So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[plumjam]

"Objective morality" is a non starter. "Do no unnessary harm", pretty much sums it up.

If you read Dawkins, you must have been either genuinely interested in learning something from him, or you read it merely to critique. Not sure which. He is a scientist, and as such, he makes claims which are scientific, not emotion laden, and not tongue-in-cheek. The "selfish gene" is an hypothesis that deserves some investigation, in a scientific manner. You need to study some psychology or sociology. People are interested in this sort of thing in these fields.

Dawkins is not some stupid fellow that does not understand human nature, nor are you I suspect.

So let's quit this BS of the straw man arguments. It has all been tried before and never works. What really roils me is when you use "serial rapist" as if it is something that all men would be if they "but had the opportunity". This is insanity, and frankly, if you are in that boat, I am glad for you that religion is keeping you from carrying out this fantasy.

Personally, I don't need a god to keep me from senselessly harming others. Can you honestly say the same?

Much of what you say is laden with sarcasm and perhaps your take on "wittiness", such as "genius idea", etc. This is not witty. It means you don't understand what Dawkins meant at all. Such prose gets in the way of taking what you say seriously.

wow, in both this and your first (also ad hominem) post you make a lot of bizarre assumptions

 

[plumjam]

Wow, are you saying that there may be some inherent biological system that functions inside us to direct morality? much like the autonomic nervous system which directs breathing?

I can think of several evolutionary cognitive neurologists who would agree with you.

that there may be some biological correlates of making moral decisions does not mean they are not referring to something objectively true

there are presumably some biological correlates to a mathematician deciding that 2+2=4 , yet would you want to argue that 2+2=4 is not objectively true?

the same for perception etc..

 

[Olowkow]

wow, in both this and your first (also ad hominem) post you make a lot of bizarre assumptions

Such as...?

 

[plumjam]

Such as...?

re-read them and use your God-given moral intuition to work out which

 

[plumjam]

ok, folks, I'm taking a break from this thread for now.. happy atheisming

 

[joobz]

that there may be some biological correlates of making moral decisions does not mean they are not referring to something objectively true

This makes little sense. If you are correct, then we'd expect our concepts of morality to exist throughout the animal kingdom. As it stands, we see multiple various forms of social structure which do not adhere to this. Indeed, it's rather easy to see how we developed our sense of morality from an evolutionary mechanism.

there are presumably some biological correlates to a mathematician deciding that 2+2=4 , yet would you want to argue that 2+2=4 is not objectively true?

the same for perception etc..

This is just a terrible analogy.

 

[Olowkow]

re-read them and use your God-given moral intuition to work out which

I don't have any god-given moral intuition. Only my human judgement. Just wondering where the ad hom was. I don't even know you. I was attacking your ideas. I just think you play fast and loose with insults, that's all.

 

[CapelDodger]

well, you'll be familiar with the genius idea of the 'selfish gene'.. and if there's no objective morality what is stopping someone who believes in that kind of materialist theology coming along and encouraging all men to be serial rapists?

What has stopped them before now, except human nature? Soldiers have raped as part of the booty since time immemorial, but when they return home they don't rape any women they can. Where's the objective morality in that?

remember, if there's no objective morality, that system is exactly equally as 'good' as any other.

So equally that it's exactly equally, and yet good is consigned to quotes. Why so wary?

 

[X]

Moving the goalposts again, when religion is wrong people are to blame, and when religion gets it right, god is responsible...

You beat me to it.
It's a nifty system.
We are good because we have morals.
We have morals because of God.
If God's teachings are not good, we know it because God gave us intuition to know it.
If we do something wrong, it's because we turned away from God.
God has an exceptional public relations expert.

Actually, now that I think about it, doesn't that make the atheist worldview more moral than Plumjam's theist worldview?
Think about it:
In PJ's world, humans are horrible amoral beings incapable of knowing right from wrong without God's help. Basically, halpless animals filled with barely controlled rage lust and greed.
The atheist worldview has no god to hand down morals. As such, humans have to learn/determine for themselves what is good and evil.
Since most people are decent, it speaks pretty highly of humanity.
From that point of view (which admitidly lumps more consequences into atheism than it should (I suppose humanists won't mind much)), an atheistic outlook puts more value and worth on life than PJ's god-world.

well, you'll be familiar with the genius idea of the 'selfish gene'.. and if there's no objective morality what is stopping someone who believes in that kind of materialist theology coming along and encouraging all men to be serial rapists?

remember, if there's no objective morality, that system is exactly equally as 'good' as any other.

The emphasis is on "gene".
The implication is that genes are selfish, not that there is a gene that makes us selfish.



Plumjam: You should take up fencing. With your ability to avoid a point, you'd be a natural at foil or epee.

Alternatively, you could stop dancing around, imagining ad homs and false assumptions, and wisecracking and instead actually answer some of the very valid arguments put forward.

Your inability to comprehend the basic fact that atheism says nothing about ethics and morality is due solely to your unwillingness to listen to the answers given to your own questions.
How can you ever understand the answers to your questions if you refuse to hear the answers?

And you still haven't answered my question on whther or not I can buy your daughter?

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't have any god-given moral intuition. Only my human judgement. Just wondering where the ad hom was. I don't even know you. I was attacking your ideas. I just think you play fast and loose with insults, that's all.

From the evidence, that's all plumjam has to play with. It's a transparently evasive manoeuvre.

 

[edge]

Unless like Tricky you are morally correct and helping others in which case you already follow some of the teachings and just don’t know it yet, what comes to mind is, What you do for your brother you also do unto me.
Nice sunset shot Tricky Nice post.
Good thread Plumjam.

 

[rocketdodger]

There is nothing at all in the atheist/ exclusive materialist world view that in any way can justify the golden rule.
We are just animals trying to survive and pass on our genes. With such an understanding of life, rather than apply the golden rule, it would be much 'better' and more logical if all men became serial rapists.
It would likewise be 'better' if instead of applying the golden rule all 'burdens on society' such as the mentally handicapped, the senile, and the terminally ill were gotten rid of immediately.

The fact that we find the above abhorrent is because in practice we actually put more faith in our moral intuition and conscience than we do in the logical consequences of exclusive materialism.

We know, intuitively, that there is something very wrong about exclusive materialism.

I see you avoided responding to my challenge and instead decided to continue vomiting misinforming and misrepresenting nonsense. Since you refuse to think, I suppose I can do it for you.

First, materialism does not anywhere suggest that the goals of humans are limited to survival and passing on our genes.

Second, there are a great number of reasons that all men don't become serial rapists, and I am sorry to tell you that anything involved with theism is on the bottom of the list. Here are a few more likely reasons why all men are not serial rapists (note that none of them are incompatible with materialism):

1) Empathy.
2) Evolutionarily speaking, being nice to your women and protecting the tribe is much more likely to help pass on your genes than serial rape.
3) Men keep women around for more reasons than simple breeding now that humans are actually intelligent, and serial rape does much more harm than good as far as encouraging women to stick around for their other uses.
4) The vast majority of men enjoy sex much more when their partner is at least willing, never mind aroused herself.
5) Most people realize that a neighbor who engages in serial rape is likely to do other detrimental things, thus we punish and remove them when we find them.

Third, the only logical consequence of exclusive materialism is that there is no boogyman named "god" out in the netherworld ready to burn you for eternity should you f--- up. THATS IT. All of this bullsh-- you come up with has nothing to do with materialism (or atheism for that matter) at all and frankly I am really sick of your strawmen, strawman.

 

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, you seem charming enough, but I'm afraid we've only just met, dear.

Great evade.

You're the one claiming to be in possession of the ultimate moral compass, so I just thought I'd ask you to set me straight on a few moral questions I have.

But if you're unsure yourself, I'll just go somewhere else to actually debate the matter you've brought up.

 

[m_huber]

Let's see, are morals objective? Can intuition tell us what is right?

Is it right to...
Kill someone?
Kill someone for fun?
Kill someone for revenge?
Kill someone for wrongdoing?
Kill someone in war?
Kill someone in self defense?
Kill someone because of disagreement?
Kill someone for God?
Kill a baby?
Kill a baby who has a painful disease that it will not survive?
Kill a baby who is the child of a rival family's line, who will be obligated to kill you if it grows up?
Kill an old person?
Kill an old person who has a terminal disease?
Kill an old person who committed a crime 30 years ago?
Kill a mentally handicapped person who killed another person?

Many more are easy to come up with. In each case, the specifics matter, and the specifics may or may not be straightforward. "Thou shalt not kill" is an awful commandment, because it ignores many possibilities when killing would be acceptable. Of course, that is just my opinion. Spartans viewed death much differently than we do, as did Romans, ancient Japanese (and to a lesser extent, modern Japanese), Native Americans, and Hebrews. How many people did King David kill? But the only one God complained about was the one where he got a wife out of the deal.

Try to define a "good" action that it is always true for all people. It isn't easy. What I desire is the opposite of what another person desires. What benefits me is a problem for someone else. That is fact, God or no God.

Morality is absolutely relative.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

OK, I've finally gotten to the end of this thread. There are a couple of claims here that I can't let stand, because I keep hearing them over and over again, even after I've proven them wrong.

First, plumjam has indirectly implied several times that atheism leads to communist regimes such as the ones under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and because these dictators slaughtered so many people, it stands to reason that atheism is fundamentally immoral. Although it has been pointed out that a number of European nations have a secular majority and are in no way suffering from the social decay that theist apologists keep warning about, atheism is still being equated with communism and its abuses.

But this argument is patently ridiculous. Atheism refers to one thing and one thing alone: the disbelief in gods. It is but a small component of communism, and not the other way around. The dictatorships were essentially secular theocracies, where state worship took the place of god worship, and they were every bit as dogmatic as any given religious theocracy. There was no room for skepticism, questioning, or reasoned doubt allowed. Communism is not atheism. The common thread with atrocity here is actually extreme religiosity, since communism was being practiced as a religion. As I've said before, state atheism was instituted as an afterthought to keep other religions from competing with communism.


Secondly, I keep hearing the same tired old argument that without God, there would be no basis for morality. The problem is that by this reasoning, even with God there is no basis for morality. No one has brought up the Euthyphro dilemma yet, so here it is.

How does God determine what is moral? Is morality determined by God based on some higher universal standard? If so, then why do we even need God to tell us what is moral? On the other hand, does God determine morality based on his own will? If so, then there is no objective morality, because the difference between right and wrong depends entirely on the subjective whims of some unknowable entity. God could make murder evil one day and good the next.

In fact, if we look at the bible, God does exactly that. How shalt thou not commit murder when thou art frequently commanded to commit murder in God's name? If anything is empty or meaningless, it's the reliance on a psychotic fairy tale to determine your sense of morals, where the only reason to behave is to avoid divine punishment or earn divine reward after death.

 

[Tricky]

Secondly, I keep hearing the same tired old argument that without God, there would be no basis for morality. The problem is that by this reasoning, even with God there is no basis for morality. No one has brought up the Euthyphro dilemma yet, so here it is.

How does God determine what is moral? Is morality determined by God based on some higher universal standard? If so, then why do we even need God to tell us what is moral? On the other hand, does God determine morality based on his own will? If so, then there is no objective morality, because the difference between right and wrong depends entirely on the subjective whims of some unknowable entity. God could make murder evil one day and good the next.

In fact, if we look at the bible, God does exactly that. How shalt thou not commit murder when thou art frequently commanded to commit murder in God's name? If anything is empty or meaningless, it's the reliance on a psychotic fairy tale to determine your sense of morals, where the only reason to behave is to avoid divine punishment or earn divine reward after death.

Interesting. I'd heard similar arguments (and made some of them myself) but I didn't know it had a name. I learn so much here. I only recently learned that the dilemma of having an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God who allows evil to exist is called Theodicy. James Randi Educational Foundation indeed!

 

[plumjam]

I see you avoided responding to my challenge and instead decided to continue vomiting misinforming and misrepresenting nonsense. Since you refuse to think, I suppose I can do it for you.

First, materialism does not anywhere suggest that the goals of humans are limited to survival and passing on our genes.

Second, there are a great number of reasons that all men don't become serial rapists, and I am sorry to tell you that anything involved with theism is on the bottom of the list. Here are a few more likely reasons why all men are not serial rapists (note that none of them are incompatible with materialism):

1) Empathy.
2) Evolutionarily speaking, being nice to your women and protecting the tribe is much more likely to help pass on your genes than serial rape.
3) Men keep women around for more reasons than simple breeding now that humans are actually intelligent, and serial rape does much more harm than good as far as encouraging women to stick around for their other uses.
4) The vast majority of men enjoy sex much more when their partner is at least willing, never mind aroused herself.
5) Most people realize that a neighbor who engages in serial rape is likely to do other detrimental things, thus we punish and remove them when we find them.

Third, the only logical consequence of exclusive materialism is that there is no boogyman named "god" out in the netherworld ready to burn you for eternity should you f--- up. THATS IT. All of this bullsh-- you come up with has nothing to do with materialism (or atheism for that matter) at all and frankly I am really sick of your strawmen, strawman.

yes, I didn't take up your challenge, Rocketdodger, mainly because I have read some of your posts on other threads and have seen how you end up speaking to people who happen to disagree with you.
this post to me just confirms that my intuition not to waste my time was correct.

 

[Pardalis]

I suggest Plumjam and Rocketdodger exchange usernames.

That is one heck of a dodge there, Plum.

 

[dglas]

Gosh, golly. A day or more and several thread pages later and and Plumjam still hasn't managed to respond to my post.

What was that?

Did I present a fiercely humanistic and positive moral viewpoint not based on gawd, theism or "objectivist" thinking? Why, yes, I did.

Did I present a means of gaining and understanding morality that didn't hinge on some childish idea of moral Truth? Why, yes, I did.

Did I present a way of understanding morality that provides for growth and adaptation, as opposed to the maladaptive stagnation of absolutism? Why, yes, I did.

Nothing to say? I can understand that. The idea of morality as negotiated, rather than imposed from beyond by some authority must be profoundly terrifying. Never mind that that is all theistic morality provides as well, despite pretenses to the contrary. A large number of affirmations merely provide a large number of affirmations, not Truth. Sorry...

Weren't expecting a positive answer, were you? You were expecting only attempted refutations of theism. I'll answer the "what now" question with this: the future - a future of diversity, adaptive ability, human efficacy and growth. If I asked the same question of theism-based moral objectivism, the only answer is: the past - a past of stagnation, superstition, horror and deliberate helplessness. Human empowerment is the positive answer, as much as that must pain some.

 

[dglas]

To move beyond Plumjam, atheism has been defined as being a negation of an affirmation, and therefore, necessarily negative. This is a mere seizing of the initiative - a control of the language. This phenomenon has been long recognized by lobbyists of all stripes desperately seeking to depict themselves as the positive force, while their opponents are always branded the "Anti-" this or that. For example, as some might have guessed, I am a humanist by choice (not by necessity). Clearly the priority for theistic moralities is to define morality is a particular, peculiar way (as being through god) that immediately classes humanism as "against the faith." With the linguistic defaults set, anyone who disagrees is immediately perceived as negative. Atheist is anti-theism which is "against the default." What the theists don't want to recognize is that positive or negative in this regard is a mere matter of perspective.

The same kind of game is played with the term "moral nihilist," which I proudly wear as a parody of the childishness of moral absolutism. If you don't buy into absolutism, you are branded with the negative term "nihilist" as if you were actually destroying something positive, which, of course, is not necessarily the case at all. To speak of something in the affirmative voice is not necessarily to make that thing a positive thing. To assume so is equivocation...

I personally have very little sympathy for the shallow, rhetorical ploys of the ahumanists, and even less for those who are taken in by them.