PDA

View Full Version : Atheists and morality



B. de Corbin
15 Mar 2017, 07:32
According to Conservopedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_morality):


Not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality.

From there, the antics increase. Atheists are blamed for:

1. mass murder (the commies were atheists)
2. lack of empathy
3. scam charities
4. porn
5. child porn
6. pedophilia
7. slavery
8. an increase in bestiality in Europe
9. drug addiction
10. abortion
11. incest
12. cannibalism
13. hypocritical "social justice."

Holy Pazzolly! Atheists are just so bad!

And it's all because we lack the eye in the sky, threat of posthumous punishment, and a magic rule book.

Personally, I think this is about as loony tunes as anything I've ever heard, but the article is well researched and has a buttload of references, so it must be true... although I honestly can't remember doing any of those things on the list (except, maybe, #9 on Fridays).

Whadda you think? Are atheists ravaging beasts without morals, or is it possible that atheists get there morals from somewhere else?

If so, where?

anunitu
15 Mar 2017, 08:02
I had watched a program on brain science. In this program they studied the so called sociopath person,and from study found differences in brain structure. They decided that certain parts of the brain allowed empathy and concern for others,but if this area is damaged then some people acted with no concern if they hurt others or went against legal restraints.

I don't remember the program or on what channel I viewed it,but perhaps someone might know about these studies.

The thing I got from the program was it appears Morality is a function of a normal brains control of our actions.(they did not mention God as a factor BTW)

- - - Updated - - -

Ok found this (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023380907603)

Title for the above"
The Neural Mechanisms of Moral Cognition: A Multiple-Aspect Approach to Moral Judgment and Decision-Making

Denarius
15 Mar 2017, 08:49
Cultural relativism, and postmodernism/nihilism in general, leads to degeneracy and apathy. However Judeo-Christianity is hardly better, given how it necessitates globalism and promotes slave morality... which is the ultimate cause of all those problems.

Atheism and secularism are only a problem because of Christianity eroding national identity and real traditionalism. No matter how much cuckservapedia denies it, they are just as much a part of the problem.

B. de Corbin
15 Mar 2017, 08:57
The thing I got from the program was it appears Morality is a function of a normal brains control of our actions.(they did not mention God as a factor BTW)

LOL - so either atheists are brain damaged, or they have moral reasoning as part of normal brain functioning?

Heka
15 Mar 2017, 13:51
LOL - so either atheists are brain damaged, or they have moral reasoning as part of normal brain functioning?

I'd be pretty convinced that not treating other people like shit would be built into our brain, because it's necessary for survival of the race to feel empathy for, and like our fellow human. We don't breed 30 young a year and the ones we do have are fragile for too long, being able to care is a natural part of survival.

Medusa
15 Mar 2017, 16:19
Imagine the kind of person I could be if I were just a good Christian.

Imagine all the people I could kill and blame on everyone else but me.

Imagine. Imagine. Imagine.

And here I am, a lonely atheist. Killing no one. Paying taxes. Feeding the stray cats.

evil me. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil me.

B. de Corbin
16 Mar 2017, 01:44
And here I am, a lonely atheist. Killing no one. Paying taxes. Feeding the stray cats.

evil me. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil me.

So, lacking a "fixed moral center" (as they say), why are you like that?

For myself, the answer is "Why would I want to?" I don't want to hurt anybody - I feel bad when I hurt people, and being kind to stray cats feels good. That's that empathy thing...

anunitu
16 Mar 2017, 02:44
Funny thing,in my view,more so called religious folks seem to have a lack of empathy towards anyone they deem "Not Special",as in not part of their elite group. I suppose I could be mistaken,but I am inclined to not wear my rose colored glasses a lot anymore.

Heka
16 Mar 2017, 04:52
Funny thing,in my view,more so called religious folks seem to have a lack of empathy towards anyone they deem "Not Special",as in not part of their elite group. I suppose I could be mistaken,but I am inclined to not wear my rose colored glasses a lot anymore.

And yet they are still the most empathetic, "oh I do my community service" types

B. de Corbin
16 Mar 2017, 06:43
Well, avoiding sweeping generalizations, I'd say that anybody, with any set of beliefs, can choose to be a jerk, a hypocrite, and/or a jerky hypocrite, or kind, compassionate, gentle, emphatic, or anything else that a human is capable of being.

IMHO - a set of beliefs (or lack of beliefs) may make one better, worse, or have no effect - depending on the predilections of the individual.

Dumuzi
16 Mar 2017, 11:53
Many forget that we are all humans. An Atheist is just like a Hindu is just like a Jew. I think all humans have 'goodness' hardwired into us or at least it's the default setup. I do not believe we are born evil.

So even if one is born into 'x' religion, they are still able to recognize universal values of 'goodness'. There are exceptions, of course, and humans are known for committing very evil acts, but even the most evil of acts are almost always justified with some greater good type of justification. Not that I agree with it, just pointing it out.

So saying Atheists are immoral by nature is both factually wrong and also quite bad.

With that said, and this is not what's being said there, I have yet to see a good argument about objective morality coming from an atheist point of view. That is NOT saying that atheists are immoral, it's a whole other discussion.

B. de Corbin
16 Mar 2017, 13:56
With that said, and this is not what's being said there, I have yet to see a good argument about objective morality coming from an atheist point of view. That is NOT saying that atheists are immoral, it's a whole other discussion.

I'd be willing to give it a try, but I'm not sure what you're looking for, exactly. Do you want an atheist to argue that "all morality is subjective"?

If so, I'm not sure I can do that because I'm not sure I believe it, except in the abstract sense that a person, without an exterior authority, could - in theory - argue that any statement (like "It is good to torture your small children to death, then eat them") is equal to any other moral statement. I call this "abstract" because this rarely, if ever, happens except in accedemic exercises that never carry over into actual practice.

Or are you looking for an atheist to argue no "morality is objective"?

I can't do that either because I am pretty sure that there is some point beyond which a sane person does not go, so, somewhere, I accept that some sort of objective morality exists.

The best I can do is suggest that some of what we call "morality" is subjective, while some is objective. It's a mixed bag.

Maybe you need to find a less thoughful atheist ;)

Dumuzi
16 Mar 2017, 14:07
Maybe you need to find a less thoughful atheist ;)

Haha :D

I'm saying that if someone is really an atheist then they cannot make an argument to support objective morality. According to atheism all morality is subjective.

And again, I'm gonna repeat myself, because this gets confused, I'm NOT saying atheists are immoral or bad people because of their atheism!

B. de Corbin
16 Mar 2017, 14:47
I'm saying that if someone is really an atheist then they cannot make an argument to support objective morality. According to atheism all morality is subjective.

That I can deal with - as a humanistic atheist, I would say that the objective morality come from the concept of "compassion," where moral decisions are based on the needs of actual humans (not abstract "humanity," but on real individuals). That's how this one atheist would do it, understanding that atheists aren't necessarily going to agree on much, except that they fail to believe in a literal entity-diety.


And again, I'm gonna repeat myself, because this gets confused, I'm NOT saying atheists are immoral or bad people because of their atheism!

Absolutely! We said nearly identical things, if you look back at the post I made just before yours. I totally agree with what you've said (well, except that I'd add that people not only have an inclination toward good, they also have a competing inclination to act horribly selfish. It's the pull between these inclinations that require us to discuss morals, IMHO).

thalassa
16 Mar 2017, 17:44
I'm saying that if someone is really an atheist then they cannot make an argument to support objective morality. According to atheism all morality is subjective.


I have yet to see anyone effectively, with any actual evidence, argue in support of objective morality, regardless of their theistic bent (or lack thereof). They can try, but I've yet to see one that is not a logical fallacy minefield.

Medusa
16 Mar 2017, 22:40
I don't kill people because I don't want to go to jail. That's pretty much it or allot of people would be dead in the blink of an eye.

anunitu
17 Mar 2017, 00:30
Sounds like a good reason to not kill everybody..I have always considered not going to jail a sound idea.

B. de Corbin
17 Mar 2017, 01:48
I don't kill people because I don't want to go to jail. That's pretty much it or allot of people would be dead in the blink of an eye.

There ya go - that's solid objective morality right there. The law is my moral compas :p

thalassa
17 Mar 2017, 02:41
The law is my moral compas :p

Ye gods, I hope not. I mean, the law is often a terrible moral compass!

Dumuzi
17 Mar 2017, 03:02
I have yet to see anyone effectively, with any actual evidence, argue in support of objective morality, regardless of their theistic bent (or lack thereof). They can try, but I've yet to see one that is not a logical fallacy minefield.

Oh, that's really interesting. So you don't think there's such a thing as objective morality, thal?

B. de Corbin
17 Mar 2017, 06:16
Ye gods, I hope not. I mean, the law is often a terrible moral compass!

Yeah... my feelings, too. I'm a big believer in the necessity for Civil Disobedience.

- - - Updated - - -


Oh, that's really interesting. So you don't think there's such a thing as objective morality, thal?

There's a slight problem...

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html) states that, within any logical system there will be things that are clearly true, but cannot be proved using the axioms of the system.

It is possible to believe that there is objective morality that can not be proved logically.

It's one of those reality weirdnesses that we have to live with.

anunitu
17 Mar 2017, 08:35
Doing a Google search I found this site (http://www.apologetics.net/)

Mainly because I was not clear on the Objective VS Subjective thought. The site is about apologetics,and the subject is a new one for me.

I will be reading a bit before I offer any thoughts on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe the site is from the perspective of a Belief based system of religious thought. So,question,is apologetics only used in a Religious context?

- - - Updated - - -

From the sites that come up when searching both subjective,and Objective Morality,I would assume this topic has a log history?

- - - Updated - - -

only one real question,is this subject kind of "How many angels can sit on the head of a pin"? type subjects?

B. de Corbin
17 Mar 2017, 09:19
The term "apologetics" means "rational explanation," so it is not specifically a religious term, but is often used when explaining a religious idea (but not exclusively).

Yeah, the debate on whether morals have an objective basis or are purely subjective goes way, way back to the earliest writings on morality.

I'm going to suggest that it is a question without an answer. My experience has been that, even people who claim that there are things that are ALWAYS wrong (objective morality) will generally be able to construct some kind of explanation to explain why, in some particular situation, that thing is no longer wrong - for example: It is always wrong to steal, but it is better to steal the chicken wings off a plate at a Superbowl party to feed a starving child than it is to not steal and let the child die.

And my experience again - even those who argue that morality is subjective will observe that some things are just not done by sane people - which suggests an objective morality. Generally, a creative person can construct madly impossible situations where thing that is repulsive and disgusting can be made into a virtue, but... if the situation is impossible to exist in the real world, I question what that actually proves. Robert Heinlein wrote a long, long novel (Time Enough for Love) in which he made mother-son incest not immoral, but he had to create humans who lived for 3000 years, and time travel to do it. So... is mother-son incest still immoral? I'd say yup.

thalassa
17 Mar 2017, 12:35
The problem of the concept of objective morality is that for it to be objective, should be able to meet some standard of what it means for something to be objective.

From a definition standpoint (actually adjective definitions 5-8 (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective), which I think are likely the only ones that could reasonably apply to morality):

1) Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;based on facts; unbiased and 2)Intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. --morality as it exists is constantly influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, bias, and is generally based on opinion. And, I would argue that were morality based on fact and unbiased, it would not be attractive--the fact that morality is influenced by those things is what frequently lets us make choices like is it better to steal to feed a starving child or to let a child starve than to steal.


3) Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective) ). In this sense, morality is both objective AND subjective, which is exactly why it can't be objective from the idea of "objective" as something derived from objectivism (or from the next definition)

4) Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. This definition is the one that the idea of objectivity is derived from (or that is derived from objectivity, or little feedback loop of both)...if we apply it to morality, it would be that "moral truths exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them."
And its here, where the argument for an objective morality falls victim to logical fallacy city.

Something that is objective in this way should be 1) independently verifiable without depending on personal interpretations of events that are not universally observable 2) Occur consistently enough to be statistically significant, 3) Be derived clearly from something that is observable and agreed upon by consensus

For morality to exist independently of human knowledge and perception, they have to come from somewhere other than human minds, individually or collectively. For someone that is explicitly theistic, that would likely be god or gods. Which is fine, but then you need to demonstrate that god or gods exist as something outside of the human mind objectively and without logical fallacy. Perhaps they could come from nature... If someone wants to believe that, its also fine, but still not demonstrable. IF there was a natural morality, then you should be able to find that it exists consistently outside of the human mind...and I promise, that the variety of behavior in nature (even assuming you could verify that species are then consciously making such a decision as an act of right or wrong) makes this very implausible. Even to say that there is a humanistic consensus-based morality (automatically not objective right off the bat), would need to be demonstrated throughout the length and breadth of human cultures over time.

thalassa
17 Mar 2017, 13:16
And my experience again - even those who argue that morality is subjective will observe that some things are just not done by sane people - which suggests an objective morality.

Sure, but to have an objective morality, we can't rely of the Potter Stuart definition of porn to define it. (For those that are not familiar with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stuart's definition of porn, here's the abridged version, "But I know it when I see it." Which is my point about whether or not its possible to have an objective morality*, if it has to be defined that way, its not objective.

*at best, we could maybe get a consensus "I know it when I see it" that holds true through human history and culture determination of right or wrong for the occasional behavior, but for "morality" as a whole (a complex set of rights and wrongs and a ranking over which rights and wrongs are more important in order to determine which right one should choose or which wrong should be avoided over another), absolutely not.




Generally, a creative person can construct madly impossible situations where thing that is repulsive and disgusting can be made into a virtue, but... if the situation is impossible to exist in the real world, I question what that actually proves. Robert Heinlein wrote a long, long novel (Time Enough for Love) in which he made mother-son incest not immoral, but he had to create humans who lived for 3000 years, and time travel to do it. So... is mother-son incest still immoral? I'd say yup.

Heinlein was trying too hard. All it takes is a very young pregnancy (possibly the result of abuse or cultural age for marriage or both), events that cause the subsequent adoption of said child, and circumstances in which the mother and son don't have a reason to suspect that they could be related--maybe they don't look alike at all, or the son never knows he was adopted, etc... Especially if this happened before genetics were understood, during a time where unwed pregnant girls were routinely "sent away" followed by very closed adoptions and girls that were regularly told their child was stillborn or died shortly after birth or just never saw any information to ever possibly find their child or for their child to find them. And before anyone says "that never happens," my great aunt was molested and impregnated at 10, sent "away", told her child was stillborn, and sent back home after recuperating...only to find that 50 years later, she had a daughter that was indeed alive who was told on her adoptive mother's death bed (at 45) that she was adopted (it took 5 years and 3 private detectives to find my great aunt). There are plenty of things morally wrong with that story, but if a mom and son accidentally got together and never suspected through some sad (and possible) tale like that, that's not the part that is morally wrong.

...and I didn't even need to throw amnesia in there!

B. de Corbin
17 Mar 2017, 13:54
Heinlein wanted it to be straight-out consensul - they both were fully aware (one gets the feeling while reading it that the incest was the most exciting part. He didn't say that, but it's the impression. In the last book of the series (I've never read it. It's reputed to be the worst of the worst of his writing), and the last book he wrote before his death, the two get married because combining their genes would help increase the human lifespan. There's a lot about genetics in the one book I've read, because he also wanted to dismiss that objection.

anunitu
17 Mar 2017, 14:02
So,I imagine that the debate about the use of marijuana as a medicine,or the idea it is a very negative evil and scourge on society could be an example,and no matter the evidence by ether side.

B. de Corbin
17 Mar 2017, 14:11
Sure, but to have an objective morality, we can't rely of the Potter Stuart definition of porn to define it.

Yup - that's a sticky wicket. Guess it's like the Tao. :cool:


The problem with "objective morality" is that it's (logically, as you pointed out) a "metta question" about the nature of reality, trying to use it's own assuptions to prove itself. It assumes that there is objective morality, or subjective morality, or both... but the one left to ask that nobody remembers to ask is "is it neither"?

That's the question you should actually ask first. The answer will tell whether any of the first three need to be explored.

Medusa
17 Mar 2017, 21:16
Ok, it's late and I'm tired. But this sparked a rambling thought. Bear with me. Or..go with me, whatevs.

Objective morality. Could be something everyone agrees with. Like let's not kill our children.

But is that a moral or an ingrained trait to not eff up the propagation of the species.

Are morals maybe just the things we are ingrained to do or not do to keep our species alive?

anunitu
17 Mar 2017, 21:36
Yeh,the ingrained idea that an Atomic war would not allow anyone to win. no real winners,just huge piles of radioactive ash. Only good point would be,the earth would,over time become cleaner and more diverse,absent the disease of human occupation.

And you are right,I have little respect that humans will survive if we keep going in the direction we are.

Heka
18 Mar 2017, 01:26
But is that a moral or an ingrained trait to not eff up the propagation of the species.


This was my point

Dumuzi
18 Mar 2017, 09:57
Awesome reply, thal! Thanks for that :)



For morality to exist independently of human knowledge and perception, they have to come from somewhere other than human minds, individually or collectively. For someone that is explicitly theistic, that would likely be god or gods. Which is fine, but then you need to demonstrate that god or gods exist as something outside of the human mind objectively and without logical fallacy.

This is what I was hinting at before, or at least that's how I understood objective morality.

thalassa
18 Mar 2017, 18:54
Are morals maybe just the things we are ingrained to do or not do to keep our species alive?

Are morals a biological imperative?

Perhaps some of them (individually) are.

For morality as a whole...I'd say its likely and that the reason there is so much variety between systems of morality and individual morals that do not overlap is a combination of cultural evolution and cultural adaptation (the anthropological term (http://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/cultural-adaptation/), not the common term for cultural adjustment)

MaskedOne
18 Mar 2017, 19:36
For morality to exist independently of human knowledge and perception, they have to come from somewhere other than human minds, individually or collectively. For someone that is explicitly theistic, that would likely be god or gods. Which is fine, but then you need to demonstrate that god or gods exist as something outside of the human mind objectively and without logical fallacy.

And then just for fun, you get the arguments of whether the existing deities should actually be heeded for any reason other than a burning desire to avoid targeted lightning, random city destruction, various sentences of hellfire, etc...

At the end of the day, there are any number of interpretations of the LoH (because he's a well known and easy target but I could pound on others if I were in the mood) that are really not anything I would call good. If there were a god that happened to be a fan of uncondition election (http://www.thevillagechurch.net/sermon/what-is-unconditional-election/) then I'm gonna be really sympathetic to the devil.

Heka
19 Mar 2017, 03:32
And then just for fun, you get the arguments of whether the existing deities should actually be heeded for any reason other than a burning desire to avoid targeted lightning, random city destruction, various sentences of hellfire, etc...

At the end of the day, there are any number of interpretations of the LoH (because he's a well known and easy target but I could pound on others if I were in the mood) that are really not anything I would call good. If there were a god that happened to be a fan of uncondition election (http://www.thevillagechurch.net/sermon/what-is-unconditional-election/) then I'm gonna be really sympathetic to the devil.

Avoiding punishment is humanities #1 reason for their actions I reckon.

B. de Corbin
19 Mar 2017, 05:37
Avoiding punishment is humanities #1 reason for their actions I reckon.

I don't know...

I said earlier that I'm a fan of civil disobedience when a law is clearly bad. Even if I believed in a god I would be willing to refuse bad law from the mouth-of-god, and suffer the punishment.

I know I'm not alone in this.

The other reason for doing/not doing something is that it's the right choice.

anunitu
19 Mar 2017, 05:41
It does happen that the law and the right thing are sometimes very opposite.

Heka
19 Mar 2017, 14:12
I don't know...

I said earlier that I'm a fan of civil disobedience when a law is clearly bad. Even if I believed in a god I would be willing to refuse bad law from the mouth-of-god, and suffer the punishment.

I know I'm not alone in this.

The other reason for doing/not doing something is that it's the right choice.

Yeah but that's cos we're intelligent enough to know that said law is stupid, and equally intelligent enough to either not get caught or have a decent defence.

Chessa
20 Mar 2017, 07:13
If I might derail the thread for just one moment...

OP started this dicussion by citing Conservapedia. Conservapedia underwent a project to remove liberal bias from THE BIBLE. They have such a rigid view of morality that even the Big Man himself can't stack up.

Now back to the topic at hand...

While there are no objective set of rules followed by every culture, nearly all of them have some variant of the "golden rule", and most value empathy at least to some degree. And because humans are a social, co-operative species, empathy is an innate biological process that makes cooperation possible and relatively balanced. Anything beyond that can also be explained without a god, as it is stems from a need to not be kicked out of the tribe.

Civil disobedience is a hit-or-miss thing. How it's viewed depends on your culture, and history. Rosa Parks? She lived in an individualistic society, and the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement shines in her favor. If you're from a society that values obeying authority (even when it's stupid), and your cause loses in the end, you're just a troublemaker who disrespects your group.

Constantine
11 Apr 2017, 12:15
I believe having a belief system is a must for moral guidance. Doesn't mean it has to be a religion, but everybody needs something to believe in and be moral for.

Bartmanhomer
11 Apr 2017, 16:02
Atheists got morals. Everybody does. :)

anunitu
12 Apr 2017, 12:54
Not everyone has morals BMH,if that were the case,the jails would be empty.

Sean R. R.
12 Apr 2017, 13:51
Not everyone has morals BMH,if that were the case,the jails would be empty.

I'd have to disagree, morality doesn't equal lawfulness.

monsno_leedra
12 Apr 2017, 14:00
Not everyone has morals BMH,if that were the case,the jails would be empty.

Have to agree with SeanRave. Everyone has morals and ethics. The issue I think is that not all of us have the same accepted morals and ethics that are accepted by the greater social, cultural, heritage, legal, regional, etc influences.

anunitu
12 Apr 2017, 14:41
So,if I kill someone,but do not feel guilty do I have a moral sense? This might kick off another round of questions.

iris
12 Apr 2017, 15:27
So,if I kill someone,but do not feel guilty do I have a moral sense? This might kick off another round of questions.

You may have had a reason that justifies it for you and makes up a personal moral of sorts. Killing senselessly and with no guilt probably has some deeper psychological factors than a lacking sense of moral... and technically a coldblooded killer can still treat animals well, or care deeply about the environment. They may just have a different take on what matters... our perception of what is acceptable is individual. Then there's the group of people who probably share the common sense of ethics and moral, but still go against their own better judgement.

anunitu
12 Apr 2017, 15:55
Interesting point Iris. There are physical issues with the brain that can stunt the emphatic nature of some people.

Here. (http://www.livescience.com/39904-why-psychopaths-lack-empathy.html)

Blame the Brain: Why Psychopaths Lack Empathy

Question: does the Psychopath still have a moral ethic?

- - - Updated - - -

And this,interesting Site. (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-2552-5_18#page-1)

Bartmanhomer
12 Apr 2017, 16:28
Not everyone has morals BMH,if that were the case,the jails would be empty.

Some people do.

monsno_leedra
12 Apr 2017, 17:06
So,if I kill someone,but do not feel guilty do I have a moral sense? This might kick off another round of questions.

Realistically one could kill and have no sense of regret and still have a sense of morality and ethical position. That's one of those moral & ethical debates between the difference between does one kill or does one murder for instance. Consider a soldier kill's and we say he / she has both morals and ethics. Yet someone murder's and claim they lack morals & ethics due to cultural & social conditioning. Yet there are societies such as ancient Sparta where one right of passage was the murder of a slave. Yet the Spartan's had a high level of moral & ethical concepts for their culture & society.

Consider what does it say if a person kills but has no sense of remorse but enjoys a sense of elation and enjoyment? If it's a human they've killed then as a society we come unglued, if it's an animal we call them something else. Yet killing is killing and only the danger and potential the prey could kill the hunter increases the rush of the hunt.

Morality and Ethics, do we live up to it or use it to control us and narrow the scope of how we define ourselves and what is acceptable?

Medusa
12 Apr 2017, 22:09
I have a different take on morals.

You get morals when you mix the following:
I know what I think is right or wrong.
I fear repercussions.
I have a sense of my Vegas odds on having those repercussions played out if I do this thing.


It's all just good and evil + repercussions-table odds= my action.:p

Lydia
16 Apr 2017, 22:12
Are atheists ravaging beasts without morals, or is it possible that atheists get there morals from somewhere else? If so, where?

A moral is generally a rule of conduct that a person follows willfully.
A distinction must be made between particularist morals- morals which apply only to one's own group, or only to oneself, and are often based upon common-sense wisdom; and universal morals- morals which apply to everyone, and relate to justice and right and wrong.

Atheists most often base their morals (of both the particularist and universal types) upon their own judgment, and consequently their morals vary widely between individuals. The only problem with that is that human insight is limited, and atheists cut themselves off from any possibility of accepting divine wisdom, which means that atheists' knowledge of right, justice, wrong, and injustice, and the manner by which to pursue the former, has an upper limit. The major religions have only gotten a little bit of rightful divine wisdom though, and in some cases have gotten evil divine wisdom, so atheists are not at a major moral disadvantage to most religious people.

It is ironic that a christian website like Conservapedia would say that atheists can't be moral, when Christianity itself is immoral (in the universal sense), because it perpetrates the disruptive aggressive lie that people who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus will burn in hell for eternity. It is likewise an immoral disruptive aggressive lie to say that atheists can't be moral.



I'd have to disagree, morality doesn't equal lawfulness.

Indeed; the legislatures are comprised largely of depraved psychopaths, who make it legal for people (and especially those in various positions of authority) to perpetrate a wide variety of disruptive aggressive behaviors, and make it illegal to do various things that are righteous or benign. The legislatures are thus prime examples of immorality (in the universal sense).

It is a common behavior of psychopaths to work hard to attain positions of power (like foxes watching the henhouse), and to conspire with other psychopaths in positions of power, so that is not at all unusual. That serves two purposes: 1. to create much larger amounts of disruptiveness and injustice, and 2. to satisfy the psychopaths' delusional sense that they are inherently dominant or encompassing over other people.



Question: does the Psychopath still have a moral ethic?

Stereotypical low-functioning criminal psychopaths typically do not have morals.
High-functioning psychopaths, on the other hand, have morals as often as anyone else does. But high-functioning psychopaths do not have the universal morals against disruptive aggression, and many of them have "anti-morals", which are so-called "morals" that serve to cause or facilitate disruptiveness and/or injustice.

An excellent and convenient example of high-functioning psychopaths with morals are the authors of the Conservapedia article that is mentioned in the original post. Said psychopaths apparently have various morals, but they do not have the basic universal moral against making disruptive deceptions, and especially against innocents. It should be noted that psychopaths are characterized by a fundamental desire to disrupt, and that intention causes not only the behavior of disruptive deceptions, but also willfully blindingly disrupts and warps the psychopaths' own fundamental perception, which means that psychopaths very often believe their own disruptive deceptions. In the case of the aforementioned Conservapedia edittors, they have an underlying disruptive sensation of dominance, which is directed against atheists, and which fundamentally warps their perception of atheists, causing them to perceive atheists as worthless scum. Consequently, such psychopaths make up various disruptive aggressive lies about atheists, and they seek out various bits of information with which to try to reinforce their lies and delusions.

Medusa
16 Apr 2017, 22:38
I'm gonna agree with what you have to say here.

Though:

which means that atheists' knowledge of right, justice, wrong, and injustice, and the manner by which to pursue the former, has an upper limit.
Humans have an upper limit. We do not 'accept the divine' because we are fully aware the 'divine' is just us thinking we are smarty pants...when it's still just our own brain..upper limits and all.

In essence those with a touch o' divine knowledge' look at atheists and see they have reached a peak in their morals due to not getting it from the divine.

In essence those without this touch just wonder and stare into your face. Figuring how long it will take for you to catch on to that.

And thus the divide and literal sameness of our understanding...and complete human limits.

B. de Corbin
17 Apr 2017, 01:18
Yuppers - Umma gonna agree.

Whether "the devine" has any special insight or not depends on if "the devine" has any actual existance or not.

Here, in the atheist section, the answer is generally something like "no existance."

Boduos
17 Apr 2017, 03:04
I would like to take part in this discussion.

I think the first thought gone wrong is, that an atheist dont believe in anything. An atheist dont beliefe in a theological pattern and/or system to interact with his or her personal universe. But sure enough he or she must belief in ideas and concepts wich are, from a scientific view virtual, for they are imagined and not measurable. It's part of being a human being. So having a kind of moral is nothing that corrolates with believing in a spiritual system or better narrative.

Blaming atheists or better said follower of narrative B by followers of narrative A for violencing rules of the narrative A is useless and a self definding mechanism of the narrative. Otherwise an atheist could blame a follower of for example the christian belief or the wicca cult for beliefing in imaginary and false gods, beeing superstitious or to lazy to think "properly". A narrative always tend to defend itself.

Its just my opinion.

Juniper
17 Apr 2017, 22:41
After removing an initial flaming post and subsequent replies to said post, I have re-opened the discussion. This topic is not about who's superior to whom because of what one may or may not believe in. If the topic devolves again, I'll get very cranky and I don't like to be cranky.

thalassa
18 Apr 2017, 16:16
So,if I kill someone,but do not feel guilty do I have a moral sense? This might kick off another round of questions.

IMO, you can kill someone and not feel guilty and still be moral.

For example, I have a friend that was force recon, while he regrets having to kill and the loss of a life, he doesn't feel guilty about it in most cases.

Or look at assisted suicide--were I a physician or a loved one, I might regret the loss of someone's life without feeling guilty over causing it when it was something they wanted and it helped end their suffering. Or what about the surgeon that tries a very risky and novel new surgical procedure (we're maybe about to have our first human head transplant (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor-aims-perform-head-transplant-2017-experts-remain/story?id=33775323))--if the patient is going to die anyway, and in pain and disability, and wants to do something extremely risky for a chance at a normal life, provided the doctor is very upfront about the risks, should the physician feel guilty if it doesn't work?

Most often, I see the difference between guilt and regret described something like this:


First guilt: many suggest guilt occurs when we do something that we know is wrong while we are doing it, typically for ethical, moral or legal reasons. Regret, on the other hand, is the emotion we experience when we look back on an action and feel we should or could have done something differently. It differs from guilt in that we didnít know or feel at the time that we were doing something wrong, or we didnít actually have control over the situation. Also, it typically is not that we did something that falls in that morally or legally wrong category, but rather a benign action (or inaction) that we later wish was done differently based on an outcome. (source) (http://whatsyourgrief.com/guilt-vs-regret-in-grief/)

Generally, this conversation is addressed in grief discussions, since that seems to be the place where people are most likely to publicly address their guilt and/or regret in an attempt to draw distinctions between the two for therapeutic reasons.

I don't think the distinction is quite this simple, but (with some exceptions and caveats) I think its a good place to start...

IMO: Guilt is something you feel when you intentionally choose to do something specifically to hurt/harm someone else for personal gratification that you feel bad about vs. regret--how you feel when you wish circumstances could have gone a different way, whether the action taken was intentional or not. --if you kill someone on purpose to see them suffer for fun, guilty feeling or not, you have "no morals," but if you kill someone trying to kidnap a kid (intentional or not) and don't feel guilty, you might be perfectly moral