Atheism

I am suggesting that a subset of athiests, those with liberal (in the sense used in American politics) political views and inclined towards the perfection of the lives of others, may be less likely to be inhibited by external moral restraints.

The same could be said of right wing religious folk.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are conveniently ignoring questions of degree that don't suit your prejudices.

I am suggesting that a subset of athiests, those with liberal (in the sense used in American politics) political views and inclined towards the perfection of the lives of others, may be less likely to be inhibited by external moral restraints.

That wasn't too hard, was it?

Oh no, O'George, it's never been hard to understand what you've said, it's just incredibly damned difficult to get you to admit to the implications of what you write. On the one hand, you contend that atheists are "less likely to be inhibited by external moral restraints." Without specifying what those restraints are, and since you are specifically writing about atheists, the natural inferential conclusion is that they lack moral restraints because they lack benefit of clergy. But you also acknowledge that the religiously-minded are not restrained by those moral imperatives. So the natural conclusion is that there is no qualitative difference between atheists and theists in so far as their behavior is concerned.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

On the one hand, you contend that atheists are "less likely to be inhibited by external moral restraints."

Less likely indeed!!! I can't think of any reason why an atheist should be inhibited by any moral constraints. Strategies are another matter entirely. If an atheist thinks that his strategies are confused with morals he is, as is normal for atheists in my experience, underestimating others.

Morals partake of the categories "right" , "wrong", "good" and "evil". How can such categories have any meaning in a meaningless world. One might pose as righteous or virtuous in a world where those words mean something but an atheist has nowhere to derive such attributes from except his own self interest.

Still--it must be comforting to have posts on Ignore. It allows one to plough on, head down, and continue with vague Mr Nice Guy bullshit.

There can be no fable to point to any moral for an atheist. All his information is read off a dial on an insrtument. All he has is "models" which can vary. The atheist is "nice" because it pays him to be.

Amoral is practically synonymous with atheist.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

it can't even be relied upon to achieve its purpose, so what value can be attached to organized religion?

A motor car cannot be relied upon to acheive its purpose. There are approx. 600,000 motor vehicle accidents in the USA every year and one person killed every quarter of an hour. So, on Set's statement what value can be attached to motor cars? I daresay breakdowns are even more common.

George--why do you argue with that infantile level of sophistry? Do you not feel insulted by such a remark? The dysfunctional aspects of your posts here are measured by how many people fall for statements such as the one quoted bearing in mind that you have been a cause of them being made.

0 Replies

@roger,

Roger and Setanta, I was meaning to compare the two groups, not equate them. And of course there are exceptions to the every generalization. But, I'd need lots more sentences and dozens more commas.... anyway.

Osso, this position from Spendi is one of the reasons why I think it would be good for us to be more communicative with each other and others.

Quote:

Amoral is practically synonymous with atheist.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/141106-35#post-3921012

1 Reply

@littlek,

It is not a position of mine Kay. It is as old as philosophy itself.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Bullshit.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

It is not a position of mine Kay. It is as old as philosophy itself.

Perhaps because philosophy has been wrapped in the cocoon of religiosity.
But spendi brings up a telling point. Why the misconception that atheism equals immorality and deism fosters morality?

2 Replies

People such as spendi spread the mud. They don't have the integrity to investigate these lies first. Which is why I have him on ignore and respond to nothing relating to him.

1 Reply

@panzade,

Because that's what sets religion apart, in their eyes. The idea is that humans can't be moral without the teachings of a god to lead them.

3 Replies

@littlek,

There's the rub, ain't it k? That's what I've had to deal with...the patronizing condescension...the holier than thou tsk tsking. That's the reality of life as an atheist.

0 Replies

@littlek,

Amazing that to be moral you had to believe on some big mean daddy in the sky that will punish you forever if you misbehavior according to the true believers in any case!

0 Replies

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

Because that's what sets religion apart, in their eyes. The idea is that humans can't be moral without the teachings of a god to lead them.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with just what might be an appropriate logical standard for atheistic morality. Do you consider these to be objective moral values, or simply those you chose to adopt? Perhaps you could also indicate how it would guide you with respect to some topical political issues today such as the death penalty for crimes, euthanasia, private property, etc.

Thomas has reminded me that one could establish a utilitarian standard of ethics and morality that could, in the example then at hand, justify action to prevent the excessive harvesting of whales. That however may not justify the sometimes violent actions being taken by advocates to stop those who don't agree, leaving yet another moral question. In short ... it doesn't go very far with respect to what most folks mean by morality. As Dostoyevski's Ivan Karamazov said in the novel of that name, "without God nothing is forbidden". You probably won't accept that as Dostoyevski was a believer, but it does express a fairly constant theme in both philosophy and literature.

3 Replies

Atheism is no more today what it was in Dostoyevski's time than Christianity is.

The failure to believe in a deity does not indicate an absence of morals.

any more than believing in one guarantees having them...

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You don't need religion to know that killing someone without cause is bad. You don't need religion to teach your kids to be polite and responsible. Religion isn't needed to feel the desire to be charitable to those who have less than you do.

You can't tell me that all religious people share exactly the same values in respect to abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc. Every single person, religious or not, adopts his or her own set of moral standards.

2 Replies

@littlek,

You have merely evaded the question. I'll restate it.

Do you believe there are objective standards of morality that don't depend on your views or the views of a culture with which you may be associated? If so, what is the basis for them?

It is a fairly simple question.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

However you are not addressing the central points of what I wrote at all: merely throwing some dust in the air.

Yeah, I get that a lot lately. In your case, I'm probably just so dazzled by all your eloquence that I can't make out what's a central point and what's just ornament. Could you perhaps list the central points you would like me to address?

0 Replies

Morality derives from many sources, in my view. First, the inate. We were not evolved having brains early on. There was instinct and an emerging ability to learn. In combination, these two qualities kept us on the track. The ability to learn and then think abstractly overshadows instinct, in our thinking, but I believe instinct is still potent. In fact, I think primal instinct is what gives the impetus to fundamentalism. It overwhelms the thinking process with fear of god judgement. We are all a product of our past, from whence morality as an instrument of survival, has grown. Atheists are grown from the same root as and are only a little different than deists.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

Atheism is no more today what it was in Dostoyevski's time than Christianity is.

The failure to believe in a deity does not indicate an absence of morals.

any more than believing in one guarantees having them...

Bingo!

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe there are objective standards of morality that don't depend on your views or the views of a culture with which you may be associated? If so, what is the basis for them?

It is a fairly simple question.

And I gave you a fairly simple answer to it three pages ago.

http://able2know.org/topic/141106-32#post-3919992

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know