Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheistic Morality

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:23:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

Do you mean a human who rejects the man made claim that gods exist?
What makes you think that everyone who rejects that claim has similar opinions or thoughts on any other subject available to the human species for discussion?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists? Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:47:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can remember some religious persons too, being immoral in their behavior. So good & bad are in every class (either their religion doesn't suggest them morality or may be they themselves don't follow/practice that).
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

So that is the whole point.
Atheists reject your claim that your god exists.
Atheists can believe anything else they want.
Atheism is the answer to ONE question.
Do you believe in the gods man claims exist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:17:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.

I don't find your response relevant. Even if morality & belief (or lacking belief) are different, my question is still valid & straight.

Does atheist (I can't use another name, it is what defines them?) follow any moral standard? Any morality they reside with, (though with their experience alone)?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:19:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

I don't have any intentions of making this difficult, but requesting this information from atheists appears to place atheism under an unnecessary spotlight. I can answer these questions as an indidivdual, but me being an atheist has practically nothing to do with it.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:24:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:19:10 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

I don't have any intentions of making this difficult, but requesting this information from atheists appears to place atheism under an unnecessary spotlight. I can answer these questions as an indidivdual, but me being an atheist has practically nothing to do with it.

Alright, my question has nothing to do with the "Atheism". I just have mentioned the word atheists to specify a class for responses.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:17:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.

I don't find your response relevant. Even if morality & belief (or lacking belief) are different, my question is still valid & straight.

Does atheist (I can't use another name, it is what defines them?) follow any moral standard? Any morality they reside with, (though with their experience alone)?

Your question is invalid because it presumes that atheists have some sort of moral doctrine which they all follow. Until you can clarify further that is the only assumption I can make based on your OP, so to avoid misrepresenting the implications of your question I asked you to further explain why you are posting this as a question to atheists.

So to your question now, no, there is no atheist moral standard. But I think most people, theist and atheist, follow the basic principle that morality is about harm, and that which causes unnecessary harm is generally immoral.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 4:34:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:24:55 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:19:10 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

I don't have any intentions of making this difficult, but requesting this information from atheists appears to place atheism under an unnecessary spotlight. I can answer these questions as an indidivdual, but me being an atheist has practically nothing to do with it.

Alright, my question has nothing to do with the "Atheism". I just have mentioned the word atheists to specify a class for responses.

I understand, and to briefly answer your question, I derive morality from experiences and observations. I am able to reason and infer what can be noted as harmful or beneficial, for either myself or others. I am able to learn from experiences and note, for example; "okay, me lying to my grandmother resulted in negative and unwanted consequences." Of course, others may disagree and state that lying can provide beneficial consequences.

Additionally, I am also aware of laws enacted to prevent the disruption of others life such as; murder, theft, rape, and violent assault. I am aware that by violating these laws, I am subject to punishment, which is a deterrent to commit these crimes.

Now, as explained above, me being an atheist had virtually no effect of my reasoning regarding morality.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:34:22 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:24:55 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:19:10 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

I don't have any intentions of making this difficult, but requesting this information from atheists appears to place atheism under an unnecessary spotlight. I can answer these questions as an indidivdual, but me being an atheist has practically nothing to do with it.

Alright, my question has nothing to do with the "Atheism". I just have mentioned the word atheists to specify a class for responses.

I understand, and to briefly answer your question, I derive morality from experiences and observations. I am able to reason and infer what can be noted as harmful or beneficial, for either myself or others. I am able to learn from experiences and note, for example; "okay, me lying to my grandmother resulted in negative and unwanted consequences." Of course, others may disagree and state that lying can provide beneficial consequences.
Learning morality form experience is a source, but how much you do you care about it?

Consider morality void of any definition for a while.
So first day, not being a thief, you reason that theft is harmful (call it immoral), and next day, you become a thief (supposedly), then you would infer that theft is beneficial (call it moral). So either theft is moral or immoral, good or bad? Should you go for it or avoid it?

Additionally, I am also aware of laws enacted to prevent the disruption of others life such as; murder, theft, rape, and violent assault. I am aware that by violating these laws, I am subject to punishment, which is a deterrent to commit these crimes.
So it's Govt law, that possess some restrictions over your actions, some actions are considered to be immoral (some laws are for functional purposes, ignore them), that's why they're prohibited. Have you seen a law to become a thief? It means theft has some meaning of immorality in it. You can say theft (or crime) can give you benefit, but you can't say theft is moral to you. So will you ever leave your benefit, consider no law&order, for the sake of morality (or do you feel morality is in your heart/mind, which stops you being harmful and so...or call it humanity?)
Now, as explained above, me being an atheist had virtually no effect of my reasoning regarding morality.
What does it mean?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:42:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 4:28:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:17:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.

I don't find your response relevant. Even if morality & belief (or lacking belief) are different, my question is still valid & straight.

Does atheist (I can't use another name, it is what defines them?) follow any moral standard? Any morality they reside with, (though with their experience alone)?

Your question is invalid because it presumes that atheists have some sort of moral doctrine which they all follow. Until you can clarify further that is the only assumption I can make based on your OP, so to avoid misrepresenting the implications of your question I asked you to further explain why you are posting this as a question to atheists.
You had some reservations, thus you couldn't understand, otherwise very first line of OP clarifies, that I'm not assuming anything. [...how much morality matters to you] You could have stated that it matters you that much or either it really don't matter.

So to your question now, no, there is no atheist moral standard.
Surely it's "atheism" which is silent at any other subject like morality, not the atheist. Can't an atheist form a belief?
But I think most people, theist and atheist, follow the basic principle that morality is about harm, and that which causes unnecessary harm is generally immoral.
Alright. My question is not about definition of morality (being harmless etc). It's about how much importance you [as an individual], gives it? Though it's a personal question, because I can't pose the burden of all atheists over you [or over anyone].
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:52:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 5:42:39 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:28:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:17:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.

I don't find your response relevant. Even if morality & belief (or lacking belief) are different, my question is still valid & straight.

Does atheist (I can't use another name, it is what defines them?) follow any moral standard? Any morality they reside with, (though with their experience alone)?

Your question is invalid because it presumes that atheists have some sort of moral doctrine which they all follow. Until you can clarify further that is the only assumption I can make based on your OP, so to avoid misrepresenting the implications of your question I asked you to further explain why you are posting this as a question to atheists.

You had some reservations, thus you couldn't understand, otherwise very first line of OP clarifies, that I'm not assuming anything. [...how much morality matters to you] You could have stated that it matters you that much or either it really don't matter.

That didn't clarify anything. Asking how much morality matters has nothing to do with why you're singling out atheists to ask the question to.

So to your question now, no, there is no atheist moral standard.

Surely it's "atheism" which is silent at any other subject like morality, not the atheist. Can't an atheist form a belief?

Of course atheists form beliefs, but those beliefs are not atheism. The inability of many theists to understand this is why most of us are so reluctant to answer any of these questions until basic points like this are clarified. If we don't take this step most of these conversations just wind up going backward, which is a waste of time.

But I think most people, theist and atheist, follow the basic principle that morality is about harm, and that which causes unnecessary harm is generally immoral.

Alright. My question is not about definition of morality (being harmless etc). It's about how much importance you [as an individual], gives it? Though it's a personal question, because I can't pose the burden of all atheists over you [or over anyone].

I, as an individual place a great deal of importance on morality. I do so because I care about people and I feel others should as well. If you want any more then that you need to be specific as to what you are looking for.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 5:28:06 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:34:22 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:24:55 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:19:10 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:39:43 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:29:51 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

My initial reaction is, why do you request this information from atheists?

Because I never needed to explain a religious one that what is respect. (It was always an atheist, though atheists also contain exceptions for good/nice people). Thus I needed to check out if they've anything common to rest of the world.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god(s).
So what? I'm asking about, do they follow any morality (& why)?

I don't have any intentions of making this difficult, but requesting this information from atheists appears to place atheism under an unnecessary spotlight. I can answer these questions as an indidivdual, but me being an atheist has practically nothing to do with it.

Alright, my question has nothing to do with the "Atheism". I just have mentioned the word atheists to specify a class for responses.

I understand, and to briefly answer your question, I derive morality from experiences and observations. I am able to reason and infer what can be noted as harmful or beneficial, for either myself or others. I am able to learn from experiences and note, for example; "okay, me lying to my grandmother resulted in negative and unwanted consequences." Of course, others may disagree and state that lying can provide beneficial consequences.
Learning morality form experience is a source, but how much you do you care about it?

Consider morality void of any definition for a while.
So first day, not being a thief, you reason that theft is harmful (call it immoral), and next day, you become a thief (supposedly), then you would infer that theft is beneficial (call it moral). So either theft is moral or immoral, good or bad? Should you go for it or avoid it?
Me personally, I would avoid theft because I know that if caught, theft is punishable by law. Aside from any laws, I am also aware that stealing another's property is not something I would want to happen to me, therefore because of empathy, I avoid that sort of activity.
Additionally, I am also aware of laws enacted to prevent the disruption of others life such as; murder, theft, rape, and violent assault. I am aware that by violating these laws, I am subject to punishment, which is a deterrent to commit these crimes.
So it's Govt law, that possess some restrictions over your actions, some actions are considered to be immoral (some laws are for functional purposes, ignore them), that's why they're prohibited. Have you seen a law to become a thief? It means theft has some meaning of immorality in it. You can say theft (or crime) can give you benefit, but you can't say theft is moral to you. So will you ever leave your benefit, consider no law&order, for the sake of morality (or do you feel morality is in your heart/mind, which stops you being harmful and so...or call it humanity?)
Remember, amendments and the removal of laws do happen, they are not static. Yes, laws do restrict certain actions, but this does not necessarily mean that even if the laws were not there I would still partake in certain activities.
Now, as explained above, me being an atheist had virtually no effect of my reasoning regarding morality.
What does it mean?
I am answering these questions as an individual, who happens to be an atheist, not answering these questions because I am an atheist.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you?

A great deal, it's one of many reasons why I don't follow any religions, especially the Abrahamic religions, which are offensive to modern day morals and ethics.

Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad?

That's a very generalized question, but I would suspect for the most part, yes.

Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?

I respect people as people, but I don't necessarily respect their ideas or beliefs.

If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

So, you're saying most atheists are disrespectful? Perhaps, to religious ideals, I would tend to agree, but that is not a problem. Since most religions have no respect for people, they don't deserve any respect.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:11:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 5:52:59 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/17/2015 5:42:39 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:28:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/17/2015 4:17:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:58:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
Morality and lacking a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe have nothing to do with each other. Perhaps you should clarify why you are asking atheists questions about morality and we can better help the understanding you seek.

I don't find your response relevant. Even if morality & belief (or lacking belief) are different, my question is still valid & straight.

Does atheist (I can't use another name, it is what defines them?) follow any moral standard? Any morality they reside with, (though with their experience alone)?

Your question is invalid because it presumes that atheists have some sort of moral doctrine which they all follow. Until you can clarify further that is the only assumption I can make based on your OP, so to avoid misrepresenting the implications of your question I asked you to further explain why you are posting this as a question to atheists.

You had some reservations, thus you couldn't understand, otherwise very first line of OP clarifies, that I'm not assuming anything. [...how much morality matters to you] You could have stated that it matters you that much or either it really don't matter.

That didn't clarify anything. Asking how much morality matters has nothing to do with why you're singling out atheists to ask the question to.
That "why" is your additional question [you require for your own responsive concerns], so you'd had asked separately. Otherwise I don't need to mention the reason why I'm posing a question to atheist specifically, because that was just my "intent" [self-evidently]. Same can be asked from religious persons, irrespective of their religious commandments about morality. But I chose atheist to reply. That's it.

So to your question now, no, there is no atheist moral standard.

Surely it's "atheism" which is silent at any other subject like morality, not the atheist. Can't an atheist form a belief?

Of course atheists form beliefs, but those beliefs are not atheism. The inability of many theists to understand this is why most of us are so reluctant to answer any of these questions until basic points like this are clarified. If we don't take this step most of these conversations just wind up going backward, which is a waste of time.
Obviously my intent was not to grab you over, belief to atheism to morality to belief game. You was over-guessing.

But I think most people, theist and atheist, follow the basic principle that morality is about harm, and that which causes unnecessary harm is generally immoral.

Alright. My question is not about definition of morality (being harmless etc). It's about how much importance you [as an individual], gives it? Though it's a personal question, because I can't pose the burden of all atheists over you [or over anyone].

I, as an individual place a great deal of importance on morality. I do so because I care about people and I feel others should as well. If you want any more then that you need to be specific as to what you are looking for.
That's cool (that means those who don't understand the problem with "bad" are actually trolling or they're too bad to understand it). Currently I've nothing specific to ask. Thanks for reply.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:19:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 5:53:17 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

Me personally, I would avoid theft because I know that if caught, theft is punishable by law. Aside from any laws, I am also aware that stealing another's property is not something I would want to happen to me, therefore because of empathy, I avoid that sort of activity.
Yes I think empathy is the essence to morality so as it ceases to be subjective.
Additionally, I am also aware of laws enacted to prevent the disruption of others life such as; murder, theft, rape, and violent assault. I am aware that by violating these laws, I am subject to punishment, which is a deterrent to commit these crimes.
So it's Govt law, that possess some restrictions over your actions, some actions are considered to be immoral (some laws are for functional purposes, ignore them), that's why they're prohibited. Have you seen a law to become a thief? It means theft has some meaning of immorality in it. You can say theft (or crime) can give you benefit, but you can't say theft is moral to you. So will you ever leave your benefit, consider no law&order, for the sake of morality (or do you feel morality is in your heart/mind, which stops you being harmful and so...or call it humanity?)
Remember, amendments and the removal of laws do happen, they are not static. Yes, laws do restrict certain actions, but this does not necessarily mean that even if the laws were not there I would still partake in certain activities.
Now, as explained above, me being an atheist had virtually no effect of my reasoning regarding morality.
What does it mean?
I am answering these questions as an individual, who happens to be an atheist, not answering these questions because I am an atheist.
I understand your point, but not getting its significance [to discussion]. Anyway, it was nice talking you. See you next time.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you?

None. I am a moral nihilist.

Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad?

I follow social conceptions, my conscience, and the assumption of generally shared self-interests with my compatriots. These in turn lead to unspoken and explicit social contracts and behaviours which ultimately serve our best interests.

I would never state that I would follow "right" and "wrong" though, since they are completely useless terms to me, over simplistic, and far too often heaped in intuitive justification. When people speak it right and wrong, I simply see the position as simple emotivism.

Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?

I have no idea what this means.

If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

I don't know who these "most atheists" you are talking about, you are attempting to generalise a population of hundreds of millions - which is absurd. You will never see me making the claim of "most Christians" except when I actually have empirical justification to do so.

Given that I live in a country which is a large fraction atheist (upwards of 20%), and border countries with much higher non-religiosity, I have the tentative conclusion that religion makes very little difference to people's general behaviour.

In any case, it depends on what you mean by 'disrespecting others', since on a forum like this, some people will perceive me attacking someone's religion to be a case of disrespect. I am pretty clear that I hold exactly zero respect for any position or belief, and as such I will treat them as such. I am going to hurt people's feelings in doing so, but that is something I can no longer be hindered by. I wouldn't go as far as disparaging the person themselves though (such as with unfounded generalisations, like the one you attempted to make).

-No agitation please.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:59:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

Atheism isn't a stance on morality. I draw my morality from the aspirations of transhumanism and essential humanism.

And of course people are a"holes, that's a human trait not a religious one.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 9:53:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(Repost, since my last attempt seems to have been eaten.)
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you?
Very much.

Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad?
To the extent that I can find accountable, transparent, sharable conceptions of good and bad, I try to let those inform my notions of right and wrong.

Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?
I think respect is very important. However, while definitions vary between people, I think what most people recognise as respect is actually flattery or deference to privilege. I think real respect is much rarer.

If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

I think genuine respect is to make space for the full expression of difference. This is more than simply neglect, flattery or diplomacy. By way of illustration, not opposing gay marriage may be an act of tolerance, but sitting quietly minding one's own business while two gay men deeply in love kiss each other on the bus-stop bench next to you is an act of respect.

Respect doesn't come cheaply. It's the product of compassion, wisdom and insight. We're not born with respect -- we have to win it. It's easy for the fearful or ignorant to disrespect others. However, respect is also not a luxury. Justice depends on respect and not simply flattery or tolerance, so in order to build justice we must view one another compassionately, wisely and insightfully.

But similarly, we cannot respect acts that we think will hurt, harm or destroy others. To respect an act we know or could reasonably ascertain to be harmful would be an act of willful blindness. So it is not immoral to disrespect harmful acts. However, the act of disrespecting them must itself be informed, accountable and transparent -- else we're just being sneaky, ignorant and conceited.

In my case, I cannot respect all acts and beliefs of all religions all the time. However this does not mean I don't respect particular ideas, traditions and adherents. All I can hope is to be informed, accountable and transparent in my differences -- whether or not they are agreeable to others.

So in short, while I cannot speak for other atheists, I hold respect to be an essential social trait, but do not feel it should be universal. I think it is amoral to respect the bad with the good, but I hold it to be conceited to disrespect others without being accountable and transparent in doing so.

I hope that may be useful.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 2:43:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 8:17:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you?

None. I am a moral nihilist.
Why is it so? You need to reason your position, why & how do you believe, nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral? At-least about, why do you think so....because I see you've derailed your position many times below.

Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad?

I follow social conceptions, my conscience, and the assumption of generally shared self-interests with my compatriots. These in turn lead to unspoken and explicit social contracts and behaviours which ultimately serve our best interests.
So do you think; our common best interest is void of being good? How?

I would never state that I would follow "right" and "wrong" though, since they are completely useless terms to me, over simplistic, and far too often heaped in intuitive justification. When people speak it right and wrong, I simply see the position as simple emotivism.


Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?

I have no idea what this means.
Means; is the definition of respect, undefined to you i.e. subjective to you? (=amoral) As respect can be amoral to you [as a nihilistic belief] but "respect" has its meaning of morality in its definition [my proposition]. You can deny respecting others [considering respect as subjective to your experience], but you can't say; cheating others is respect. Right?

If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

I don't know who these "most atheists" you are talking about, you are attempting to generalise a population of hundreds of millions - which is absurd. You will never see me making the claim of "most Christians" except when I actually have empirical justification to do so.
I must have said, "most moral nihilists" are atheist. Or most of the atheists are [or tend to become] moral-nihilists or amoral [with few or rare exceptions]? Do you agree, now? [I can still be generalizing due to my limited sample I picked from DDO, thus you can provide me contrary data, if the exception to moral-nihilist-atheist is not a small set in the world)

Given that I live in a country which is a large fraction atheist (upwards of 20%), and border countries with much higher non-religiosity, I have the tentative conclusion that religion makes very little difference to people's general behaviour.

In any case, it depends on what you mean by 'disrespecting others', since on a forum like this, some people will perceive me attacking someone's religion to be a case of disrespect. I am pretty clear that I hold exactly zero respect for any position or belief, and as such I will treat them as such. I am going to hurt people's feelings in doing so, but that is something I can no longer be hindered by. I wouldn't go as far as disparaging the person themselves though.
Respecting [& disrespecting] is neither right or wrong, inherently [to you], anyhow, can it still be right or wrong [to you]? But you said these are useless terms [to you]? Then why to provide any justification for it?

(such as with unfounded generalisations, like the one you attempted to make).
Don't be emotive. I didn't intend to make. You need to understand others instead of generalizing their intend to generalize. My position still stands; if you imply that most of atheists have/follow a moral standard [not being amoral or alien to good vs bad], I'd apologize my invalid generalization. Otherwise you should.

[By the way, your position to morality isn't clear to me yet]

-No agitation please.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 4:54:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
None. I am a moral nihilist.
Why is it so? You need to reason your position, why & how do you believe, nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral? At-least about, why do you think so....because I see you've derailed your position many times below.

Because we lack an agreed upon concept of what the labels "right" and "wrong" actually mean. The one I mostly agree with is "what one ought to do", however, given that this is necessarily subjective, since objective oughts are impossible to be coherent (e.g. you *just* should do X, because it's good).


I follow social conceptions, my conscience, and the assumption of generally shared self-interests with my compatriots. These in turn lead to unspoken and explicit social contracts and behaviours which ultimately serve our best interests.
So do you think; our common best interest is void of being good? How?

No, I don't even think it's a meaningful statement. Because "good" is a subjective term. I.e. you can define "good" however you like - if you define "good" to mean "serving our common interest" then well done, you have just created a tautology. If you have some other definition of good which doesn't beg the question in terms (i.e. it isn't defined in yet more moral terms) when I would like to hear it.

I don't even mind if theists simply define "good" as being in accordance with god's will, for example. Each to their own. The problem I have is when people argue that X action is good, citing their preferred definition of "good", yet all that is happening her eis one big fat fallacy of equivocation. Thus I strongly avoid using these nebulous and inherently subjective terms unless they are explicitly defined.

We have a general social concept of "good", however when we say "x is good", we bury a massive amount of presuppositional jargon, and we are so used to doing it that it makes apparent sense to us without much effort.

E.g. when one says "Usain Bolt is a Good Sportsman", they really mean something along the lines of "Usain Bolt is a relatively high achieving athlete, and hence sportsman". Mitigating factors can be buried in thee too (e.g. Usain Bolt doesn't take drugs, etc.) but then it really does become subjective, since the subject chooses which attributes that are preferable to them to judge him.

I have no idea what this means.
Means; is the definition of respect, undefined to you i.e. subjective to you? (=amoral) As respect can be amoral to you [as a nihilistic belief] but "respect" has its meaning of morality in its definition [my proposition]. You can deny respecting others [considering respect as subjective to your experience], but you can't say; cheating others is respect. Right?

Respect to me is just a form of social behaviour, which again buries in a lot of presuppositions. I don't particularly see the relevance to morality any more than any other social behaviour.


I don't know who these "most atheists" you are talking about, you are attempting to generalise a population of hundreds of millions - which is absurd. You will never see me making the claim of "most Christians" except when I actually have empirical justification to do so.

I must have said, "most moral nihilists" are atheist. Or most of the atheists are [or tend to become] moral-nihilists or amoral [with few or rare exceptions]? Do you agree, now? [I can still be generalizing due to my limited sample I picked from DDO, thus you can provide me contrary data, if the exception to moral-nihilist-atheist is not a small set in the world)

If your only experience of atheists is DDO (with an obviously skewed demographic makeup on many, many issues, religion just being one of them), then you are not even remotely in a position to generalise. Also I was addressing your comment regarding atheists, not nihilists. Thus asking for contrary data regarding nihilists is a red herring here.

I am not sure what data you want to see, but a week's holiday in West Europe would probably be useful. Every 4th or 3rd person doesn't believe in God, and most of the rest are not practising/praying. They inhabit the same social niches, do the same jobs, and visit the same shops etc. Religion is very much on the backseat here for most people and if there is a significant difference in behaviour then I have yet to see studies that point it out. Because I sure don't.

In any case, it depends on what you mean by 'disrespecting others', since on a forum like this, some people will perceive me attacking someone's religion to be a case of disrespect. I am pretty clear that I hold exactly zero respect for any position or belief, and as such I will treat them as such. I am going to hurt people's feelings in doing so, but that is something I can no longer be hindered by. I wouldn't go as far as disparaging the person themselves though.
`
Respecting [& disrespecting] is neither right or wrong, inherently [to you], anyhow, can it still be right or wrong [to you]? But you said these are useless terms [to you]? Then why to provide any justification for it?

I didn't. I am justifying why my social behaviour is what it is. That has nothing to do with right & wrong.

(such as with unfounded generalisations, like the one you attempted to make).
Don't be emotive. I didn't intend to make. You need to understand others instead of generalizing their intend to generalize. My position still stands; if you imply that most of atheists have/follow a moral standard [not being amoral or alien to good vs bad], I'd apologize my invalid generalization. Otherwise you should.

My point is that regardless of whether they do or do not, it actually makes very little difference in manifest behaviour.
tejretics
Posts: 6,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 5:10:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad?

That depends from what perspective. Metaphysically and epistemologically, I'm a moral nihilist. But according to perspectives of evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins (The God Delusion, and critical philosopher Christopher Hitchens, it is likely that some objective code of morality, at the weakest level, exists in the genome to aid in the evolutionary survival of individuals, and, ultimately, the species' genome. So despite my being a moral nihilist, and that I believe there are no extremes such as "right" and "wrong", I wouldn't, for example, condone murder.


Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?

Hmm ... as Dawkins correctly says, this is a very negative connotation ascribed to atheists. "That type of atheist", in my opinion, is relative; one could say "that type of religious person", and there's no denying that the horrors of religion are greater than that of atheism. Respect for others isn't, obviously, objective, but that is no reason to condone disrespect because respect helps civilization and society stand subjectively.


If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

Fallacy of negative proof. You're the one who says you know, not me, so you're the one who has to prove most atheists are like that. There's no difference between atheists and religious people except beliefs. Stereotype. ;-)


-No agitation please.

None, lol =)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
TruthS4yer
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 5:55:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you?
It is unrelated to atheism but it is very important. My ultimate goal would be to live in/encourage the formation of a utopian society, where everybody behaves morally. In other words, it is extremely important.

Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to?
Not quite sure what you mean. Again atheism isn't really relevant to it but the idea of "respect" is a peculiar one. On the one hand I believe it is best to avoid being disrespectful to others, particularly in person, though I don't see this as so important in online debates, for example, where both parties can be somewhat blunt/disrespectful with no risk or threat of physical violence etc.

I don't believe that refraining from pointing out when people are wrong is "respectful" for instance, though there can be contexts where it is unduly disrespectful to do so (E.G. when they're praying over the dead parent's ashes/grave).

There is also an important distinction between being disrespectful towards a person's claims/beliefs and being so towards them (especially so when this relates to attacking their physical appearance or other similarly superficial judgements for example, as this has implications for self-esteem).

If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).
Being a staunch or harsh critic of something is not equivalent to being disrespectful. Religions have cultivated a culture of immunity from scrutiny, whereby merely critiquing them is portrayed as somehow deeply offensive or unkind. This is likely part of why we have the religions which we currently do... those religions that lacked this feature were less apt to perpetuate themselves and consequently went extinct, while the current ones (with that feature) survived.

Included are the two best videos on morality that I'm aware of.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Please avoid quoting all of large posts - it needlessly means we have to scroll through them to navigate a thread.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 6:17:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

A common religious claim is to link God as necessary for "morality" and thus ergo atheism ergo atheists can't believe in "morality". If there is no God who is to say that child rape is wrong, that's just your opinion as the argument goes.

So here is something to think about, if child rape is wrong, is it some how more or less wrong with the addition or subtraction of an invisible immaterial person who exists outside the universe (eg God) ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 8:03:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/18/2015 4:54:35 AM, Envisage wrote:
None. I am a moral nihilist.
Why is it so? You need to reason your position, why & how do you believe, nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral? At-least about, why do you think so....because I see you've derailed your position many times below.

Because we lack an agreed upon concept of what the labels "right" and "wrong" actually mean.
Your argument is "wrong"/invalid if it ignores self-evident truth/rules and "right" if suffice the "self-evident" truth/rules. We never demand the logic to have some outside agreement, though we disagree due to mistakes that one of us make.
The one I mostly agree with is "what one ought to do", however, given that this is necessarily subjective, since objective oughts are impossible to be coherent (e.g. you *just* should do X, because it's good).
Our disagreement over concept [or definition] is a result of our belief we form subjectively, whereas truth value remains unaffected by that.



I follow social conceptions, my conscience, and the assumption of generally shared self-interests with my compatriots. These in turn lead to unspoken and explicit social contracts and behaviours which ultimately serve our best interests.
So do you think; our common best interest is void of being good? How?

No, I don't even think it's a meaningful statement. Because "good" is a subjective term. I.e. you can define "good" *whatever you like - if you define "good" to mean "serving our common interest" then well done, you have just created a tautology. If you have some other definition of good which doesn't beg the question in terms (i.e. it isn't defined in yet more moral terms) when I would like to hear it.
Subjectivity or objectivity is peculiar here. Even if you place concept of 'good' under subjective category, it's the individual concept that is subjective, good itself is not "just" what one think it to be, rather self-evident. The definition of good can be relative/subjective but the objects' quality of being good either exists or not. Otherwise the 'act of theft' can be bad to me and good to you, now this must implies that I'd condemn the theft [considering it bad]& you'd applaud theft [considering it good], but theft (object) is either worthy to be condemned or applauded, it contains it definite truth value or position, irrespective of the subject knowledge or belief about it.

I don't even mind if theists simply define "good" as being in accordance with god's will, for example. Each to their own. The problem I have is when people argue that X action is good, citing their preferred definition of "good", yet all that is happening her eis one big fat fallacy of equivocation. Thus I strongly avoid using these nebulous and inherently subjective terms unless they are explicitly defined
You're just making it difficult. Not all, but few things are very easy to be classified as +ve or -ve with mere justified judgement. If you deny, you leave little room for a life, how would you protect, save, endure, harmonize or survive. All become void against "what one should do", everyone decides by self & thus one decides to be unjust, saying that injustice don't have something -ve is absurd. So what's bad in calling it wrong?

We have a general social concept of "good", however when we say "x is good", we bury a massive amount of presuppositional jargon, and we are so used to doing it that it makes apparent sense to us without much effort.

E.g. when one says "Usain Bolt is a Good Sportsman", they really mean something along the lines of "Usain Bolt is a relatively high achieving athlete, and hence sportsman". Mitigating factors can be buried in thee too (e.g. Usain Bolt doesn't take drugs, etc.) but then it really does become subjective, since the subject chooses which attributes that are preferable to them to judge him.
Your example statement isn't relevant to moral approach [that we're delving in] as its opinion about Usian, not Usain's attributes, I can reason that Usain is good but my reason can be valid or invalid based upon the morality of my reasoning. Thus subject-matter of morality is "object/attribute/deeds", not people themselves.

I have no idea what this means.
Means; is the definition of respect, undefined to you i.e. subjective to you? (=amoral) As respect can be amoral to you [as a nihilistic belief] but "respect" has its meaning of morality in its definition [my proposition]. You can deny respecting others [considering respect as subjective to your experience], but you can't say; cheating others is respect. Right?

Respect to me is just a form of social behaviour, which again buries in a lot of presuppositions. I don't particularly see the relevance to morality any more than any other social behaviour.
Social behavior that is what? Preferred? Beneficial? Or nothing? Why are you reluctant to say it straightly.


I don't know who these "most atheists" you are talking about, you are attempting to generalise a population of hundreds of millions - which is absurd. You will never see me making the claim of "most Christians" except when I actually have empirical justification to do so.



If your only experience of atheists is DDO (with an obviously skewed demographic makeup on many, many issues, religion just being one of them), then you are not even remotely in a position to generalise
Leave my position, show me if I'm wrong here. I'm not reluctant to accept mistake unless you debunk my view.
Also I was addressing your comment regarding atheists, not nihilists. Thus asking for contrary data regarding nihilists is a red herring here.
My generalization about most of atheist [problematic to you] was near to what you call moral nihilism, I've no problem if you describe most of the atheist other than being moral nihilist rather this'd resolve our contention.

I am not sure what data you want to see, but a week's holiday in West Europe would probably be useful. Every 4th or 3rd person doesn't believe in God, and most of the rest are not practising/praying. They inhabit the same social niches, do the same jobs, and visit the same shops etc. Religion is very much on the backseat here for most people and if there is a significant difference in behaviour then I have yet to see studies that point it out. Because I sure don't.
Here you're presuming that I'm concerned to spotlight over difference of behavior between atheist vs theist, which is false. I just inquire why people question the bad of bad, where they're well aware of bad.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 8:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because we lack an agreed upon concept of what the labels "right" and "wrong" actually mean.
Your argument is "wrong"/invalid if it ignores self-evident truth/rules and "right" if suffice the "self-evident" truth/rules. We never demand the logic to have some outside agreement, though we disagree due to mistakes that one of us make.

Self-evidence is evidence of nothing, except perhaps consciousness. At best it is an appeal to one's subjective opinion (since that is what self-evident is, it is "'apparent' to the subject thinking about it). Which is exactly my point, the notion is subjective at best - if you have to resort to this as your first line of defence, then my point has already been made here. What is 'self-evident' to you to be good will be 'self-evidently' different to someone else.

I for one don't find human life 'self-evidently' good, or valuable, for example.

Our disagreement over concept [or definition] is a result of our belief we form subjectively, whereas truth value remains unaffected by that.

Something cannot be 'true' unless it is coherent. Something cannot be coherent until it is well-defined.

E.g.

"Strawberry is the best ice-cream flavor"

This statement cannot be true because the word 'best' is not well-defined, to conceptualised in this statement, thus the statement can be neither true or false.

No, I don't even think it's a meaningful statement. Because "good" is a subjective term. I.e. you can define "good" *whatever you like - if you define "good" to mean "serving our common interest" then well done, you have just created a tautology. If you have some other definition of good which doesn't beg the question in terms (i.e. it isn't defined in yet more moral terms) when I would like to hear it.

Subjectivity or objectivity is peculiar here. Even if you place concept of 'good' under subjective category, it's the individual concept that is subjective, good itself is not "just" what one think it to be, rather self-evident.

Again with the self-evidence. I am not in the least bit impress with meta ethics if this is resorted to. This is sheer intellectual laziness, which puts more weight on human intuition than it deserves. Intuition is an absurd place to go for justification in philosophical matters.

The definition of good can be relative/subjective but the objects' quality of being good either exists or not.

This is absurd. At best you will have a statement such as

"Good for me" "Good for them", etc. You would no longer have the imperative "it is just good."

Otherwise the 'act of theft' can be bad to me and good to you, now this must implies that I'd condemn the theft [considering it bad]& you'd applaud theft [considering it good], but theft (object) is either worthy to be condemned or applauded, it contains it definite truth value or position, irrespective of the subject knowledge or belief about it.

No it doesn't. You would need to take a perspective to assign a truth value to it. A truth proposition needs to be coherent in order to be true. Regardless, I don't see how it is relevant to the subject who believe it to be otherwise from their perspective. It would still be "good for them".

I don't even mind if theists simply define "good" as being in accordance with god's will, for example. Each to their own. The problem I have is when people argue that X action is good, citing their preferred definition of "good", yet all that is happening her eis one big fat fallacy of equivocation. Thus I strongly avoid using these nebulous and inherently subjective terms unless they are explicitly defined

You're just making it difficult.

It's not me that is making it difficult, it's an inherent problem in moral philosophy. I can argue the same that you are just making it difficult by refusing to recognise these issues.

Not all, but few things are very easy to be classified as +ve or -ve with mere justified judgement. If you deny, you leave little room for a life, how would you protect, save, endure, harmonize or survive.

Pretty much the same way as most people do. Meta ethics doesn't really affect applied ethics too much as far as I believe.

All become void against "what one should do", everyone decides by self & thus one decides to be unjust, saying that injustice don't have something -ve is absurd. So what's bad in calling it wrong?

Appealing to absurdity without an actual reductio ad absurdum? Frivilous. I never said it is bad, I said it is loaded with unspoken presuppositions that people are not aware of, and opens a minefield of fallacies.

Respect to me is just a form of social behaviour, which again buries in a lot of presuppositions. I don't particularly see the relevance to morality any more than any other social behaviour.
Social behavior that is what? Preferred? Beneficial? Or nothing? Why are you reluctant to say it straightly.

Depends on the subject. I personally prefer respectful social behaviour, much like how I prefer certain flavors of ice cream. That in no way makes respectful social behaviour "right" or "wrong", though.

My generalization about most of atheist [problematic to you] was near to what you call moral nihilism, I've no problem if you describe most of the atheist other than being moral nihilist rather this'd resolve our contention.

Most atheists are not moral nihilists. Hell, most atheist philosophers are not moral nihilists. Moreover, even if most atheists were moral nihilists, it isn't strictly relevant to their behaviour.

I just inquire why people question the bad of bad, where they're well aware of bad.

I don't know what you are talking about here. This question isn't limited to just atheists, theists have to address these same questions themselves. Diametrically opposed positions within even the same religion, with each side "well aware" their position on a certain issue is good/bad.

Ergo, my position is even if God exists, moral nihilism entails.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2015 10:42:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:19:27 PM, Dazz wrote:
Being an atheist, how much morality matters to you? Do you follow right against wrong, good against bad? Are you that type of atheist, whom respect of others (& similar ideas) is/are never defined to? If you (being exception) believe disrespecting others is not moral and must be avoided, then why most of atheists follow the opposite (it's not assertion, I've seen very rare atheist, who were nice in talking, if you think contrary, prove it).

-No agitation please.

Ok, let's make it simple. I treat people the same way I'd like to be treated until they throw it back in my face. I never intentionally hurt another human being without purpose, such as self defense. I don't steal, I don't kill, I love my mother, father, sisters and brothers. If you met me and didn't ask my religion, you'd probably assume I had one because I'm basically a nice person, because that's how I was raised and I respect people.

What makes me angry is that anyone, mostly religious types, can somehow impute that because I don't share their primitive, fear-based belief system that I'm somehow amoral and likely to hurt or kill someone on a whim because I don't have a supernatural nursemaid to watch my thoughts. Questions like yours make exactly that implication.

Anything else you want to know?