety has. But there are many alleged dieties, and many of those assert that that particular diety has a set of absolute moral codes that must be followed.
2) Morality is subjective. Example: Slavery was good in past times. It is frowned upon nowadays. And the bible actually condones slavery. And of the Ten Commandments, only four (4) are actually part of most contemptorary legal systems, bringing doubt over absolute morality.
3) It asserts that the only reason for doing moral things is that an alleged diety prescribes that you do so. So followers of moral absolutism would have no reason to be moral if they suddenly lost their beliefs.


But what is 'morally perfect'? One could jokingly say that if the diety is morally perfect, it would be polite, and it would need to answer if you asked it if it exists. Perfection seems to be a pipe dream.

Also, is god morally perfect because he is god, or god because he is morally perfect?


But wouldn't theists act just the same way through believing there is a god independantly of the validity of the god claim?


They don't share the same viewpoint, but they can have understanding of both viewpoints even if they don't share to it, so I wouldn't say it's nonsensical.


Seems more likely that since humans have a spiritual nature, they believe a diety is deeply concerned with them. Human perception of the world was developed for the life of being a hunter-gatherer in Africa, and because of the creativity they had, spirituality was a by-product.

Well, the first problem is only an epistemic problem after figuring out that a god provide moral values. It does not refute the argument itself, and only works against presuppositionalists trying the same argument.

The second issue is usually considered impossible, as objective moral values cannot be subjective, and subjective moral values are usually regarded as nonsensical, as they place morality on the same level as preference. Also, it is recognized that law is not necessarily the same thing as morality, as within common morality, there are 2 additional commandments considered generally moral.

Well, no, it says the only logical reason to do these things is because of a deity. It is recognized in the Christian faith that non-Christians can behave morally Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (15) They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" and this is usually based somewhat upon the notion that man was created in God's image in the beginning. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So, the theist can argue that the non-theist is inconsistent by acting in a moral fashion and for having moral feelings and not ascribing them to God.



Well, one could say that, but the issue is that the deity's morality is perfect, not our knowledge of it. As for perfection, well, it is a deity.

Finally, as for the euthyphro problem, the argument can be that the deity's nature carries morality in it by nature, thus stating the idea of morality as any bit separate is a failure. This is not to say that this solution works.


The issue is that atheists, by not believing in God are acting immorally, as the relationship with God is the foundation of a lot of theist morality. I mean, what was Abraham praised for? By being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac even though he couldn't understand how it could ever come to any good, and even though that child represented his hopes and dreams, and even though the child was something God promised to him.


Well, what I mean is that saying "Believers only do good because of heaven and hell, while atheists do this independently" is a failure in the eyes of the believer. To the believer, a relationship with God is often essential for true morality.


You can argue that, but in such a case, moral values would likely be improbable.

I would probably self-identify as atheist. I know that I'm quite the physicalist, my ontology contains no entities composed of a fundamentally different substance (something ineffable to physics by very principle).

Reductive or non-reductive physicalism?

(come on, you knew you were asking for that question by using the term "physicalist" and "ontology")

The concept that a morality without a deity is subjective is idiotic. Morality is a social function and the bulk of humanity lives within a social context. An individual learns soon enough that violations of moral norms invoke social retribution. There is always a sector of humanity that tries to violate one or more moral standards and some are clever enough to succeed without punishment and these are usually the thugs that become our leaders. A few become leaders by exemplifying moral standards but they are frequently assassinated and are revered as martyrs.

Well, one: morality ISN'T a social function. The entire idea is absurd given the concept of martyrdom(many martyrs become such because they are reviled and then posthumously revered for what we now know must always be true). If morality refers to something other than sociality, then it must either refer to something individual(subjective), or it must refer to something external(objective morality). In any case, the term "morality" and the field of "ethics" usually are considered to be focused upon an external thing, and feelings of morality are usually ascribed to the individual sense. So, I actually disagree with your stance about morality as well... wrong. I mean, moral and in accord with society are widely agreed as not being synonyms.

The main concern of morality is how we behave towards each other. That's all there is to it. If some fantasists are determined to insert an imaginary deity somewhere in the process for enforcement it must be understood as some sort of mental aberration or a pragmatic tool for controlling people. It is not sensible in my virw to accept such nonsense to arrive at rules of human interaction for mutual benefit.

Well, no it isn't. Morality exists as an end in and of itself, and perhaps you can say that there is a side benefit from morality, appealing to evolution prevents an appeal to teleology.

In any case, most ethicists are probably some form of fantasist from your perspective, but that is only because they tend to universally reject your view that morality is a pragmatic thing to accept the view that morality stands above pragmatics.

OK. Let me state it plainly. You and all those ethicists are wrong. Morality is a pragmatic discipline for people living together. I am not particularly interested in rococo BS.