Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[GrandizerII]

I am addressing where our moral sense comes from. yes, we agree that the man is wrong in beating his wife. The question is why do we believe that. And my position is that we are evolved to be a social species with pair bonding. Deities are not required for a moral sense to have evolved.

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim?    And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral?  I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

---

Ok, so you believe/accept it's really wrong, whether or not God existed.

A slightly different question: If God didn't exist, would beating your wife still be really wrong?

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.

How so?

If we have good reasons, independent of God or the supernatural, to believe such and such really is wrong or right, we need some immaterial thing why?

[Angrboda]

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.

Can numbers be objective in a materialist worldview? If numbers can be objective, why not morals?

(I think you're limiting yourself to specific materialist worldviews, btw, not to materialism qua materialism.)

[The Valkyrie]

I’m good without mythological beings invented by primitive people to explain what they don’t understand and then later used to control the masses through fear and threats.

Better?

[polymath257]

I am addressing where our moral sense comes from. yes, we agree that the man is wrong in beating his wife. The question is why do we believe that. And my position is that we are evolved to be a social species with pair bonding. Deities are not required for a moral sense to have evolved.

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim?    And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral?  I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

And for a non-social species, it might well be moral to force sex. But humans are a social species and that means we have certain rules of behavior to maintain the social cohesion. Those rules are *our* morality. We are also an intelligent social species, which means we like to make laws that are generalized and apply to everyone. That is based in a sense of fairness.

But, for example, it might well be moral for a race of intelligent spiders to eat their mates after sex. It is not for us.

[RoadRunner79]

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim?    And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral?  I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

And for a non-social species, it might well be moral to force sex. But humans are a social species and that means we have certain rules of behavior to maintain the social cohesion. Those rules are *our* morality. We are also an intelligent social species, which means we like to make laws that are generalized and apply to everyone. That is based in a sense of fairness.

But, for example, it might well be moral for a race of intelligent spiders to eat their mates after sex. It is not for us.

You seem to be avoiding the question... oh well.

---

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim?    And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral?  I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

---

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.

How so?

If we have good reasons, independent of God or the supernatural, to believe such and such really is wrong or right, we need some immaterial thing why?

How do you get an ought from an is? If you have good reasons, then feel free to present them.

---

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.

Can numbers be objective in a materialist worldview? If numbers can be objective, why not morals?

(I think you're limiting yourself to specific materialist worldviews, btw, not to materialism qua materialism.)

I think that you are going to have a difficult time; making a case for a material/ physical existence of numbers or morals. In the case of numbers, I’m torn on if they are objective. I think that the arguments for objective numbers are slightly favored, and often see in arguments the same mistakes as when talking about objective morality (which sddimitantly may sway me some).

As to materialist world view, I’m speaking of a view that the physical things are all that exists.

[polymath257]

And for a non-social species, it might well be moral to force sex. But humans are a social species and that means we have certain rules of behavior to maintain the social cohesion. Those rules are *our* morality. We are also an intelligent social species, which means we like to make laws that are generalized and apply to everyone. That is based in a sense of fairness.

But, for example, it might well be moral for a race of intelligent spiders to eat their mates after sex. It is not for us.

You seem to be avoiding the question... oh well

---

 Hmm....I haven't been attempting to do so. What specific question do you think I am avoiding? I have given the reasons why we have the moral feelings we have. I have expressed why those moral feelings lead to a man beating his wife to be wrong. I have described why such moral feelings in no way imply the existence of a deity. And I have pointed out that this all is consistent with materialism.
What else are you wanting me to address?

[RoadRunner79]

You seem to be avoiding the question... oh well

---

 Hmm....I haven't been attempting to do so. What specific question do you think I am avoiding? I have given the reasons why we have the moral feelings we have. I have expressed why those moral feelings lead to a man beating his wife to be wrong. I have described why such moral feelings in no way imply the existence of a deity. And I have pointed out that this all is consistent with materialism.
What else are you wanting me to address?

1.)   How you came to the conclusion that morals are the result of evolution?
2.)   Do you think that there is really something wrong with a man beating his wife, or is it just a social convention, that could have evolved otherwise? 

And I'll  some more (related)
3.)    Can something be morally wrong, in spite of social convention or popular endorsement?   Can one society or individual be judged as being more moral than another?

[GrandizerII]

How do you get an ought from an is?

Yeah, the "is-ought problem" again. You can look up Google for the various non-theistic solutions proposed.

But as far as I'm concerned, if beating your wife is wrong, then you shouldn't really do it, unless you somehow like to do things that you believe are wrong (such as hurting your poor wife).

If you have good reasons, then feel free to present them.

If you beat your wife, you're causing harm to someone who never consented to you harming her. There's nothing good about being a wife-beater.

If that's not a good reason, then you tell me what is a good reason that beating your wife is wrong. Remember you admitted that God is not needed, so there must be some reason that has nothing to do with the divine. And if God is the only reason, that's not much of a reason at all because "God decreed" doesn't do much of a job explaining why something is right/wrong.

[RoadRunner79]

How do you get an ought from an is?

Yeah, the "is-ought problem" again. You can look up Google for the various non-theistic solutions proposed.

But as far as I'm concerned, if beating your wife is wrong, then you shouldn't really do it, unless you somehow like to do things that you believe are wrong (such as hurting your poor wife).

If you have good reasons, then feel free to present them.

If you beat your wife, you're causing harm to someone who never consented to you harming her. There's nothing good about being a wife-beater.

If that's not a good reason, then you tell me what is a good reason that beating your wife is wrong. Remember you admitted that God is not needed, so there must be some reason that has nothing to do with the divine. And if God is the only reason, that's not much of a reason at all because "God decreed" doesn't do much of a job explaining why something is right/wrong.

You are just pushing the issue back to causing harm, and saying causing harm is wrong.   The question is if it is really wrong, or just a matter of individual opinion or social convention.  This doesn't get you out of the problem of objective morality.   And if you say that it is subjective, then you can't really criticize others for being immoral, other than just expressing your feelings (or whatever).

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, the "is-ought problem" again. You can look up Google for the various non-theistic solutions proposed.

But as far as I'm concerned, if beating your wife is wrong, then you shouldn't really do it, unless you somehow like to do things that you believe are wrong (such as hurting your poor wife).


If you beat your wife, you're causing harm to someone who never consented to you harming her. There's nothing good about being a wife-beater.

If that's not a good reason, then you tell me what is a good reason that beating your wife is wrong. Remember you admitted that God is not needed, so there must be some reason that has nothing to do with the divine. And if God is the only reason, that's not much of a reason at all because "God decreed" doesn't do much of a job explaining why something is right/wrong.

You are just pushing the issue back to causing harm, and saying causing harm is wrong.   The question is if it is really wrong, or just a matter of individual opinion or social convention.  This doesn't get you out of the problem of objective morality.   And if you say that it is subjective, then you can't really criticize others for being immoral, other than just expressing your feelings (or whatever).

Great, so answer my questions at the end of the quote (that you conveniently skipped)? Because let's not pretend theism is clear answer. Convince me that God is the best explanation of why beating your wife is really wrong. Or provide some other good reason yourself.