"because atheism entails no values" Unintentional athe truthianity

[Whatsisface]

This is true, but is not an explanation of the same.

I don't know what more you're after. If I come round your house and for no good reason punch you on the nose, are we going to sit down over a cup of tea and discuss whether I've done something wrong or not? Or are you going to call the police because I've done something wrong?

I've done something wrong, immoral, because I know you don't want me to punch you on the nose because of the harm it will cause you, but I do it anyway, knowing full well the consequences that I wouldn't want for myself.

 

[Algor]

I don't know what more you're after. If I come round your house and for no good reason punch you on the nose, are we going to sit down over a cup of tea and discuss whether I've done something wrong or not? Or are you going to call the police because I've done something wrong?

I've done something wrong, immoral, because I know you don't want me to punch you on the nose because of the harm it will cause you, but I do it anyway, knowing full well the consequences that I wouldn't want for myself.

I just want good explanations of why people are people.

An itch I have to scratch. Can’t help it.

 

[Whatsisface]

I just want good explanations of why people are people.

An itch I have to scratch. Can’t help it.

Ok. Isn't that a different question to morality though?

 

[Algor]

Ok. Isn't that a different question to morality though?

No, its the same, to me, or at least intimately related.
If morality is intrinsic to human nature and represents something non-arbitrary, it evolved. For a scientist to answer how it evolved, the explanation needs to explain not just why it happened but how it happened.

Clarification : I think morality and moral reasoning are neurological skills akin to the ability to acquire and use language: we all have embedded hardware that is predisposed to learning the necessary software and is in fact specialized for that function.

 

[Woody50]

Where are the atheist rules for living handbooks?

They have none.

Which is why they whine like mules and complain.

I'd say "just watch," but you've seen it already. You've attacked their religion. They have no moral standard, so they attack. Just read below, folks. It's funny, and embarrassing for the "scientists" here. So funny. They cannot escape a paper BAG with such logic. Hilarious. Such whiners....

 

[Algor]

They have none.

Which is why they whine like mules and complain.

I'd say "just watch," but you've seen it already. You've attacked their religion. They have no moral standard, so they attack. Just read below, folks. It's funny, and embarrassing for the "scientists" here. So funny. They cannot escape a paper BAG with such logic. Hilarious. Such whiners....

Here is your requested attention.

 

[Whatsisface]

No, its the same, to me, or at least intimately related.
If morality is intrinsic to human nature and represents something non-arbitrary, it evolved.

I rather disagree I'm afraid. I think the concepts of morality, right and wrong themselves belong to that category of concepts that couldn't be any other way, like numbers and logic. It's as if they're waiting in the ether for intelligent minds to realise them. What evolved is our brains and their capacity for abstract thought, allowing us to become aware of such things. For example, the concept of 1+1=2 will be the same for us as for aliens on the other side of the galaxy.

However, I will say that some things we consider right or wrong have changed over time, like slavery, but some haven't, like murder.

For a scientist to answer how it evolved, the explanation needs to explain not just why it happened but how it happened.

Clarification : I think morality and moral reasoning are neurological skills akin to the ability to acquire and use language: we all have embedded hardware that is predisposed to learning the necessary software and is in fact specialized for that function.

Your clarification brings what we are both saying a little closer together.

 

[Furion]

What I said was not an assertion, of course atheists can think moral things. Shelley Kagan is Clark Professor of Philosophy at Yale University where he has taught since 1995. He is best known for his writings about moral philosophy and normative ethics. He's also an atheist. He debated William Lane-Craig. He did very well.

You conflated atheism with atheists. You made the mistake of thinking that because atheism has nothing to say about morality, so atheists have nothing to say about morality. As atheists and atheism are different, apart from the idea there are no Gods and that's it, and you seem to be struggling to see the distinction, you lumped them together. That's called conflating, and is a logical fallacy.

There is no empirical evidence, morality is about ideas, philosophy if you will.



So you can't see what's wrong with forcing someone off their land by gunpoint? Really?

So then like I stated there is no evidence for your morality beliefs. I keep telling you, you keep repeating it.

Now you say atheism has nothing to do with atheists.

At some point you'll realize that you blaring out your morality is not a persuasive answer.

 

[Whatsisface]

So then like I stated there is no evidence for your morality beliefs. I keep telling you, you keep repeating it.

Well there is actually, and that is my moral behavior.

Now you say atheism has nothing to do with atheists.

I did not say that. I said that atheists and atheism are not the same except for the non belief in Gods. After that atheists vary in what else they believe.

At some point you'll realize that you blaring out your morality is not a persuasive answer.

I doubt that at some point you'll realise that your replies are not very nuanced answers to points made. And I hope you realise that I'm being polite.

 

[Algor]

I rather disagree I'm afraid. I think the concepts of morality, right and wrong themselves belong to that category of concepts that couldn't be any other way, like numbers and logic. It's as if they're waiting in the ether for intelligent minds to realise them. What evolved is our brains and their capacity for abstract thought, allowing us to become aware of such things. For example, the concept of 1+1=2 will be the same for us as for aliens on the other side of the galaxy.

However, I will say that some things we consider right or wrong have changed over time, like slavery, but some haven't, like murder.

Your clarification brings what we are both saying a little closer together.

This is a fairly radical moral realism, I think it is supportable philosophically but it seems ambitious to me, because the entities that are in relationship to each other in logic are well defined abstractions, whereas in morality they are necessarily individually conscious entities, relating to each other in the realm of experience. In order to discover such moral laws you would have to abstractly define the system and I can’t see a way forward to that.

 

[Whatsisface]

This is a fairly radical moral realism, I think it is supportable philosophically but it seems ambitious to me, because the entities that are in relationship to each other in logic are well defined abstractions, whereas in morality they are necessarily individually conscious entities, relating to each other in the realm of experience. In order to discover such moral laws you would have to abstractly define the system and I can’t see a way forward to that.

Ok, I think you have more of a background in philosophy than me.

I will say this, I think the concepts of right and wrong themselves, apart from what is right or wrong, can only be the way they are as I tried to say.

 

[Algor]

Ok, I think you have more of a background in philosophy than me.

I will say this, I think the concepts of right and wrong themselves, apart from what is right or wrong, can only be the way they are as I tried to say.

Well, Im not sure about the depth of my background but I think you are on to something when you say that right and wrong can only be one way. You look at it as abstractly real, I look at it as fundamental biology. Either way it is pleasant to encounter another atheist who is also a moral realist. When I was a lot younger, we were not common animals.

 

[Furion]

Well there is actually, and that is my moral behavior.

You acting like a Christian doesn't help the cause.

I did not say that. I said that atheists and atheism are not the same except for the non belief in Gods. After that atheists vary in what else they believe.

And water is wet.

Atheism and atheists are different, Christianity and christians are different.

Since the same applies to christians, you've not moved the conversation forward, it is a useless point.

I doubt that at some point you'll realise that your replies are not very nuanced answers to points made. And I hope you realise that I'm being polite.

So you are about to unleash your wrath?

I hope you realize you stepped into this conversation with no answers, just hot bluster.

 

[Furion]

This is a fairly radical moral realism, I think it is supportable philosophically but it seems ambitious to me, because the entities that are in relationship to each other in logic are well defined abstractions, whereas in morality they are necessarily individually conscious entities, relating to each other in the realm of experience. In order to discover such moral laws you would have to abstractly define the system and I can’t see a way forward to that.

So what the guy proposes is a malleable morality.

He doesn't know it, and you don't know it, but there is no way I would ever trust an atheists malleable morality. That's how gulags get started.

 

[Whatsisface]

You acting like a Christian doesn't help the cause.

I certainly don't act like a lot of the Christians here.

Acting well isn't something exclusive to Christians nor started by Christians, it's an idea that was already around that was taken up by Christianity.

And water is wet.

Atheism and atheists are different, Christianity and christians are different.

Since the same applies to christians, you've not moved the conversation forward, it is a useless point.

So you are about to unleash your wrath?

I hope you realize you stepped into this conversation with no answers, just hot bluster.

Is this all you can say?

 

[Whatsisface]

So what the guy proposes is a malleable morality.

He doesn't know it, and you don't know it, but there is no way I would ever trust an atheists malleable morality. That's how gulags get started.

This is so simplistic.

 

[Algor]

So what the guy proposes is a malleable morality.

He doesn't know it, and you don't know it, but there is no way I would ever trust an atheists malleable morality. That's how gulags get started.

Why do you say his morality is malleable? I would have thought a Gulag resulted from an ethos that was too rigid to accommodate legitimate conflicts.

Put another way: if you take a radical view of morality, and say: “all views of right and wrong are simply social constructs to legitimize existing power structures, and these must be uprooted and replaced with a morality that only considers the good of the state, as determined by the leadership if the state” that isn’t a malleable morality. Its an absolutist morality with a single reference point: the dictates of the leadership. There is no argument and no movement. But acceptance of that position is what lead to the Gulags.

 

[Algor]

Why do you say his morality is malleable? I would have thought a Gulag resulted from an ethos that was too rigid to accommodate legitimate conflicts.

Put another way: if you take a radical view of morality, and say: “all views of right and wrong are simply social constructs to legitimize existing power structures, and these must be uprooted and replaced with a morality that only considers the good of the state, as determined by the leadership if the state” that isn’t a malleable morality. Its an absolutist morality with a single reference point: the dictates of the leadership. There is no argument and no movement. But acceptance of that position is what lead to the Gulags.

Oh wait sorry I see what you might be saying. Are you saying that moral relativism might permit social acceptance of an absolutist system that can then dominate or coerce everything else? If so, then while I can see that might be a legitimate argument in general, why do you think the individual in question displays that much of a tolerance for such a system?

 

[Torin]

Why do you say his morality is malleable? I would have thought a Gulag resulted from an ethos that was too rigid to accommodate legitimate conflicts.

Put another way: if you take a radical view of morality, and say: “all views of right and wrong are simply social constructs to legitimize existing power structures, and these must be uprooted and replaced with a morality that only considers the good of the state, as determined by the leadership if the state” that isn’t a malleable morality. Its an absolutist morality with a single reference point: the dictates of the leadership. There is no argument and no movement. But acceptance of that position is what lead to the Gulags.

This is one place where Marxism contradicts itself. Marx presented his ideology as morally relativist, but he also speaks as if he is a moral absolutist at times. All ideologies are just rationalizations for the underlying economic power structures, and at the same time, the proletariat ought to overthrow those power structures - which isn't an absolute moral obligation, somehow.

You're right that it is technically moral absolutism, but it's presented as moral relativism. This is just a contradiction in Marx's thought.

 

[Algor]

This is one place where Marxism contradicts itself. Marx presented his ideology as morally relativist, but he also speaks as if he is a moral absolutist at times. All ideologies are just rationalizations for the underlying economic power structures, and at the same time, the proletariat ought to overthrow those power structures - which isn't an absolute moral obligation, somehow.

You're right that it is technically moral absolutism, but it's presented as moral relativism. This is just a contradiction in Marx's thought.

I’d feel bad for Marx, if his ideas weren’t so often pernicious.