Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

 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?

1. Because other animals have the basics of a feeling of fairness and of compassion. They also tend to be social species. And, the basics of sociality require the types of rules that *are* morality.

2. It could have evolved otherwise, but then we would be a very different species. To be *human*, with our social sensibilities and our evolutionary history, implies we respond negatively to this type of behavior.

3. Yes, one society can be regarded as being less moral than another. it all depends on what encourages human happiness and well-being. Same for individuals.

---

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).

Think of it as a matter of *species* convention. Morality isn't objective in the sense that it is determined by something outside of humans. But it is also something that is part of being human.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Sorry, I must have missed the question mark.

Physical laws can't give you an ought.   They are what they are.   You combine X and Y and get Z.   They cannot tell you, that it ought to give you "A".    For this you would need a personal transcendent authority which can say that it ought to be A, even though it is Z.  In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great. 

Their is some debate on if morality is objective.   We can't look into a microscope and find morality.   However I would argue, that almost no one behaves as if morality is subjective. That we have an innate sense of right and wrong (or good and evil if you will).  This is true of the believer and the unbeliever.

And if you are believing that morality is subjective, then you have to deal with the consequences of that view.
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php

---

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?

1. Because other animals have the basics of a feeling of fairness and of compassion. They also tend to be social species. And, the basics of sociality require the types of rules that *are* morality.

2. It could have evolved otherwise, but then we would be a very different species. To be *human*, with our social sensibilities and our evolutionary history, implies we respond negatively to this type of behavior.

3. Yes, one society can be regarded as being less moral than another. it all depends on what encourages human happiness and well-being. Same for individuals.

---

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).

Think of it as a matter of *species* convention. Morality isn't objective in the sense that it is determined by something outside of humans. But it is also something that is part of being human.

1.)   It doesn't follow that "it evolved" from this.
2.)   Ok, so from this there is no morality, it's just if it pisses others off enough to a point of preventing you from reproducing.  Nothing is really right or wrong.
3.)  How do you make that comparison if it's based on the social group?   If it's just how they happened to evolve with no telology or purpose; then you can't really make this comparison.   You are assuming an objective morality (happyness and well-being) in this argument.   What is your basis for this?  I don't think that what makes the most people happy is a good way to base mortality.

[Whateverist]

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).

Oh that's right, Christians aren't concerned with good acts.  They just have to believe that there is an objective standard, maintained by God, and know that they are hopeless sinners who can only be saved by grace.  You know, it would seem that anyone who actually subscribed to such beliefs is actually morally deficient - no matter how much they obfuscate about the lack of objective standards on the part of subjectivist, non-believers.  In regard to your question (my bolded): who the fuck cares?  We're not as obsessed with criticizing others as you seem to be.  We'll settle for decent behavior and leave the naval gazing to you.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Sorry, I must have missed the question mark.

You just needed to read that part to know that I was asking you about something, but you're too busy priding yourself in a morality that is not based on much reasoning and telling me that that's the best thing ever.

Physical laws can't give you an ought.   They are what they are.   You combine X and Y and get Z.   They cannot tell you, that it ought to give you "A".    For this you would need a personal transcendent authority which can say that it ought to be A, even though it is Z.  In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great.

Dude, you have a mind, and with that mind, you can make decisions and choices. That mind, that supposedly rational mind, of yours is what gets you an ought from is. That "ought" being dependent on such things as the goals you, and/or the community/society you are a part of, are trying to accomplish. If you want to get along with your wife, and you care about her feelings, then rational thinking will suggest to you that it's a pretty good idea not to mess with your wife and harm your relationship with her.

Their is some debate on if morality is objective.   We can't look into a microscope and find morality.   However I would argue, that almost no one behaves as if morality is subjective. That we have an innate sense of right and wrong (or good and evil if you will).  This is true of the believer and the unbeliever.

And if you are believing that morality is subjective, then you have to deal with the consequences of that view.
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php

Oh, how cute. A link and a couple of statements that don't address what I'm asking you.

Are you going to get to the juicy bits yet? Or you're stalling or what?

Give me a good reason why beating your wife (or your wife beating you) is really wrong?

[RoadRunner79]

Oh, how cute. A link and a couple of statements that don't address what I'm asking you.

Are you going to get to the juicy bits yet? Or you're stalling or what?

Give me a good reason why beating your wife (or your wife beating you) is really wrong?

The moral argument is not about how you know what is really wrong, but there are some or even one thing that is actually wrong. It's not about showing that beating your wife is wrong, in fact, I'm kind of assuming that we agree on that point. It's about ontology not epistemology. So yes, I am avoiding the parts that are not pertinent to what I was discussing. I don't want to go down rabbit trails.

[polymath257]

---

1. Because other animals have the basics of a feeling of fairness and of compassion. They also tend to be social species. And, the basics of sociality require the types of rules that *are* morality.

2. It could have evolved otherwise, but then we would be a very different species. To be *human*, with our social sensibilities and our evolutionary history, implies we respond negatively to this type of behavior.

3. Yes, one society can be regarded as being less moral than another. it all depends on what encourages human happiness and well-being. Same for individuals.

---

Think of it as a matter of *species* convention. Morality isn't objective in the sense that it is determined by something outside of humans. But it is also something that is part of being human.

1.)   It doesn't follow that "it evolved" from this.
2.)   Ok, so from this there is no morality, it's just if it pisses others off enough to a point of preventing you from reproducing.  Nothing is really right or wrong.
3.)  How do you make that comparison if it's based on the social group?   If it's just how they happened to evolve with no telology or purpose; then you can't really make this comparison.   You are assuming an objective morality (happyness and well-being) in this argument.   What is your basis for this?  I don't think that what makes the most people happy is a good way to base mortality.

1. On the contrary, the fact that it arises spontaneously in living species and is preserved does point to it being evolved. That is further supported by simple aspects of social species requiring rules (usually genetic) to structure their societies.

2. Sorry, but that is wrong. That morality doens't have the qualities you ant doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact tht things piss off enough people *is* the basis of morality in social species. But, as humans, we generalize rules for fairness, leading to 'don't piss off others' as a basic rule: in other words, be fair and have compassion.

3. I am not assuming an objective morality. I am pointing to objective *standards* for determining whether an act is harmful or not. Morality is a matter of fairness and compassion, both pointing to doing no unnecessary harm.

It isn't simply happiness. A drug induced happiness would not lead to well being: healthiness. But, promoting healthiness *is* a base for morality.

[Angrboda]

Physical laws can't give you an ought.   They are what they are.   You combine X and Y and get Z.   They cannot tell you, that it ought to give you "A".    For this you would need a personal transcendent authority which can say that it ought to be A, even though it is Z.  In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great. 

What do you mean by maximally great here?

[EgoDeath]

Unfortunately, we are still at a point in our society (assuming you are from the States or another country where some religion is highly prevalent) where we often have to actively separate ourselves from the religious people. At some point, religion will simply be a non-issue that simply doesn't need to be discussed, but until that point, we often have to explain to people that while morality is still important, we are NOT religious.

I do think that it can sometimes be harmful because we are, in a way, still attaching ourselves to religion by doing this, rather than standing alone by just stating morality is important. Unfortunately, certain things have become synonymous with religion or religious thought so it is still, at times, necessary to make the distinction on certain concepts.

[Gwaithmir]

I don't announce it, I live it.

[Abaddon_ire]

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 do you know that? If your morality comes from god, on what basis do you determine whether or not your god is moral?