The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[Mystic]

If you are not resigned to "might makes right" then some form of higher moral standard, a highest Good, is required.

Or potential of higher standards.

We don't need to realize the highest standard to have higher standards then lower ones or realize something is lower or higher.

If evolution is true and praise is partially metaphysical...then this is a lot more complicated then God simply made us in his image thing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Secular morality is based upon observation of the pain or benefit actions have upon people.

So do Christians, only we see how evil and sin destroys people from within.

[Question Mark]

Secular morality is based upon observation of the pain or benefit actions have upon people.

So do Christians, only we see how evil and sin destroys people from within.

Genuine question here, not poking fun or anything, but are you of the opinion that "evil" and "sin" are forces, or energy, or something of that nature, that inhabits an individual and, as you put it in your comment here, destroys people from within?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Genuine question here, not poking fun or anything, but are you of the opinion that "evil" and "sin" are forces, or energy, or something of that nature.

Not at all. I'm from the school that evil isn't really anything at all. It's the "absence of the good that ought to be there." For example, empathy is a good thing. A psychopath lacks that good. It's not that the psychopath has an evil force inside him, instead he lacks something. So when I talk about sin and evil destroying the soul from within, I'm thinking of the murderer who loses a little bit more of his conscience with every person he kills. Or the rake who slowly loses his capacity for true intimacy the longer he keeps whoring.

---

We don't need to realize the highest standard to have higher standards then lower ones or realize something is lower or higher.

Not sure of your exact meaning. Sure you can compare one moral code to another to see which is better, but you need to define 'better' before making your determination.

[Angrboda]

There are so many responses, and so many personal attacks and so much adolescent behavior, I am not going to reply to any more.

If you feel that you have a particularly strong objection to what I wrote, and there is no name calling, no adolescent behavior, no references to sexual organs, etc, message me and I will reply to it. You can post the reply in a public forum if you want to (I'm not afraid of debate I just don't feel like debating immature people).

Christian Morals: 0
Adolescent Hijinks: 1

[paulpablo]

If naturalism is true e.g. there is no God and the material universe, more or less, is all that exists, the naturalist is faced with two possible stances:

1. Deny the existence of the reality of any morality at all - a human being is no more valuable than an amoeba
2. Ascribe some sort of arbitrary value to human beings

3 The naturalist has a third option of having no stance on morality and just following instinctual feelings and empathy towards other humans.

to say someone has the choice of either believing in god or not being able to value human life is ridiculous.

---

also you say no matter how much is discovered we havet found any reason to help discover a reason to treat humans better.
another stupid claim.
the reason people stopped executing witches which was started by religion is because of natural empathy and science, the discovery that witches actually dont exist.
the same goes for predice against women, homosexuals and people of other religions.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Indeed.

I do not believe in god, neither do I believe that there is any particular reason for our existence, yet I probably value life as much as any theist.

I'd say more actually because the theist believes that this life is just a phase you go through, you die and continue in heaven. Never did work out why they have the same fight or flight responses as anyone else...surely that would be bred out of them with death being nothing to be scared of.

Although I believe there is no actual greater meaning to my life, it does not mean that I cannot comprehend how unique this experience is, and how finite. Therefore I value my life highly. Because of that I value others lives.

---

And if an atheist were to admit he/she is a nihilist?

What now?

That person should not vote, they should abandon all pretense of having a moral authority, they should not marry or raise a family because they will be unable to teach their children to be good people, they should not engage in any activity which requires moral reasoning, which is almost everything.

Most of all, they should never pressure anyone to accept their beliefs, because there is no ethical imperative attached to following or not following their beliefs.

---

Of course, most atheist who read this will acknowledge the contradiction involved in their "ethical atheism" and go on, continuing to exist that Christians have some sort of made up imperative to be "honest" according to the standard that atheists make up.

They may be able to do it legally, but they cannot be consistent with themselves. They should not do it without a deep sense of cynicism.

I think you might want to look up the meaning of "existential nihilism".

Just because you might think that there is no evidence of any meaning or point to existence itself, does NOT mean that you can't carry your own values on a human level.

Whether there is a reason for us being here or not, the fact is we are here and have to deal with that. That means co-operation, empathy with others, to protect our own interests.

[Question Mark]

Genuine question here, not poking fun or anything, but are you of the opinion that "evil" and "sin" are forces, or energy, or something of that nature.

Not at all. I'm from the school that evil isn't really anything at all. It's the "absence of the good that ought to be there." For example, empathy is a good thing. A psychopath lacks that good. It's not that the psychopath has an evil force inside him, instead he lacks something. So when I talk about sin and evil destroying the soul from within, I'm thinking of the murderer who loses a little bit more of his conscience with every person he kills. Or the rake who slowly loses his capacity for true intimacy the longer he keeps whoring.

In fairness, there is a legitimate and demonstrable negative effect on society from those who lack the evolutionary empathy trait. The only debatable part is if, lacking that empathy, did they have any conscience to further lose.
In fairness though, they must be stopped. It's not healthy to have murderers about. Nympohmaniacs though, I can sympathise with them. Our species is born with an innate need for sex, and some people have more addictive personalities than others.

I went without any sweets for a whole 3 weeks. Bam!

[Ryantology]

What is this horseshit about Christians valuing life? They don't and never have. Christianity is all about what happens in the next life. This life is flawed, fouled, and miserable. Of course, Christianity views misery and suffering as virtues, and the whole thing is based upon the viciously murderous Old Testament. It is the faith which tells us that God's plan involves children dying of disease, starvation, and hideous abuse. In America, it is the faith which fights vociferously for life in the womb and then completely ignores the welfare of that life once it pops out.

[Mystic]

I think it's definitely true a naturalist can value human life. But I don't think he can rational justify his properly basic beliefs of human value. I think this is why most societies resorted to belief in myth or supernatural.

Saying you value life because of your experience of it is partially true. It's part of the equation, but it's not the sole factor. The other factor is self-love and self-appreciation that by logic should be extended to other humans.

But the concept of the "self" relies on belief in "value" "praise" and "perpetual identity". What I mean by the latter, is that despite changing over time, that you are the same person as you were once a baby.

None of these are justified from a naturalistic perspective.

More over, even if there was some explanation rationally about them, most of humanity has never justified them on that basis.

Most of humanity believes in these things in a properly basic manner.

Yet we praise those who act on good morals and moral beliefs even if they haven't justified morality philosophically or scientifically.

This tells you there is something we all acknowledge here, whether we admit or not, or realize it or not.