(September 1, 2012 at 4:24 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you are an atheist, your morality undoubtedly IS informed by atheism.

The crux of your mistake.

I don't think Atheism has anything to say about morality and it dosn't need to. Morality is something that comes completely naurally from with-in , from genetics and the conditions of your enviroment.
The enviroment part is where a religion could become an influence, but is not necessarily in a positive sense and certainly not required. If the reward of heavan makes you behave better (or the punishment of hell for that matter) that still makes you no more moral , because it is for you own sellfish reasons.
The part that dosn't sit right with me is that there is some assumption that we need to taught how to be good or we automatically default to being bad. This is of coarse nonsense and it that sense i don't only think Atheism has nothing to say on morality , i don't think religion does either.

Quote:I don't think Atheism has anything to say about morality and it doesn't need to.

You are right.Vinny is wrong,on so many levels..

(September 1, 2012 at 3:38 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 3:07 am)greneknight Wrote: I don't get it at all. Atheism doesn't allow for the legitimization of these crimes any more than science does. The way I see it is atheism has nothing to say about crimes. Neither does meteorology have anything to say about these crimes, but so what? You're not going to check with the weatherman before you step out? I don't see the relevance at all. And I'm not even an atheist.

This is a good question.

And I'm surprised it's coming from a theist. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as I've come across two or three Christians here, and they all seem to be relatively thoughtful and intelligent. We'll see as time passes.

Your contention seems to be that atheism does not inform ethics or morality. Atheism is atheism and ethics is ethics right?

Well it's more complicated than that. Positions in one field of knowledge can and often do have profound implications on other fields.

Consider naturalism. This would be a scientific position, right? (Well, technically it's a metaphysical position) Well consider how much, and how pointedly, naturalism responds to theological claims: about spirits, powers, miracles etc. A clear example of how a position in one field is profoundly relevant to a position in another.

Let's try another example: The theistic concept of god as all-good. This is a well-accepted property of most standard god-concepts. And at least in theology, Christians take it to be unquestionable. Now consider what this theological concept of an all-good, omniscient God has to say about ethics. If this concept is real, it profoundly effects our perspective of ethics. All of a sudden, we would turn to the gods for authority. Forget about gods being real- if one merely believed the theological proposition that God existed, their own ethical approach would be profoundly influenced.

Consider how medicine would change based on whether God did or didn't exist. How law would change. How economics would change... Does it seem at all plausible to say there is no connection between atheism and other beliefs then? Of course not. Our position on the matter truly has a lot to say about a lot of subjects. Most of all, morality.

Which is why we can never escape the problem of prescriptive moral relativism as an atheist. We must accept it, or work to change it.

Now just because you're a theist doesn't mean you are given a free-pass. You've surely taken plenty of flak for being a Christian (which I presume you might be). In fact, I'm surprised that you are a Christian at all. I suppose now would not be the best time to convert you to atheism, though. What, after pointing out that the status quo of atheism promotes rape apologetics and all....

This fucker is a theist pretending to be atheist and thinks he's far too clever.

We've never seen anything like that before...

---

(September 1, 2012 at 3:58 am)greneknight Wrote: [quote='Vincenzo "Vinny" G.' pid='330231' dateline='1346485126']

And it's not a safe bet that you will always have a benign vicar to do that. What if a fundy vicar takes over?

If religion and the bible was true you would never have two polar opposite vicars because there would be little to argue over and few bones of contention.

Think on.

(September 1, 2012 at 7:27 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: This fucker is a theist pretending to be atheist and thinks he's far too clever.

We've never seen anything like that before...

I never thought of that but I think there's something in what you say. Vinny seems to think atheism can influence ethics but that's rubbish. Atheism can't influence ethics any more than not believing in Santa can influence one's behaviour. The more I think of what he's said, the more I agree with you. But then why would anyone claim to be an atheist if he's not one?

(September 1, 2012 at 7:27 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: This fucker is a theist pretending to be atheist and thinks he's far too clever.

Agreed. I am pretty sure he's a Christian fundy posing as an atheist; here's a dead give-away:

Quote: Vinny G: "And atheism, being a position on the existence of God, is a worldview. And rational atheism, taking into consideration the worldview that is derived from it, has a serious moral problem."

This place is crawling with "former atheists" and atheist Poes.

(September 1, 2012 at 7:45 am)greneknight Wrote: But then why would anyone claim to be an atheist if he's not one?

So they can say stupid, nasty or illogical things in the name of atheism in order to make atheists look bad.

So they can "convert" from atheism to theism online and in front of witnesses after reviewing the "compelling evidence for god"

And lots of other reasons.

(September 1, 2012 at 9:56 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 7:45 am)greneknight Wrote: But then why would anyone claim to be an atheist if he's not one?

So they can say stupid, nasty or illogical things in the name of atheism in order to make atheists look bad.

So they can "convert" from atheism to theism online and in front of witnesses after reviewing the "compelling evidence for god"

And lots of other reasons.

Haha, maybe you should have a rule that anyone who calls himself an atheist must blaspheme God. Fake atheists might not want to do that.

(September 1, 2012 at 1:03 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 12:55 am)Red Celt Wrote: The morality of social animals is based upon reciprocity. Actions have consequences. I'm not interested in possible worlds; they are a construct of metaphysics. In this world, punching babies has consequences... and those consequences aren't devolved between theism and atheism.

Reciprocity is only one factor guiding the formation of ethical norms in a society. Certain moral duties have decidedly non-reciprocal origins and non-reciprocal expressions, such as "It is morally wrong to rape somebody, even if they raped you first and you are reciprocating." Reciprocity in this capacity does nothing to inform the problem of subjective morality that we as atheists need to grapple with: The problem that a relativistic, atheistic moral worldview RATIONALLY NECESSITATES the possibility that the raping of babies could be considered morally good.

It's not appealing, but it's true and we as atheists need to find a solution to this problem. Not by appealing to ad hoc evo-psych, but by finding ways to mitigate the subjectivity of our morality when it comes to behavior that we think ought to be wrong in all circumstances.

Vincenzo, you know about philosophy... but you don't know it well enough. You're also more than a little flimsy wrt logical fallacies. When you (later) claim that Sam Harris shares your view, as does Dawkins... you're making an appeal to authority. Harris & Dawkins are not the boss of me. Atheists do not have to take the views of authoritative atheists as a position of dogma. I also doubt that you're right when it comes to Dawkins' ethical problems with objective morality. Have you read The Selfish Gene?

Reciprocity is a stronger meme than you allow for. Rather than concentrate on babies (punch them, rape them... you don't like babies very much, do you?) who are not moral agents, how about you concentrate on the reciprocal approach of moral agents?

Atheism is the lack of belief or the belief in the lack of god(s). Assigning anything else to it (whether moral or otherwise) is a fool's errand. So why make that your errand?

(September 1, 2012 at 10:01 am)greneknight Wrote: Haha, maybe you should have a rule that anyone who calls himself an atheist must blaspheme God. Fake atheists might not want to do that.

Absolutely, though a lot of atheists would say why bother blaspheming something that I do not believe exists?

I have no problem saying "fuck you god" though.