Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

'If a god and an afterlife exists'. There you go. Now all you have to do is get rid of this silly preconception. I don't see why you need something to be answering us.

Answering to us? What are you on about? Have you taken a drug?
Answering to the concept. That's what I said.

I know what you said. I corrected myself.

Here's an example. We have the concept of a unicorn. But there isn't anything answering to it, so far as we can tell. Unicorns don't exist. We have the concept of one, but there aren't any out there.

I know. Just keep repeating yourself. Blah. Yes, a we have a concept of a unicorn. Never said it was a concept itself, just that we have concepts of things that don't exist.

We have a concept of morality. But if atheism is true there is nothing answering to it.

There actually are things answering too it, which many others including myself have explained earlier, and you systematically avoided answering.

So you now see the difference between a concept and the thing conceived? YOu see that having a concept of a thing does not entail that the thing is a concept? YOu see that we have a concept of a unicorn but that it doesn't follow that unicorns exist? You now see that we have a concept of morality but that it doesn't follow that morality exists?

Good, well done. You're coming along splendidly.
But then you assert that there is something answering to our concept of morality. Well, what? And remember, don't say a concept. If you say a concept then you've undone all that splendid work above.

[simplexity]

I know what you said. I corrected myself.
I know. Just keep repeating yourself. Blah. Yes, a we have a concept of a unicorn. Never said it was a concept itself, just that we have concepts of things that don't exist.
There actually are things answering too it, which many others including myself have explained earlier, and you systematically avoided answering.

So you now see the difference between a concept and the thing conceived? YOu see that having a concept of a thing does not entail that the thing is a concept? YOu see that we have a concept of a unicorn but that it doesn't follow that unicorns exist? You now see that we have a concept of morality but that it doesn't follow that morality exists?

Good, well done. You're coming along splendidly.
But then you assert that there is something answering to our concept of morality. Well, what? And remember, don't say a concept. If you say a concept then you've undone all that splendid work above.

Umm... What? Already understood all of that way before this thread or in fact before I joined this forum. I think you are confusing me with someone else. No, having a concept of a thing does not entail the thing is a concept, but until there is actual evidence otherwise, the thing is the set of coding in the mind relating to the notions of suffering(right and wrong). Or it is external 'software' acting on our minds, also relating to the notion of suffering and strength. And there is no reason without the evidence to believe otherwise. This software or coding in the mind would be what your morality is as you define it(instructions, not inescapable, but subjective), even though morality even as defined normally is only a combination of ideas(or a concept). Just because it's not always true does not mean one can not have a concept of a concept.

There needs to be no external intelligence involved in the matter of morality, although there could be, but it is not necessary.

'Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).'

Morality as defined above, does exist. We have a concept of a set of ideas. That is all. If you want to define morality differently(as inescapable instructions of 'right' and 'wrong') you can do it as many times as you wish and it will get you nowhere. And I have no problem admitting morality, as defined that way, does not exist. Because that definition is completely non-nonsensical as already reasoned out beforehand. Right and wrong from the evidence is not always the same and they themselves are based off a set of ideas/coding stemming from ourselves. This is where the evidence points.

I haven't asserted anything. Now there is another problem. You are now trying to reconcile yourself by changing words and using the word 'answering'. There are plenty of ideas stemming from the coding of the mind that constitute what we regard as morality and it has already been explained countless times in this thread. And of course you have failed to respond to those specific posts.

[fr0d0]

I assume you were previously religious and miss having an authoritative book to appeal to. And so you've decided to replace the bible with a big fat report on how a population of fools use words.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Which one?

[pocaracas]

I predicted you'd do precisely this. I assume you were previously religious and miss having an authoritative book to appeal to. And so you've decided to replace the bible with a big fat report on how a population of fools use words. You worship that catalogue of idiots' grunts if you want, but I'm not a dictionarian.

Anyway, address my arguments or go boil your head.

This is just too much. 'Catalog of idiots grunts'. Use of 'dictionarian'. No, it's called using the English language properly so others know what you mean.

[simplexity]

Yep it's murder I say! Murder!

I think the beginning of this video sums up where morality comes from. Within ourselves. As said, a sickening number of times on this thread.

[fr0d0]

hmm, I think the meaning was lost in the crossed actors there. Justice and morality are the same thing I think. The problem that posthumous judgement resolves is justice IMO. In my view, God is completely forgiving. It is in his nature to attract morality, and see that completed posthumously. IMO, the human journey is towards morality, facilitated by God.

Ah, I see. I would distinguish between justice (the virtue) and justice (the state of affairs) and morality simply because I would see 'justice' as someone getting what they deserve, yet it does not seem automatically to be the case that just because Tom deserves to come to harm that it is right to harm him. Situations can arise where we would want to say that the situation is unjust, but that no-one is doing anything wrong.

So, a just state of affairs is one where everyone gets what they deserve. A person exhibits the virtue of 'justice' when they give someone what they deserve because they deserve it when, and only when, it is right to give them what they deserve. So a just person is responsive to what someone deserves, but their responsiveness is suitably regulated by other virtues.

Re god being forgiving. I agree that a perfectly good god would be like that. Being forgiving is, I think most of us can agree, a virtue. But if the god is forgiving then her instructions do not have inescapable rational authority. She's just too nice: we lack inescapable reason to do as she instructs because, well, she isn't necessarily going to harm our interests if we fail to. So it seems to me that to explain - in the simplest and most straightforward way - why we have inescapable reason to do morality's bidding we should posit a god who is unforgiving. This is consistent with forgiveness being a virtue, as nothing prevents her from approving of forgiveness in us.

You could posit something else that might get rid of the need to make her unforgiving - perhaps rather than being vengeful she is just trying to protect us from harms that she knows it is a law of supernature will befall us if we behave in certain ways, and all she actually wants is whatever is best for us. She is, if you like, a kind of catcher in the rye.

But the problem with doing this is that it complicates the picture for no real reason apart from squaring this account with a prior conviction that a certain sort of god exists. I, of course, lack any such prior conviction and am solely interested what can be supported by evidence. As such I see no good reason to adjust the picture.

The second problem with making her forgiving is that it would become difficult to account for our sensations of moral desert. If someone does wrong it seems to most of us that it would be in some way fitting or appropriate if this person came to harm (which, as indicated above, seems consistent with at thte same time judging it to be wrong to actually mete out the harm). If we posit a vengeful god this makes perfect sense. SHe, morality, now wishes this person to come to harm - and that's what we're sensing.

I do not take what I have just said to in any way preclude that she could be perfectly morally good. I merely take the above considerations to make more reasonable the proposition that she is not. And needless to say, I would like to be mistaken about this!

I guess I find love to be central. You make a great point about justice. In my world view, forgiveness is necessary to compensate for the natural effects of free agency. Justice redresses an otherwise unobtainable balance. Your model assumes a balance of neutral justice, which is why love is illogical (I hope I'm right in proposing! ).

Alternately, you assume that forgiveness isn't always warranted/ is sometimes a free pass. This is certainly not what Xtianity proposes. Forgiveness is founded upon an acknowledgement of a moral centre. With her accepted, morality flourishes. It's the other way around... forgiveness is the natural by product of morality.

Apologies for dragging in theology.

I don't understand how people are labeling you as theist. You've stated that you lack belief. What more needs to be said on that!

[Inigo]

Yep it's murder I say! Murder!

I think the beginning of this video sums up where morality comes from. Within ourselves. As said, a sickening number of times on this thread.

No, it just commits the fallacy of confusing the cause of a belief/sensation with what the belief is about, or what the sensation is of.

My brain, I understand, causes all of my beliefs. Doesn't follow all of my beliefs are about my brain. Doesn't mean, for example, that showing I have a brain will vindicate all of my beliefs.

All of my sensations presumably require a brain in order to exist (I don't think they do - but let's not get sidetracked into philosophy of mind). It doesn't follow that all my sensations are of my brain. I see a tree, not a brain!

[genkaus]

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

Your point fails completely. We do have many moralities answering to that concept without the necessity of god or afterlife.

---

Answering to us? What are you on about? Have you taken a drug?

Answering to the concept. That's what I said.

Here's an example. We have the concept of a unicorn. But there isn't anything answering to it, so far as we can tell. Unicorns don't exist. We have the concept of one, but there aren't any out there.

So, all together now: we have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. We have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. We have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF A UNICORN BUT THERE IS NOTHING ANSWERING TO IT. (I'm bellowing that last one right into your ear).

So, having the concept of a thing isn't the same as that thing existing.
A unicorn isn't a concept. It is something we have a concept of. We have the concept of a unicorn. But unicorns don't exist. (If a unicorn just was a concept then one would have to say unicorns exist, for we certainly have the concept of a unicorn). So it isn't a concept, is it? It is something we have a concept 'of'.

We have a concept of morality. But if atheism is true there is nothing answering to it.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. We have many moralities out there answering to it.

[Inigo]

So you now see the difference between a concept and the thing conceived? YOu see that having a concept of a thing does not entail that the thing is a concept? YOu see that we have a concept of a unicorn but that it doesn't follow that unicorns exist? You now see that we have a concept of morality but that it doesn't follow that morality exists?

Good, well done. You're coming along splendidly.
But then you assert that there is something answering to our concept of morality. Well, what? And remember, don't say a concept. If you say a concept then you've undone all that splendid work above.

Umm... What? Already understood all of that way before this thread or in fact before I joined this forum. I think you are confusing me with someone else. No, having a concept of a thing does not entail the thing is a concept, but until there is actual evidence otherwise, the thing is the set of coding in the mind relating to the notions of suffering(right and wrong). Or it is external 'software' acting on our minds, also relating to the notion of suffering and strength. And there is no reason without the evidence to believe otherwise. This software or coding in the mind would be what your morality is as you define it(instructions, not inescapable, but subjective), even though morality even as defined normally is only a combination of ideas(or a concept). Just because it's not always true does not mean one can not have a concept of a concept.

There needs to be no external intelligence involved in the matter of morality, although there could be, but it is not necessary.

'Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).'

Morality as defined above, does exist. We have a concept of a set of ideas. That is all. If you want to define morality differently(as inescapable instructions of 'right' and 'wrong') you can do it as many times as you wish and it will get you nowhere. And I have no problem admitting morality, as defined that way, does not exist. Because that definition is completely non-nonsensical as already reasoned out beforehand. Right and wrong from the evidence is not always the same and they themselves are based off a set of ideas/coding stemming from ourselves. This is where the evidence points.

I haven't asserted anything. Now there is another problem. You are now trying to reconcile yourself by changing words and using the word 'answering'. There are plenty of ideas stemming from the coding of the mind that constitute what we regard as morality and it has already been explained countless times in this thread. And of course you have failed to respond to those specific posts.

You're just confusing normative ethics with metaethics. This is in essence the mistake that G.E.Moore was keen to point out and labelled 'the naturalistic fallacy'. Basically, it involves confusing what morality tells us to do and be (normative ethics) with what morality is, in itself.

This is also what I've been trying to do throughout this thread.

But, anyway, rather than pointing out your fallacious inferences I'll just point out that a concept can't issue an instruction, much less an instruction that has inescapable rational authority. So your view is, er, silly.

Morality has to be something that issues instructions, because that's what it does. And it has to be something capable of lending those instructions inescapable rational authority, because that's what moral instructions have.

[Rahul]

How does that follow? What you're now saying is that either I have explained it badly, or I have explained it well and it fails.
But you admit that you don't understand how I have reached my conclusion. So if I have not explained it badly (one of the options you allow) how would it follow that my point fails? For if I have not explained it badly and you still don't understand how I reached it, then how can you be sure my point fails? Surely all you can be sure about is that you are not very good at understanding things!

The evidence that you are not very good at understanding things is growing with every post you make.

I see you have a problem with reading comprehension. I said either your point utterly fails or you really suck at explaining it.

I'm not sure your point fails. I just know you have failed to explain it to anyone to make it seem potentially realistic.

Either way you are failing completely at convincing anyone that is laboring through this thread.

What is more likely? That no one here can understand what the fuck you are saying or you're just babbling retarded shit?

I happen to be very good at understanding things. I also scored perfect reading comprehension at my entrance exams to my university.

I can't understand crap logic, because it isn't coherent.