Questions

[Light of Truth]

Very interesting!

What do you mean by:

(What happened to your "Atheist" screen-name? I rather like it.)

Was this addressed to me?

[Tony61]

Very interesting!

What do you mean by:

(What happened to your "Atheist" screen-name? I rather like it.)

Was this addressed to me?

Maybe I'm having a hard time following the thread. I thought the question was asked by the guy who had called himself "Atheist". My mistake, Micah. You ask good questions... and I don't have very good answers, but they do stimulate thought.

[theVOID]

If morality cannot be subjective and there is an overall "true" morality, where does it come from? If the Big Bang created the Universe and everything since then has been random collisions of atoms, where does moral truth come from?

Firstly, one small correction. Like most Naturalists I don't at all believe the universe is "random", it's an algorithm (feedback loop) that operates under constraints (the laws of physics).

Secondly, to expand upon Moral Subjectivism VS Moral Nihilism I'll put it another way:

The only difference between moral subjectivism and moral nihilism is that the latter isn't afraid to call it opinion.

As for "where does it come from" I'm not sure that's a valid question... Morality is a standard of evaluation regarding shared values, not something in and of it's self. Is it possible to objectively determine which values are good and which are bad? I believe so. I've already responded with a condensed argument for Moral Realism, below is a slightly updated one:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. A good desire is that which fulfills the desires in question. A bad desire is that which thwarts the desires in question (common good).
3. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
4. Desires are the only objects of evaluation regarding moral value.
5. Therefore, that which is morally good is a desire that tends to fulfill the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires (has the greatest positive value).

[Light of Truth]

Ah. Very intriguing! You, and the other posters, have answered my questions.

Thank you! I wish I was that learned and articulate!

I hope by perusing the various discussions on this forum that I can become more learned in the myriad aspects of Atheism.

[Captain Scarlet]

As other posters have stated. Thought is a result of physical processes. The mind and brain are connected. To assert minds and thoughts are somehow immaterial and independent of the physical self flies in the face of evidence and experience. For instance people who suffer from brain injury can lose memeory or even change personality. How can this be the case if their minds were immaterial?

Morality is made mysterious by theists who often ask were it came from. Its casusitry I'm afraid. There is a lot of evidence that we have to behave well to one another in order to survive as a species. Just a simple thought experiment: what happens to a society who believe murder is always acceptable? They die out, therefore only societies who do not think murder is always acceptable survive. But it runs deeper than that, a more detailed sketch of human morality without the need for god can be seen in the contractairan model. It is by no means a full explanation, but is no worse than the god model and it is simpler in that it does not need to invoke a diety.

[Tony61]

But it runs deeper than that, a more detailed sketch of human morality without the need for god can be seen in the contractairan model. It is by no means a full explanation, but is no worse than the god model and it is simpler in that it does not need to invoke a diety.

Exactly. Richard Dawkins in his 1970's landmark book The Selfish Gene introduced idea of "memes", discrete units of culture which can self-replicate and mutate just like genes, therefor they are transmitted vertically from parent to child.

This model is taken further by Malcolm Gladwell who stated that memes can also be translitted horizontally within a culture, thus acting like a a virus as well. "A meme is an idea that behaves like a virus--that moves through a population, taking hold in each person it infects."

Morality, as a cultural phenomenon, is a culmination of various memes, that replicate, mutate, are selected out and infect a culture. Memes change over time, thus morality changes over time as well.

[Justtristo]

Hello. This is my first official post (besides my introduction post ), so I apologize if I have asked something that another thread has answered.

I just became an Atheist maybe six months ago. Anyway, I have a friend who is devoutly Christian, and he has asked me some of the following questions, which I haven't been able to answer. I am hoping to find those answers here.

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

Human thought is totally material, an interaction of brain neurons and chemicals.

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

Morality is nothing more than social rules human societies live by, they developed out of the inbuilt altruistic behavior humans have for family and friends as human societies became increasingly complex after the invention of agriculture. Throughout human history, different societies have had broadly similar moral values (the so called golden rule being one of them).

However are are differences in moral values between different societies, which can be attributed to totally natural causes. Anyway if Christians want to say Atheists are immoral, just reading from the scriptures (I recommend the New Testament rather than the Old) about things which are said about the following;

1. Obeying all governments (even very unjust ones)
2. Very hostile attitude towards Jews who rejected Jesus, Hitler did use the bible to partly justify the holocaust and it was a end result of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.
3. Tolerance of slavery and slaves being expected to obey their masters.
4. Sexism, with women expected to be submissive to husbands, remain quiet in church, not allowed to have positions of authority over men.
5. Homophobia (Paul's letters contain numerous homophobic remarks)

These are all positions I as an 'immoral atheist' oppose and all faithful Christians have to support. Not to mention the not so good-two shoes behavior of Jesus (calling non-Jews Dogs and cursing trees for not bearing fruit) who is supposed to be the shining example Christians have to follow in living their lives.

[Captain Scarlet]

Micah despite pointing these things out, you may be met with a 'ah but' none of these make morality objective. This is not true by the way (again see contractarianism), but is harder to expalin than the 'god did it model', unless you are an experienced ethicist. An alternative approach would be to ask questions back:

1) if god has set the moral standards, what is the objective moral truth on slavery, genocide and child abuse; all of which are condoned in the bible
2) if god has set the moral standards, what is the objective moral truth on same sex marriage, coveting wealth and atheism; all of which are condemned explicilty in the bible but all of which seem to be something that a free society should allow
3) and the meta ethical argument for atheism: If the statement god is good has any value, then morality must be independent of god. If morality is independent of god, then god is not the source of morality and god as envisaged by christianity does not exist. Therefore chrsitianity is false.

[theVOID]

Morality is made mysterious by theists who often ask were it came from. Its casusitry I'm afraid. There is a lot of evidence that we have to behave well to one another in order to survive as a species. Just a simple thought experiment: what happens to a society who believe murder is always acceptable? They die out, therefore only societies who do not think murder is always acceptable survive. But it runs deeper than that, a more detailed sketch of human morality without the need for god can be seen in the contractairan model. It is by no means a full explanation, but is no worse than the god model and it is simpler in that it does not need to invoke a diety.

1. Survival is not the only object of evaluation regarding shared values so any moral theory based on survival is false (does not consider all values). Survival based morality also requires that anything that is contrary to survival is morally wrong (unless a sub-criteria is established) making even willing death (suicide and euthanasia) morally wrong. All recreational activities that carry risk of death are also contrary to survival values.

2. Social contracts do not exist, political contracts are a 'best representation' and not a 'mutual agreement' - it is not necessarily majority either in some nations either, more like 'largest minority' and even if it was the majority or unanimous it would still be an argument from popularity: "It is true that P (moral proposition) because the majority believe that P".

Besides, Contractarianism would conclude that rape is morally right should the group in question mostly agree to it, so really it's moral relativism + a piece of paper (contract).

[Justtristo]

2) if god has set the moral standards, what is the objective moral truth on same sex marriage, coveting wealth and atheism; all of which are condemned explicilty in the bible but all of which seem to be something that a free society should allow

Damn I just realized that the New Testament condemns in many sections greed, which is actually a good thing in moderate quantities. Not to mention drives economic and technological development.