can atheists be moral

[notjam]

how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?

[Thomasio]

If morality was what most religions want it to be, I'd call for revolution tomorrow.

Atheists have a FAR better morality than any religion can ever hope to achieve.

 

Where the pope preaches the use of condoms is immoral, while the spreading of AIDS is a smaller problem, atheists have LONG ago discovered that gay marriage, interracial and interreligion marriage is a human right.

 

Our society is still deeply undermined by way obsolete religion based discrimination, the claim there could be any morality in it, only because there are religious people who have abandoned most of those obsolete ideas without leaving their religion, is plain absurd.

[Alan C.]

Can atheists be moral?

 

Yes.

 

However, people who make decisions based upon whether or not they believe God will be angry are not making moral decisions. They're making decisions based upon self-preservation rather than moral considerations.

[Slavik]

1) Have you read UPB?  It answers many questions when it comes to subjectivity of moral systems, it also shows how moral question are attached to logic, and since logic describes reality it gives moral principles roots of the real world.

 

2) All of the atrocities mentioned, were not done in the name of atheism, they were in the name of illogical systems such as Religion, Socialism, Communism or just statism.  

 

 

I would like to ask though, what are you trying to accomplish by making all of these posts?  many people have done so in the past, but they have yet to provide the necessary proof for the existence of god.  In order to go this far you need to show proof that god exists before you can propose following any book written by yet to be proven god 

[notjam]

Yes.

 

However, people who make decisions based upon whether or not they believe God will be angry are not making moral decisions. They're making decisions based upon self-preservation rather than moral considerations.

so do you believe in "objective morality" ?  

or "subjective morality" ? aka (it's ok to rape children depending on what culture you were raised in)

 

if you believe in "objective morality" by what foundation does this not come from an objective moral law giver (god)? 

how can "time + chance + mattter" aka "primordial slime" create an objective morality? 

[Slavik]

so do you believe in "objective morality" ?  

or "subjective morality" ? aka (it's ok to rape children depending on what culture you were raised in)

 

if you believe in "objective morality" by what foundation does this not come from an objective moral law giver (god)? 

how can "time + chance + mattter" aka "primordial slime" create an objective morality? 

You have to first prove existence of god before claiming him giving anything. 

[notjam]

1) Have you read UPB?  It answers many questions when it comes to subjectivity of moral systems, it also shows how moral question are attached to logic, and since logic describes reality it gives moral principles roots of the real world.

 

2) All of the atrocities mentioned, were not done in the name of atheism, they were in the name of illogical systems such as Religion, Socialism, Communism or just statism.  

 

 

I would like to ask though, what are you trying to accomplish by making all of these posts?  many people have done so in the past, but they have yet to provide the necessary proof for the existence of god.  In order to go this far you need to show proof that god exists before you can propose following any book written by yet to be proven god 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75 

upb criticism

 

 

spare me the time and just explain how we have objective morality with evolution/atheism

[Slavik]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75 

upb criticism

 

 

spare me the time and just explain how we have objective morality with evolution/atheism

Considering that you have come to this forum with intention of preaching, the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of god.  I dont have to say a word just yet until you prove that which you are preaching.  Once you prove it, then I will be happy to move on to your question.   

[notjam]

If morality was what most religions want it to be, I'd call for revolution tomorrow.

Atheists have a FAR better morality than any religion can ever hope to achieve.

 

Where the pope preaches the use of condoms is immoral, while the spreading of AIDS is a smaller problem, atheists have LONG ago discovered that gay marriage, interracial and interreligion marriage is a human right.

 

Our society is still deeply undermined by way obsolete religion based discrimination, the claim there could be any morality in it, only because there are religious people who have abandoned most of those obsolete ideas without leaving their religion, is plain absurd.

you missed the issue. 

how can evolution/atheism account for an objective morality? 

[shirgall]

you missed the issue. 

how can evolution/atheism account for an objective morality? 

 

By positing objective rules for evaluating potential moral rules, and evaluating those rules and their implications with typical modern moral questions.

[notjam]

Considering that you have come to this forum with intention of preaching, the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of god.  I dont have to say a word just yet until you prove that which you are preaching.  Once you prove it, then I will be happy to move on to your question.    

does critical thinking now equate to preaching?

you claimed that you understood objective morality without a moral law giver (god), 

if I stumped you, deal with it. if not please explain.

[Slavik]

you missed the issue. 

how can evolution/atheism account for an objective morality? 

You are claiming existence of god first and foremost, thats the first problem in what you are saying, if you can not prove god, the rest simply can not be discussed. 

[notjam]

By positing objective rules for evaluating potential moral rules, and evaluating those rules and their implications with typical modern moral questions.

but that is in itself a "subjective" standard / a subjective consensus. 

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do in regards to the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". 

You are claiming existence of god first and foremost, thats the first problem in what you are saying, if you can not prove god, the rest simply can not be discussed. 

do you believe in objective morality? 

if yes. how can evolution/atheism account for this? 

You have to first prove existence of god before claiming him giving anything. 

maybe I just did. 

maybe the fact that there is such a thing as "objective morality" proves the existence of that objective moral law giver (god). 

 

You are claiming existence of god first and foremost, thats the first problem in what you are saying, if you can not prove god, the rest simply can not be discussed. 

why sidestep the question? (how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?)

 

"simply cannot be discussed" .... ? 

[Slavik]

but that is in itself a "subjective" standard / a subjective concensus. 

do you believe in objective morality? 

if yes. how can evolution/atheism account for this? 

I see, so you honestly think that attempting presuppositional apologetics is going to work.  Well Im done discussing anything with you until you prove existence first.  

 

But to the rest who might read my comment.  This is a typical tactic where they "presuppose" god existing as an axiom without giving any proof.  Then they start asking you questions as this guy is attempting to do, it might even go down to the point "how do you know you exist."  

 

When you finally get to ask them questions, they rely on a major fallacy "circular reasoning"  they use scriptures as a proof of god (because it says so in the bible that god exists) and since bible is inspired by god, thats how you supposedly can be sure that its true.  And the circular logic continues to no end.  So yeah, if you want, feel free to engage, but I can clearly see that its a waste of time.    

[notjam]

I see, so you honestly think that attempting presuppositional apologetics is going to work.  Well Im done discussing anything with you until you prove existence first.  

 

But to the rest who might read my comment.  This is a typical tactic where they "presuppose" god existing as an axiom without giving any proof.  Then they start asking you questions as this guy is attempting to do, it might even go down to the point "how do you know you exist."  

 

When you finally get to ask them questions, they rely on a major fallacy "circular reasoning"  they use scriptures as a proof of god (because it says so in the bible that god exists) and since bible is inspired by god, thats how you supposedly can be sure that its true.  And the circular logic continues to no end.  So yeah, if you want, feel free to engage, but I can clearly see that its a waste of time.    

simple question 

how does evolution/atheism account for objective morality? 

not so simple? 

easier to run away instead? 

"gold member" LAME. should be demoted to "bronze member" . 

[dayna j.]

Morality is not within the domain of either atheism or evolution.

 

Atheism does not entail anything other than an acceptance of the fact that insufficient evidence exists to substantiate the belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe, and theories of evolution have nothing at all to do with moral philosophy.

 

The question is poorly formed--I think the question should be: "how does philosophy account for objective morality?"

[Thomasio]

you missed the issue. 

how can evolution/atheism account for an objective morality? 

 

Before I give you the answer to that, let me point out the obvious first:

 

Since religious people are obviously less moral than atheists, that by itself proves morality cannot come from religion.

 

Now let's see where it comes from:

 

Any living being has a natural instinct for "survival of the species".

That's not limited to humans, that's valid throughout all forms of life.

Most female and in some cases even male adults of almost all species will put their life on the line to protect their offspring.

Since animals aren't any religious, we can safely assume, this behavior isn't religion related, but a natural instinct.

Evolution simply gives species that protect their offspring at all cost a better chance of survival, which through natural selection leads to the fact that today almost only these species are left on earth.

 

Among humans this has evolved one step further.

Easiest to show for major crime.

Killing other humans is bad for the survival of the species, that's why humans have a natural instinct not to kill.

If criminals walk around free and kill people, the very same natural instinct makes other humans act and lock them up.

For other immoral behavior it's less obvious on first view, but once you got the point of morality originating in the natural instinct of survival of the species, the development of a moral society that extends morality over all aspects of life is plain logic.

[shirgall]

but that is in itself a "subjective" standard / a subjective concensus. 

 

No, selecting and testing objective rules is exactly how knowledge is earned.

[notjam]

Morality is not within the domain of either atheism or evolution.

 

Atheism does not entail anything other than an acceptance of the fact that insufficient evidence exists to substantiate the belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe, and theories of evolution have nothing at all to do with moral philosophy.

 

The question is poorly formed--I think the question should be: "how does philosophy account for objective morality?"

atheism claims more than "the absence of evidence" . it claims a positive assumption "there is no god". 

agnosticism claims "absence of evidence" . check your facts/definitions. 

 

so are you saing that "evolution/atheism" has no claim nor accountability nor explanation for objective morality?

 

if so. do you believe (as an atheist/evolutionist) in objective morality? 

is so . how? why? on what foundation? 

No, selecting and testing objective rules is exactly how knowledge is earned.

your "shell game" / "slight of hand" is not working. 

I speak of "objective morality" not "objective rules". 

objective morality has nothing to do with "knowledge earned". (since we could "learn" by a culture of child rape, that it's moral) 

 your first failed attempt to explain objective morality was by using a "subjective consensus" this is nonsense.

try again.

 

how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality? 

 

will the real philosopher king please stand up ?

[shirgall]

your first failed attempt to explain objective morality was by using a "subjective consensus" this is nonsense.

try again.

 

 

At no time did I invoke subjectivity or consensus. You'll find I seldom have ever done so except with discussing aesthetics, not morality. You will not bully me into a position I did not take.

[Thomasio]

You're some kind of ignorant fool, I give you that.

But then, being religious requires to be ignorant of facts, so I guess you just have to be like that.

 

Atheists never claimed to be the source of morality, how could they?

Atheists do not make any kind of claim where morality comes from.

Atheists claim morality cannot come from religion because all religions are about the opposite of morality but they do NOT claim to know where it comes from.

 

Atheists do not make any claim about the existence of a god, they only say the existence of a god so highly unlikely that it makes no sense believing in it.

Just like not believing in fairies, unicorns or santa.

 

Evolution suggests, morality might originate in the instinct for survival of the species, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a god exists, because even IF a god would exist, he would still not be the source of morality.

[notjam]

Before I give you the answer to that, let me point out the obvious first:

 

Since religious people are obviously less moral than atheists, that by itself proves morality cannot come from religion.

 

Now let's see where it comes from:

 

Any living being has a natural instinct for "survival of the species".

That's not limited to humans, that's valid throughout all forms of life.

Most female and in some cases even male adults of almost all species will put their life on the line to protect their offspring.

Since animals aren't any religious, we can safely assume, this behavior isn't religion related, but a natural instinct.

Evolution simply gives species that protect their offspring at all cost a better chance of survival, which through natural selection leads to the fact that today almost only these species are left on earth.

 

Among humans this has evolved one step further.

Easiest to show for major crime.

Killing other humans is bad for the survival of the species, that's why humans have a natural instinct not to kill.

If criminals walk around free and kill people, the very same natural instinct makes other humans act and lock them up.

For other immoral behavior it's less obvious on first view, but once you got the point of morality originating in the natural instinct of survival of the species, the development of a moral society that extends morality over all aspects of life is plain logic.

1. "Since religious people are obviously less moral than atheists, that by itself proves morality cannot come from religion." (straw man argument) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

the question is "how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?"

 

2. "survival of the species" = I kill the weak. I steal from the handicapped. I rape the vulnerable. 

 

 

3. "Evolution simply gives species that protect their offspring at all cost a better chance of survival, which through natural selection leads to the fact that today almost only these species are left on earth"   = . WRONG :

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080504165619AAUfMaI

What's an animal family where the parents leave their children after birth? 

Amphibians. Insects. Worms. snakes, turtles, crocdiles, alligators, Sharks, reptiles, fish, 

Basically, everything but mammals and birds.

All the lower orders of animals exhibit virtually no parental care, such as Platyhelminthes (flatworms), Nematodes (Roundworms), Echinoderms (Starfish), Porifera (Sponges), Cnidaria (Jellyfish), Mollusca (Snails) and Protozoa (Single Celled Animals)

 

 

why do people pick the weaker (elderly, handicapped, women, children) to prey apon? 

if morality was a "natural instinct" this would be reversed. since the so called "natural instinct of morality" would cause the human predators to "pick on someone their own size".  

 

one could argue that the "survival of the species" is in fact the reason why people prey apon the vulnerable,

it gives the predator the best possibility for success.  which is opposite of your claim. 

At no time did I invoke subjectivity or consensus. You'll find I seldom have ever done so except with discussing aesthetics, not morality. You will not bully me into a position I did not take.

you said : "By positing objective rules for evaluating potential moral rules, and evaluating those rules and their implications with typical modern moral questions."

 

this is a subjective consensus. not objective morality

 

basicly a bunch of guys in suits get together and decide what is moral.... 

You're some kind of ignorant fool, I give you that.

But then, being religious requires to be ignorant of facts, so I guess you just have to be like that.

 

Atheists never claimed to be the source of morality, how could they?

Atheists do not make any kind of claim where morality comes from.

Atheists claim morality cannot come from religion because all religions are about the opposite of morality but they do NOT claim to know where it comes from.

 

Atheists do not make any claim about the existence of a god, they only say the existence of a god so highly unlikely that it makes no sense believing in it.

Just like not believing in fairies, unicorns or santa.

 

Evolution suggests, morality might originate in the instinct for survival of the species, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a god exists, because even IF a god would exist, he would still not be the source of morality.

 first off, I would like to give you credit for attempting to address/answer this issue.  (everybody else has just dismissed it out of arrogance/ignorance or tried to evade/sidestep or a combination of both). 

 

 

so if "atheists never claimed to be the source of morality", then do atheists beleive objective morality does not exist?

 

again . atheist claim "there is no god" that is a positive claim about the existence of god. 

agnostics claim "there is no evidence" . check your facts / definitions. 

 

survival of the species :

why do people pick the weaker (elderly, handicapped, women, children) to prey apon? 

if morality was a "natural instinct" this would be reversed. since the so called "natural instinct of morality" would cause the human predators to "pick on someone their own size".  

 

one could argue that the "survival of the species" is in fact the reason why people prey apon the vulnerable,

it gives the predator the best possibility for success.  which is opposite of your claim.

[Thomasio]

Let alone the fact morality being a common belief regardless of religion and doesn't require a bunch of guys in suits, let's assume for a moment you're right.

 

Then maybe you could answer a question:

 

What's the difference between a bunch of guys in suits deciding whats moral and a bunch of priests deciding whats moral?

 

Ah ....... hold on ........ no need to answer that ........ I know already.

 

The bunch of priests will rape a few children while making up what shall be moral.

[notjam]

Let alone the fact morality being a common belief regardless of religion and doesn't require a bunch of guys in suits, let's assume for a moment you're right.

 

Then maybe you could answer a question:

 

What's the difference between a bunch of guys in suits deciding whats moral and a bunch of priests deciding whats moral?

 

Ah ....... hold on ........ no need to answer that ........ I know already.

 

The bunch of priests will rape a few children while making up what shall be moral.

you won't find me defending the pagan catholics

to answer your question : "no difference", because "objective morality" CANNOT come from man. 

 

my question is ...

how does evolution/atheism account for objective morality?  

does objective morality exist? 

if so, does that imply/prove an objective moral law giver (god)? 

[Thomasio]

how does evolution/atheism account for objective morality?

It doesn't, neither of them claim to know for sure where morality come from.

That's the difference between religion and science.

Science NEVER claims absolute certainty of anything.

Only religion claims to know things for sure, where at least some of these things are verifiably false.

 

does objective morality exist?

It does exist, but it isn't universal nor evenly spread.

Same as there are species who protect their offspring and others who don't, there are moral people and immoral people.

You could even say there are groups of people who over all on average are more or less moral, where religious people are very likely less moral.

 

if so, does that imply/prove an objective moral law giver (god)?

No it proves god cannot be the moral law giver, because among the most immoral things ever done on earth, the worst ones have been done for religious reasons.

[shirgall]

you said : "By positing objective rules for evaluating potential moral rules, and evaluating those rules and their implications with typical modern moral questions."

 

this is a subjective consensus. not objective morality

 

basicly a bunch of guys in suits get together and decide what is moral.... 

 

You are asserting that, not me. The moral agent is the evaluator, not someone else. Either the methodology works or not. What's true is true whether or not you believe in it, or if someone else does.

[notjam]

It doesn't, neither of them claim to know for sure where morality come from.

That's the difference between religion and science.

Science NEVER claims absolute certainty of anything.

Only religion claims to know things for sure, where at least some of these things are verifiably false.

 

 

It does exist, but it isn't universal nor evenly spread.

Same as there are species who protect their offspring and others who don't, there are moral people and immoral people.

You could even say there are groups of people who over all on average are more or less moral, where religious people are very likely less moral.

 

 

No it proves god cannot be the moral law giver, because among the most immoral things ever done on earth, the worst ones have been done for religious reasons.

how can objective morality NOT be universal?  by definitiion it MUST be or else it is subjective morality. 

 

why all the "anti religious" emotional baggage? this weakens your credability to mask emotional scorn/resentment with reason/logic. unbecoming. 

 

if there is a moral law giver (god) it could not and would not ever be lessoned by the actions of "people" . that is absurd. 

if a black man commits a crime does that mean all black men are criminals? 

if a child commits a crime does that mean his parents are criminals? 

if an atheist commits a crime does it mean all atheists are criminals? 

You are asserting that, not me. The moral agent is the evaluator, not someone else. Either the methodology works or not. What's true is true whether or not you believe in it, or if someone else does.

if the "moral agent" is the "evalutator" this is by definition "subjective morality" not "objective morality".

 

so it seems you just asserted that you believe in "objective morality" yet try to derive it from "subjective morality". 

please explain. 

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do in regards to the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". 

how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? 

[Thomasio]

How could ANYTHING except of the laws of physics be universal and always true?

In "normal life" stealing is immoral.
If a bunch of poor people is starving and has no money to buy food, taking food from a farm becomes the moral right thing to do.
Not sure about other countries, but for example in Germany taking food from a field for your own immediate consumption was legal by law before they invented social security and eliminated proverty at least as far as nobody has to starve anymore.

 

Why I'm arguing anti-religious?

Funny, you really don't know?

YOU have posted a question that wants to suggest that there was no morality outside of religion.

YOU are a believer of things that could NEVER be proven, but you insist atheists should prove you wrong.

How about YOU begin with bringing us some proof for your claims, before you request proof of anything from anyone.

I'm showing you the absurdity of your whole question, by pointing out that religion is the last spot I would consider a possible source of morality.

[notjam]

How could ANYTHING except of the laws of physics be universal and always true?

 

In "normal life" stealing is immoral.

If a bunch of poor people is starving and has no money to buy food, taking food from a farm becomes the moral right thing to do.

Not sure about other countries, but for example in Germany taking food from a field for your own immediate consumption was legal by law before they invented social security and eliminated proverty at least as far as nobody has to starve anymore.

 

Why I'm arguing anti-religious?

Funny, you really don't know?

YOU have posted a question that wants to suggest that there was no morality outside of religion.

YOU are a believer of things that could NEVER be proven, but you insist atheists should prove you wrong.

How about YOU begin with bringing us some proof for your claims, before you request proof of anything from anyone.

I'm showing you the absurdity of your whole question, by pointing out that religion is the last spot I would consider a possible source of morality.

so you argue that "objective morality" is an extension of "survival of the species" . then after a refutation , you abandon the belief in "objective morality" all together? 

that was unexpected.

then the next sentence assert "ojective morality" in regards to theft? 

 

I did not assert "there was no morality outside of religion"

I simply asked the question "how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality"?

[shirgall]

if the "moral agent" is the "evalutator" this is by definition "subjective morality" not "objective morality".

 

No. When you use objective rules you get objective results.

[dayna j.]

atheism claims more than "the absence of evidence" . it claims a positive assumption "there is no god". 

agnosticism claims "absence of evidence" . check your facts/definitions. 

 

so are you saing that "evolution/atheism" has no claim nor accountability nor explanation for objective morality?

 

if so. do you believe (as an atheist/evolutionist) in objective morality? 

is so . how? why? on what foundation? 

 

The absence of evidence is implied in the conclusion that there is no god.  If there were not an absence of evidence, it would not be possible to conclude that there is no god--My definition is accurate.

 

To ask whether evolution or atheism accounts for objective morality is akin to asking how chemistry can be used to find the roots of a quadratic equation:  It can't, because it is a question which is outside of the scope of that discipline.

[notjam]

No. When you use objective rules you get objective results.

who set's the "objective rule" ? 

 

a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits ? 

The absence of evidence is implied in the conclusion that there is no god.  If there were not an absence of evidence, it would not be possible to conclude that there is no god--My definition is accurate.

 

To ask whether evolution or atheism accounts for objective morality is akin to asking how chemistry can be used to find the roots of a quadratic equation:  It can't, because it is a question which is outside of the scope of that discipline.

so would "objective morality" prove the existence of an objective moral law giver (god) ? 

or must you "as an atheist/evolutionist" abandon the believe in "objective morality" ? 

[shirgall]

who set's the "objective rule" ? 

 

a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits ? 

so would "objective morality" prove the existence of an objective moral law giver (god) ? 

or must you "as an atheist/evolutionist" abandon the believe in "objective morality" ? 

 

Do you understand that "objective" means a judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions by only by considering and representing facts? If it doesn't mean this for you, we have no common ground on which to discuss this subject.

[notjam]

Do you understand that "objective" means a judgment not influenced by personal feelings or opinions by only by considering and representing facts? If it doesn't mean this for you, we have no common ground on which to discuss this subject.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of asubject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously withneutrality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

[shirgall]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of asubject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously withneutrality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

Therefore when I propose that potential moral dictates be judged with objective rules and you call it subjective, you are asserting what exactly?