Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Creed of Heresy]

Golden and silver rules. They aren't objective morals, they're purely subjective, and yet they haven't led me astray.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Typical of what?

Typical for him, and those like him. I should have been more clear. And probably less annoyed by the common juvenile humor than I normally am.

[frankiej]

Typical of what?

Typical for him, and those like him. I should have been more clear. And probably less annoyed by the common juvenile humor than I normally am.

Aaaah, so you are one of those super serious types. Comedy is fun ya know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

These links are to help you understand that certain BASIC moral values are beneficial evolutionarily.

'Group selection' is generally inconsistent with the neo-Dawin synthesis. Evolutionary psychology seems prone to 'just-so-stories'. Its predictive capacity has been very limited and its most common explanations appear to be after the fact 'just-so-stories'. This does not mean other scientific approaches to morality are also unlikely, but I have noticed that both of these are the most commonly presented ideas on AF.

---

Aaaah, so you are one of those super serious types. Comedy is fun ya know.

Only when its actually funny.

[ideologue08]

Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

I for one try to avoid throwing rocks at adulterers. If there is a god and he's that pissed off about it I figure he can handle it himself. A god should not need my help.

You haven't answered the question though

What's wrong with throwing rocks at adulterers? A bit rich coming from a person who claims that there is no objective morality. You have no objective evidence that stoning adulterers is an immoral punishment.

---

Golden and silver rules. They aren't objective morals, they're purely subjective, and yet they haven't led me astray.

Well, that depends on what you call "astray" surely. An Atheist mass murderer like Stalin clearly didn't consider his actions "astray", that's the beauty of subjective morality. You can set your own limits.

[Creed of Heresy]

Well, that depends on what you call "astray" surely. An Atheist mass murderer like Stalin clearly didn't consider his actions "astray", that's the beauty of subjective morality. You can set your own limits.

Sure, but it wasn't exactly like he was alone, either. He was in power because people in his country wanted him to be in power. A majority of people, in fact. Leaders are nothing without their people. Those he killed? Minorities. Minorities who threatened him, yes, but ultimately impotent in the face of the numbers who were loyal to him. Subjective morality is, strangely, made objective by sheer numbers of like-minded individuals sharing those ideas. Ultimately you can measure what is good and what is bad by how it benefits others in balance to yourself. Closest you can get to objective morality is simply how many people agree with your ideas. Not just here and now but in the long run as well. ESPECIALLY in the long run. The long run is far more important than what is agreed upon in the here and now. There's a reason why those whose moral ideals were millenia ahead of their time are looked upon so favorably, and why those who were ignorant, hateful, and/or murderous and/or rapacious are looked upon as vile monsters to be detested and held up as an example to NOT follow.

And that reason is those who think about the future, and not the present, are those who ultimately pave the way for the betterment of humanity. And for that, we love them.

---

What's wrong with throwing rocks at adulterers? A bit rich coming from a person who claims that there is no objective morality. You have no objective evidence that stoning adulterers is an immoral punishment.

Oh naivete.

"Sir, you must understand, in my culture, we stone adulterers to death!"
"I understand, but sir, you must understand, in MY culture, we put people who stone others to death for adultery on trial, and then we lock them in prison for the rest of their lives."

[ideologue08]

Well, that depends on what you call "astray" surely. An Atheist mass murderer like Stalin clearly didn't consider his actions "astray", that's the beauty of subjective morality. You can set your own limits.

Sure, but it wasn't exactly like he was alone, either. He was in power because people in his country wanted him to be in power. A majority of people, in fact. Leaders are nothing without their people. Those he killed? Minorities. Minorities who threatened him, yes, but ultimately impotent in the face of the numbers who were loyal to him. Subjective morality is, strangely, made objective by sheer numbers of like-minded individuals sharing those ideas. Ultimately you can measure what is good and what is bad by how it benefits others in balance to yourself. Closest you can get to objective morality is simply how many people agree with your ideas. Not just here and now but in the long run as well. ESPECIALLY in the long run. The long run is far more important than what is agreed upon in the here and now. There's a reason why those whose moral ideals were millenia ahead of their time are looked upon so favorably, and why those who were ignorant, hateful, and/or murderous and/or rapacious are looked upon as vile monsters to be detested and held up as an example to NOT follow.

And that reason is those who think about the future, and not the present, are those who ultimately pave the way for the betterment of humanity. And for that, we love them.

So you are using argumentum ad populum to justify moral decisions. That's the vibe I'm getting. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

---

Well, that depends on what you call "astray" surely. An Atheist mass murderer like Stalin clearly didn't consider his actions "astray", that's the beauty of subjective morality. You can set your own limits.

Sure, but it wasn't exactly like he was alone, either. He was in power because people in his country wanted him to be in power. A majority of people, in fact. Leaders are nothing without their people. Those he killed? Minorities. Minorities who threatened him, yes, but ultimately impotent in the face of the numbers who were loyal to him. Subjective morality is, strangely, made objective by sheer numbers of like-minded individuals sharing those ideas. Ultimately you can measure what is good and what is bad by how it benefits others in balance to yourself. Closest you can get to objective morality is simply how many people agree with your ideas. Not just here and now but in the long run as well. ESPECIALLY in the long run. The long run is far more important than what is agreed upon in the here and now. There's a reason why those whose moral ideals were millenia ahead of their time are looked upon so favorably, and why those who were ignorant, hateful, and/or murderous and/or rapacious are looked upon as vile monsters to be detested and held up as an example to NOT follow.

And that reason is those who think about the future, and not the present, are those who ultimately pave the way for the betterment of humanity. And for that, we love them.

---

What's wrong with throwing rocks at adulterers? A bit rich coming from a person who claims that there is no objective morality. You have no objective evidence that stoning adulterers is an immoral punishment.

Oh naivete.

"Sir, you must understand, in my culture, we stone adulterers to death!"
"I understand, but sir, you must understand, in MY culture, we put people who stone others to death for adultery on trial, and then we lock them in prison for the rest of their lives."

Naivete? What do you mean, can you elaborate? I would like to read your explanation as to why you think you are morally correct in opposing adulterers to be stoned to death. And more importantly, why you think your brand of morality is superior to others considering your view on subjective morality.

[Creed of Heresy]

See the thing is that the ad populum argument, while a fallacy, is pretty much the closest thing you can get to any sort of "objective" morality. Objective morality, however, does not exist, so the entire argument itself ends up as a fallacy regardless. Even religious books, which claim an objective morality through an unknown entity that enforces these laws, don't actually provide an objective morality. They only provide the subjective morality of those who wrote the book. Discarding any claims that such religious books are supposedly holy and absolute, there is no way to prove that this is so, it is simply claimed, and simply claiming is not enough to actually provide morality. If it is objective morality you seek, you must provide evidence for why what is what, and utilizing something that can be neither proven nor disproven is not evidence...it is a claim, and a claim without evidence. Therefore, morality must be rendered into subjective terms.

Now, when you ask why I think I am morally correct in opposing adulterers being stoned to death, it is because it is a simple matter of why the cause must have that affect. Having sex with someone else outside of a marriage that these unprovable entities claim to be objectively sancrosanct without providing any evidence as to why that is harms who, exactly? I would like to know what the harm is, and why death must be prescribed. If you cannot [and you must provide solid evidence, something that can be tested here, because this is a human life we are talking about], then your right to claim that an adulterer must be stoned to death is hollow and baseless. Thus the argument becomes one of "I think they should be killed!" and me saying "I think they shouldn't!" We are at a subjective point. I think they should not be killed because the harm done was not one of the termination of a life.

Say I cheat on my wife. Obviously I hurt her by being dishonest. To me, a more fitting punishment would be my wife gets to fuck someone else in turn. Equal punishment, eye for an eye kind of thing. Now, eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind as they say, but the act is still justified. If she chooses not to, she can simply forgive me [which humans have the capacity to do, by the way]. Or, if she cannot forgive me, she can divorce me and find someone who will be honest, and my punishment is being single, divorced, and what with marital laws and all, missing 50% of my stuff because I caused the problem that led to the divorce. Unless we signed a pre-nup. Still, I would be single, and likely my reputation damaged as well. Pretty fitting punishments for the crime.

But killing someone because they cheated on someone is like if you spat in my face, and I shot you in the face with a Beretta. This is an escalation that is uncontrolled, brutish, savage, and born of an irrational, emotional outburst where I did not think, I just acted. And as modern society has been learning, thinking before acting is far more beneficial not just to you but to others as well. Therefore, it is good, because the more level response is more beneficial all around than the primitive, chest-beating response that our species no longer really needs to display.

[Baalzebutt]

And, in point of fact, Mo...

In the case of the adultery, you were neither directly, nor indirectly, harmed and you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to mete out punishment of any kind to those who engaged in it. That right is reserved for those who were harmed.

[pocaracas]

And, in point of fact, Mo...

In the case of the adultery, you were neither directly, nor indirectly, harmed and you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to mete out punishment of any kind to those who engaged in it. That right is reserved for those who were harmed.

hmmm... I see you used the "In the case of adultery", but this is something you can't apply to murderers.... And popular justice is almost always exaggerated and often misguided, so justice should be dealt with by a third party, aka, the judicial system.