Atheist Morality

[Skeeter]

Tweedle Derf:

Atheism is particularly noxious with regard to morality, because their only bases for it are personal opinion and history,

A nonreligious person can derive morals from reasoned consideration of tradition, precedent, and evidence; the application of principles of a Democratic Republic, and logical assessment of internal consistency and predicted outcomes.

which is interpreted by their personal opinion.

An opinion that can be objectively evaluated based on the efficacy in increasing well-being and reducing misery. Religious morality is based on opinion to a similar or greater degree than that of your typical atheist because interpretation of Bible verses yields so many differences. Look what happened here with Christians arguing on whether a wife can be raped by a husband. The female Christians side with the liberals on this one. A clearly immoral action is marred by confusing text.

Even their primary creation myth describes their lawless morality: survival of the fittest. That's exactly why we need to ground morality in something better than humanistic "ideals".

The explanation of the origin of species does not dictate morality to an atheist. Unregulated Capitalism is the system conservatives advocate most, and it is the model most consistent with survival of the fittest. Additionally, evolution is about reproductive advantage, not killing off the competition.

Derf, your contentions are odd and you seem to take away nothing from conversing with people who think differently than you. You could never strong-man someone else's position.

 

[Right Divider]

A nonreligious person can derive morals from reasoned consideration of tradition, precedent, and evidence; the application of principles of a Democratic Republic, and logical assessment of internal consistency and predicted outcomes.

So... like Derf said... totally subjective and based on numerous useless opinions.

 

[Skeeter]

So... like Derf said... totally subjective and based on numerous useless opinions.

No different that the opinions about morality by a religious person. The pretend pipeline to a deity in-the-know actually hinders thinking because of hubris.

 

[Right Divider]

No different that the opinions about morality by a religious person. The pretend pipeline to a deity in-the-know actually hinders thinking because of hubris.

The only hubris is the atheist that thinks that he has a better pipeline.

 

[Jefferson]

No different that the opinions about morality by a religious person.

We have already established that not only are you religious, you are a religious fundamentalist. See https://theologyonline.com/threads/ukraine-crisis.58163/post-1845574

 

[Hoping]

No different that the opinions about morality by a religious person. The pretend pipeline to a deity in-the-know actually hinders thinking because of hubris.

It beats a "pipe-line" to the other haters of God.

 

[Idolater]

There's no reason an atheist can't believe in "inbuilt" (@Arthur Brain 's word) and universal human rights, plenty of them do.

In 2014 a federal district court held that “Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.”

In the 1961 decision Torcaso v. Watkins, the court stated that the Establishment Clause prevents government from aiding “those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

Since you cannot scientifically prove humanism to be true, you ultimately have to take a "blind leap of faith" in order to believe in it.

Furthermore, since you appear to subscribe to the fundamentals of humanism, not only are you religious, you are a religious fundamentalist.

 

[Right Divider]

There's no reason an atheist can't believe in "inbuilt" (@Arthur Brain 's word) and universal human rights, plenty of them do.

Atheists have no foundation on which to lay these "inbuilt and universal human rights". But that never stops them from fantasizing.

 

[Idolater]

Atheists have no foundation on which to lay these "inbuilt and universal human rights". But that never stops them from fantasizing.

Sure they do, they have the self-evident nature of human rights' existence, we all have that.

 

[Skeeter]

We have already established that not only are you religious, you are a religious fundamentalist. See https://theologyonline.com/threads/ukraine-crisis.58163/post-1845574

You established nothing, I am not a secular humanist.

 

[Skeeter]

The only hubris is the atheist that thinks that he has a better pipeline.

There is no pretend pipeline at all. Someone just applies evidence and principles to the facts and reason dictates whether the conclusions are sound. It is evaluated on the merits not on the basis of access to an authority.

 

[Idolater]

There is no pretend pipeline at all. Someone just applies evidence and principles to the facts and reason dictates whether the conclusions are sound. It is evaluated on the merits not on the basis of access to an authority.

Which principles?

 

[Skeeter]

It beats a "pipe-line" to the other haters of God.

How can someone hate something that they don't think exists? Do you hate the Santa Clause? Do you hate Batman?

 

[Hoping]

How can someone hate something that they don't think exists? Do you hate the Santa Clause? Do you hate Batman?

They know He exists, no matter how much they deny it.
As for Santa and B'man, I hate the idea of them.
They are false idols usurping the glory due to God.

 

[Idolater]

They know He exists, no matter how much they deny it.
As for Santa and B'man, I hate the idea of them.
They are false idols usurping the glory due to God.

lol, people actually do offer sacrifices to Santa. Milk and cookies. (Somewhat like bread and wine.) I guess therefore the 'real Santas' are the 'Wizard of Oz'. Just like in ancient times! Banana.

 

[PureX]

The claim that non-theists have no ideological basis upon which to establish ethical/moral imperatives is untrue. That basis is inherent to existence, itself: that it is better to exist than not to exist. As evidenced by the fact that everything that does exist, seeks to continue existing. And that which does not exist, is absolutely moot: of no concern whatever. Thus, to exist becomes a VALUE. And anything that supports that fundamental value is an ethical/moral imperative for us.

We humans are a collective/cooperative species. The valued continuation of our individual existence is dependent upon the continuation of our collective and cooperative existence. Cooperation with each other, then, becomes a very important moral and ethical imperative whether we believe in God or not.

I am not an atheist, but were I suddenly to become one, it would not change my ethical or moral imperatives at all. Because these are not based solely on my choice to trust in God. And I see no evidence that would suggest to me that the atheists I've met in my lifetime are any less ethical or moral than I am because of their atheism. And the reason for this, I believe, is existential, and is more or less innate to humanity.

 

[ok doser]

Slaughter the fatted calf!

 

[Stripe]

No different that the opinions about morality by a religious person. The pretend pipeline to a deity in-the-know actually hinders thinking because of hubris.

I recognize that. That's the tu quoque fallacy. The intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Skeeter]

I recognize that. That's the tu quoque fallacy. The intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

Pointing out hypocrisy on the other side is not a fallacy. Either the evidence provided to support the notion is valid or it is not. Of course you people here ignore the evidence, offer no evidence of your own, and offer a bold conclusion. What is that fallacy called?

 

[Skeeter]

They know He exists, no matter how much they deny it.
As for Santa and B'man, I hate the idea of them.
They are false idols usurping the glory due to God.

It's almost like you used up your power to imagine on your religion and have nothing left for the creative arts?