close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

How do atheists defend their morality?

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Harper, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,084
    1,126
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Umm, yeah, I'll second the comment "are you reading the same thread?" There have been several well thought out sources for morality provided (including my own). I can see where you may not agree with them given your flawed worldview (good natured ribbing here), but to say nothing of substance has been offered? No, not a fair assessment at all.
     
  2. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    3,454
    0
    Mar 24, 1999
    .....Although stale bread makes great French Toast. :rofl:
     


  3. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    3,454
    0
    Mar 24, 1999
    Yeah. Take Lot for example.

    Such a high minded, pious individual that Angels warned him to get the hades out of Sodom/Gomorrah before Yahweh smote 'em. :steamed:

    Before that, of course, he offered his two daughters to a mob to be gang raped so the mob would just go away and not bother him and the so-called Angels that were visiting him at the time.

    And after he vamoosed out of town and his wife got the pillar of NaCl treatment, he got drunk enough to impregnate both of those self-same daughters.

    To go by the example of Lot, the Bible teaches that Incest is Best and we should all obey the Bible by keeping it in the family. Family Way (?)

    :supergrin:

    What was good enough for Lot is good enough for YOU!
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  4. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    :dunno: "Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:[5] the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

    Because it may not be.
     
  5. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    Sure lot's of people have provided sources of morality but I don't think anyone answered the question/challenge I posed: "convince me I'm obligated to follow this thing you call morality."

    Most said that morality is subjective, in which case I'm not obligated, and others flat out stated I'm not obligated. Some stated the obvious that it's in my best interest to adhere to social laws but that's not the same as being morally obligated; or if it is then talking in terms of 'morality' is pointless and confusing.

    Who has made a case for me being obligated(morally) to any system of morality?

    Is it simply that atheists haven't evolved beyond believing and speaking in terms of 'morality' yet?
     
  6. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Well, when you put it that way, it sounds bad.
     
  7. Lone Wolf8634

    Lone Wolf8634 :):

    8,992
    988
    Dec 23, 2007
    Under the bus
    If thats all you wanted, then you should already know the answer.

    Self interest. That's the one thing we all act on. Every action we take is based on it.
     
  8. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    Why would atheists bother calling that morality? It entails no obligation to adhere to any morality. Are they ignorant or trying to be deceptive?
     
  9. Lone Wolf8634

    Lone Wolf8634 :):

    8,992
    988
    Dec 23, 2007
    Under the bus
    Why would you say that?

    Self interest is the reason we do everything.

    No moral code, including religion, entails an obligation to adhere to it.

    You adhere to it because of self interest, enlightened self interest maybe, but still........
     
  10. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    You not being objectively obligated does not mean that there would not be consequences for violating a subjective morality.
     
  11. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    When you say "it" what specifically are you referring to? An objective morality?
     
  12. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    There are consequences for actions but you cannot violate someone else's subjective morality by definition. In other words it's not a moral violation (if morality is subjective) to not adhere to another's morality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  13. Lone Wolf8634

    Lone Wolf8634 :):

    8,992
    988
    Dec 23, 2007
    Under the bus
    :cool:
     
  14. You're trolling and playing word games. The question has been answered.

    Where do morals (mores) come from.

     
  15. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    Yes, they do by definition.

    Code - 1. A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
    2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/code

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

    To clarify, by asking "convince me I'm obligated to follow this thing you call morality." I'm using using "morality" normatively.


    Nope, I didn't ask where they come from. I stated in the very first post where most atheists claim they come from.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2012
  16. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    7,962
    112
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    Actually, this one is obsessed with trying to bring you to the peace that passes all understanding, to having meaning in your life past your own self, and meeting your Savior that will give you an eternity of joy and perpetual study and exploration of all of creation.

    When that is a possibility, what can a person possibly offer in exchange? You can't. It has been freely extended to you. All you have to do to begin the journey is accept that.
     
  17. To paraphrase George Carlin since he's so well liked around here :cool: I have as much [moral] authority as the pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.

    I've posted my own morality here often enough that it should probably be in my signature, but here goes again just for reference... I strive to act with regard to the well-being (minimize suffering; maximize happiness) of others.

    Pretty straight-forward, though I'm sure numerous dilemmas could be posed that would be challenging to answer.

    Given that Harper has, so far, refused to weigh in with his beliefs, I'll just throw some preemptive issues out...

    There are Christians here who regularly argue that without the morality of God/Bible, there is no objective, timeless morality. The blatant flaw with this is that God accepts owning slaves, and calls for putting to death homosexuals, witches, fortune tellers, adulterers, people who work on the sabbath, disrespectful children, children who strike or curse a parent, women who are not a virgin on their wedding night, (some) rape victims,...

    There are not too many people that I'm aware of that still endorse these actions.

    The question then becomes:
    • Were these actions moral in the past, and they're moral today?
    • Were they immoral in the past and immoral today?
    • Were they moral in the past, but something changed and they're immoral today?
    Or is there some other explanation?

    Given that we don't see an en masse endorsement of these activities today, it certainly seems to me that not even the morality of God/Bible is immutable, so why is it reasonable to expect that any other morality would be objective?

    The morality of the Bible has been used to justify an assortment of mistreatments from the Spanish Inquisition to Fred Phelps and the Loons. Perhaps I just lack diabolical creativity, but I don't see how the simple morality that I outlined could be abused in a similar fashion.

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  18. Lone Wolf8634

    Lone Wolf8634 :):

    8,992
    988
    Dec 23, 2007
    Under the bus
    I guess I'm just a bit thick today, because I'm failing to understand what you're wanting here.
     
  19. Harper

    Harper

    2,598
    4
    Aug 10, 2010
    This is a common concern and usually leads to Euthyphro's dilemma. I'm sure you're aware of it but if not, it basically says 'is it moral because God says so or does God say so because it's moral?' If God is real then by definition(Omnibenevolence being a defining characteristic) it's moral because he says so. So if God says owning slaves and rape is moral, then it is and that's just tough luck if you don't like it. That of course doesn't appeal to people and maybe the idea that there's an omnibenevolent, omnipotent,etc being is ridiculous but the reasoning is valid.

    That sounds like utilitariansim which is always to my knowledge an objective morality. There are other atheists like Ayn Rand who believe in an objective morality which is basically the opposite.
     
  20. RC-RAMIE

    RC-RAMIE

    2,700
    1
    Mar 8, 2010
    That sounds like a crappy version of morality.

    That is because like the Atheist here keep telling y'all atheism only answers one question that is all. We don't have to share any other political or even scientific ideas at all.




    "Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul