Where do atheists get their morality from?

[greneknight]

Genkaus, why do you bother to respond to the Forum Idiot? I ignore him totally except occasionally, to tell him that he reeks of flatulence because he's filled with the Holy Fart. That's the third person of the Trinity.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I don't see any substance to your claims.

You wouldn't see substance if it bit you in the ass.

1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?

I guess that would be "god's inherent nature is good", but that falls squarely on the first horn - that the good is not determined by god. Like I said, there are no good responses.

2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?

Like I said, I don't speak for other atheists. If you were an atheist, you'd know the stupidity of doing that. How I define it is "independent of the mind" - any mind, even god's.

I see by your non-response to my other post that you still haven't extracted your head from your ass - I mean, sand.

There's much better responses than that.

The false dilemma one is particularly difficult to object to.

[greneknight]

Why would anybody bother to respond to Vinny the Dishonest Christian? He came to this forum pretending to be an atheist and it didn't take long for people to find him out. He's got Christian idiocy stamped all over his face. Plus his dishonesty reminds us all of the typical lies Christians tell. Rahab told a lie that allowed for God's soldiers to kill everyone including infants in Jericho and Hebrews praises her as a woman of faith. Dishonesty is extolled in Christianity and in our Holy Book and Vinny is just doing what the Holy Fart inspired him to do.

I'm not blasphemous when I call the Holy Spirit the Holy Fart. There is sound theological reason for this. He's also called pneuma which is Greek for "wind" and our Creed says he proceeds from the Father and the Son. That can only be flatulence. So, when Vinny reeks of flatulence, don't blame him. He's just filled with the Holy Spirit which explains why Vinny tells lies.

[genkaus]

Genkaus, why do you bother to respond to the Forum Idiot? I ignore him totally except occasionally, to tell him that he reeks of flatulence because he's filled with the Holy Fart. That's the third person of the Trinity.

The same reason I respond to other fundies - the fun factor.

---

There's much better responses than that.

The false dilemma one is particularly difficult to object to.

That's all you got? Well, I guess this concludes the debate with you officially having ignored all the points I made.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

---

What search terms should I put in?

"a serious post by genkaus"?

Somehow your search function suggestion doesn't seem to be well thought out.

Please read complete sentences before responding. I said "search function or threaded mode".

On your first claim genkaus, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I believe the question of whether you believe a God exists or not dramatically transforms what you RATIONALLY consider to be the moral way to live.

No, it doesn't. Consider DeistPaladin, whose views on morality correspond to that of an atheist while still believing in god.

If you believe the God is your source of moral values, given most classical definitions of God you become, necessarily, a moral realist (ie, God exists outside of your mind, in reality, he is the source of morality, therefore morality is outside of your mind, in reality) and objectivist (God is the source of all truth. God exists outside of the mind, therefore truth exists outside of the mind).

Now this would be the case even if you believed that God existed but chose to not worship him or obey him. The mere fact that a God exists makes him the source of morality and truth, regardless of whether you are a follower or not.

So a lot of one's morality hinges on the question of atheism, and the above ought to explain how. But you already acknowledge this in your second point, which seems you are contradicting yourself: You acknowledge that morality and belief in a deity are linked. But perhaps you mean that a belief in God does not then provide specific moral propositions. Is that your claim?

Wrong. On so many levels. How is that even possible? Allow me to go through your mistakes one by one.

1. "If god doesn't exist, then he is not the source of morality" - this is what I said. What you concluded form that was "If god exists, he is the source of morality". I forget the name of this logical fallacy, but an example would be "If it's not sunny outside, the streets are not dry" does not imply "If it's sunny, the streets are dry".

2. Even if you argue from definition (i.e. defining god as the source of morality), the only thing that would tell you is "the morality of believers is based on their belief". The correct negative of this would be "the morality of non-believers is not based on their non-belief". Which leaves the non-believers open to the plethora of worldviews to base their morality on.

3. Your definition of a moral realist is wrong. A moral realist says nothing about the source of morality, he simply attributes factual nature to moral propositions. Further, just by saying that morality exists outside your mind does not make you a moral realist.

4. An objectivist is someone who subscribes to the philosophy of objectivism - a school of thought which is inherently atheistic. Try not to tell an objectivist that he actually believes in god or you'll get punched in face.

5. The sense in which you are using the word objective is wrong as well. In fact, if one does believe that god exists, then one must necessarily be a subjectivist. Firstly, the correct form of your argument would be "God is the source of all truth. God exists outside of the mind, therefore the source of truth exists outside of the mind" - it says nothing about the truth itself. Further, another argument here is "God is the source of all truth. The truth exists inside god's mind, therefore truth exists inside of a mind, therefore, truth is subjective".

6. The same argument applies to morality as well - "God is the source of all morality. God exists outside your mind, but morality exists inside his mind and not in reality. Therefore, morality is subjective".

7. Even if belief in a deity and morality are linked (which isn't necessarily the case), non-belief in a deity and morality are most definitely not linked. I guess I'm repeating a previous point here, but it bears repeating since you made this mistake atleast four times in this post alone.

---

Is this the post you wanted me to respond to genkaus? Sorry I might have found it boring so I ignored it. I can respond to it now if you'd like.

[greneknight]

Vinny, how does it feel to be called a LIAR and not being able to defend yourself because you know it's true. You started out telling the lie that you were an atheist when the truth is you're too STUPID to be an atheist and all along, you're a brainless, unthinking, idiotic fundy. You can ignore me but I mean to expose your dishonesty to everyone until you confess that you're a liar and that the Holy Spirit of Lies inspired you to tell lies.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Vinny, how does it feel to be called a LIAR and not being able to defend yourself because you know it's true. You started out telling the lie that you were an atheist when the truth is you're too STUPID to be an atheist and all along, you're a brainless, unthinking, idiotic fundy. You can ignore me but I mean to expose your dishonesty to everyone until you confess that you're a liar and that the Holy Spirit of Lies inspired you to tell lies.

Feels like a snozberry tastes

[Polaris]

We all ultimately get our morality from religion. No matter how much many will say that religious law does not affect their morality, they are still affected by thousands of years of religious law becoming secular law. Even if the religions behind those laws are long extinct, their legacy still remains.

[Cyberman]

Quick question, if I may: entertaining for a moment the concept that "we all ultimately get our morality from religion" - where did religion get its morality from?

I ask for enlightenment, not to be arsey.

[greneknight]

We all ultimately get our morality from religion. No matter how much many will say that religious law does not affect their morality, they are still affected by thousands of years of religious law becoming secular law. Even if the religions behind those laws are long extinct, their legacy still remains.

Hi Polaris,

I thank you for being honest about the fact that you are a Christian. It's very irritating when a Christian comes here and pretends to be an atheist but everyone knows he's telling a lie. I know even you wouldn't approve of that. How can such a Christian talk about morality when he can't even be honest to begin with?

What you wrote above is incorrect. Religious laws, for example, Mosaic law, are evil, cruel, unjust and immoral. Today's laws and our justice system do not follow these cruel religious laws. What modern men do is to formulate good laws. Some of these laws may coincide with those cruel religious laws and there's all there is to it. We today are decent enough to abandon the cruel Law of Moses and ALL of us including Christians spurn the law of Moses for its obvious injustice and evil.