Atheism and morality

[paulpablo]

Then I still don't know what your argument even is, I thought you were saying god must exist because of normative morality, I don't care about the in depth ins and outs of morality enough to care that I've researched into it a lot so I won't pretend I have, but from what I can gather normative morality is morality which every reasonable person should be expected to follow.

I thought your argument was normative morality requires there to be a true right or wrong, something which no human would know of since we can't decide that so a god must decide.

[Whateverist]

I DON'T CARE!!!

Yes you do

Of course he cares. Doesn't morality instruct him to care inescapably? Somebody's god is going to be very upset with him.

---

My point was that hunger, morals, teaching the next generation, its all instinctive to people.

When you think about normative morality you seem to have come to some sort of conclusion along the lines of

"No human can possibly know what is truly right or wrong, god must exist"

Rather than

"No human can possibly know what is truly right or wrong, normative morality is basically just assuming what is right and reasonable."

^ This. If you were truly looking to understand this bit about morality so that you could hang onto your new found agnosticism, there you go. Or was that all just a sham to get the atheists to take you seriously?

[Inigo]

Then I still don't know what your argument even is, I thought you were saying god must exist because of normative morality, I don't care about the in depth ins and outs of morality enough to care that I've researched into it a lot so I won't pretend I have, but from what I can gather normative morality is morality which every reasonable person should be expected to follow.

I thought your argument was normative morality requires there to be a true right or wrong, something which no human would know of since we can't decide that so a god must decide.

But I've made the argument lots of times and it bears no resemblance to the arguments you are attributing to me. For instance, I have never said 'god must exist'. I am saying that morality presupposes a god. If I am correct one could run one of either of these arguments:

1. Morality requires a god
2. Morality exists
3. A god exists

or

1. Morality requires a god
2. No gods exist
3. Morality does not exist.

Personally, I think the first argument is overall more plausible than the second. But note, the claim that morality requires a god is strictly compatible with atheism. So at no point have I argued that a god must exist.

Re 'normative' morality. A 'normative' moral theory is a theory about what morality instructs us to do and be. It is NOT a theory about what morality 'is'.

A 'metaethical' theory is a theory about what morality 'is'.

I am arguing for a metaethical position known as a divine command theory.

I am saying nothing about which acts are right and which ones wrong. That's a matter a normative moral theory tackles. Divine command theory is compatible with all normative moral theories.

[paulpablo]

But just to clarify, when you say morality you aren't talking about morality in the way someone might use the word in saying personal morals, morals that have been taught, come about by evolution of behavior or what someone senses to be right or wrong, you are talking about a right or wrong which no human would know about, which has been divinely chosen someone more powerful?

[Inigo]

But just to clarify, when you say morality you aren't talking about morality in the way someone might use the word in saying personal morals, or what someone senses to be right or wrong, you are talking about a right or wrong which no human would know about, which has been divinely chosen someone more powerful?

What is someone talking about when they talk about 'personal morals'? Are these a person's beliefs about which acts are right or wrong?

I have no clue why you attribute to me the view that morality is something the content of which no human could know about. I have never, ever said that - so I don't know where you're getting it from.

If the god morality presupposes exists then you find out what is right or wrong the regular way - you engage in NORMATIVE moral theorising. So, you try to systemise the deliverances of your moral sense reports.

What we call 'science' is just an attempt to systemise the deliverances of our sense of sight and touch.

What we call 'normative ethics' is just attempts to systemise the deliverances of our moral sense.

Perhaps we are never in a position to be able to 'know' that a given act is right, or a given act wrong. But if that's the case (and I'm not at all sure it is) this has noting to do with morality presupposing a god. Rather, it has to do with the fact (if it is a fact) that our moral sense is not sufficiently reliable.

[paulpablo]

But just to clarify, when you say morality you aren't talking about morality in the way someone might use the word in saying personal morals, or what someone senses to be right or wrong, you are talking about a right or wrong which no human would know about, which has been divinely chosen someone more powerful?

What is someone talking about when they talk about 'personal morals'? Are these a person's beliefs about which acts are right or wrong?

I have no clue why you attribute to me the view that morality is something the content of which no human could know about. I have never, ever said that - so I don't know where you're getting it from.

If the god morality presupposes exists then you find out what is right or wrong the regular way - you engage in NORMATIVE moral theorising. So, you try to systemise the deliverances of your moral sense reports.

What we call 'science' is just an attempt to systemise the deliverances of our sense of sight and touch.

What we call 'normative ethics' is just attempts to systemise the deliverances of our moral sense.

Perhaps we are never in a position to be able to 'know' that a given act is right, or a given act wrong. But if that's the case (and I'm not at all sure it is) this has noting to do with morality presupposing a god. Rather, it has to do with the fact (if it is a fact) that our moral sense is not sufficiently reliable.

When I say no human could know about I mean know for sure, as a certainty.

It still seems to me that you're basing your belief in the existence of something on what the definition of a word is, morality is inescapable rational instructions, death is inescapable, god must exist.

There's still no proof that the inescapable instructions exist, which morals are truly right or wrong or that they are are inescapable.

[genkaus]

But I've made the argument lots of times and it bears no resemblance to the arguments you are attributing to me. For instance, I have never said 'god must exist'. I am saying that morality presupposes a god. If I am correct one could run one of either of these arguments:

1. Morality requires a god
2. Morality exists
3. A god exists

or

1. Morality requires a god
2. No gods exist
3. Morality does not exist.

Personally, I think the first argument is overall more plausible than the second. But note, the claim that morality requires a god is strictly compatible with atheism. So at no point have I argued that a god must exist.

You may have repeated the argument many times - its still wrong. Morality neither presupposed nor requires a god.

Re 'normative' morality. A 'normative' moral theory is a theory about what morality instructs us to do and be. It is NOT a theory about what morality 'is'.

A 'metaethical' theory is a theory about what morality 'is'.

I am arguing for a metaethical position known as a divine command theory.

I am saying nothing about which acts are right and which ones wrong. That's a matter a normative moral theory tackles. Divine command theory is compatible with all normative moral theories.

That would be wrong as well. The divine command theory is incompatible with moral subjectivism, cultural relativism, ethical egoism, virtue ethics, utilitarianism , objectivism etc. Not only do these normative moralities not require the command theory, they are antithetical to it.

[Inigo]

That would be wrong as well. The divine command theory is incompatible with moral subjectivism, cultural relativism, ethical egoism, virtue ethics, utilitarianism , objectivism etc. Not only do these normative moralities not require the command theory, they are antithetical to it.

I said that divine command theory is compatible with each NORMATIVE moral theory. Moral subjectivism and cultural relativism are forms of metaethical theory!!

The rest are normative moral theories and divine command theory is compatible with each of them. Twit.

[ManMachine]

My confidence in the truth of atheism has been shaken by my reflections on the nature of morality. Perhaps my reflections are poor and I am making some very great mistake. But I think that morality may require a god. That doesn't show a god to exist, of course, for perhaps morality is an illusion. But it reduces its credibility to some extent.

Here is why I think morality requires a god. first, however, I want to distinguish between moral phenomena and morality itself. I use the term 'moral phenomena' to refer to moral sensations (so, the deliverances of our moral sense) and moral beliefs. I take it as beyond question that moral phenomena exist. But it does not follow that morality itself exists, for morality is not a sensation or a belief. it is the thing sensed, the thing believed. To believe an act to be wrong is to believe the act has the attribute of wrongness. One has the belief, but whether the act really has that feature - indeed, whether such a feature exists at all - remains an open question.

Anyway, here was the though that first set me off doubting atheism. Morality is normative: it instructs, favours, commands. It is not enough for it to appear to do these things. A morality that does not instruct or favour or command is no morality at all. Morality actually does these things. This seems to be a conceptual truth about morality. Yet, for the life of me I find it hard to conceive of how anything other than an agent could do such things.

I won't ramble on further - I'll just see if I've made a mistake at this early stage! (for it gets worse!)

Morality is censorship.


MM

[pocaracas]

Yep... that's because they're the same thing,.... you've created an artificial subjective distinction just so you can argue a god in there...

How can they be the same thing? How can morality be composed of beliefs? beliefs about what? Only a collection of beliefs is composed of beliefs. Anyway, I'm tired of arguing with people like you, you're not actually interested in the argument or addressing it.

Tell you what, why not just get out the old dictionary and play the pointless semantics game instead? That's what most of you prefer to proper debate.

Here, I'll get you going by telling you about how I use various terms and you can then get a dictionary - which is just a record of how morons use a word - and tell me I'm wrong and that all I'm doing is defining a god into existence, thus demonstrating your total inability to properly engage in a debate.

Here we go then......first, 'atheism'. I take atheism to be 'true' if there are no gods of any kind, and false if there are any gods (thor, Zeus, you name it). Ooo, that's got you hot under the collar hasn't it?? Yessss. You prefer an incoherent definition, that way you insulate your position against any possible refutation as one cannot attack fog.

I use 'atheist'.....wait for it.....to refer to someone who believes atheism (see above) is 'true'.

I use 'theism' to mean someone the view that a very specific kind of god exists, namely one that created the universe, is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly morally good.

Some of you will literally shit yourself at that. I hope so anyway. I hope you're sat there in shitty underwear with big veins popping out all over your neck and forehead as you start pounding away at your keyboard to tell me how silly I am and how Mr Dictionary is cross with me and will come and spank my little arse.

OK,.... that was worth it! So much LOL!
You should try for some stand up comedy.

But really... morality is just the set of morals, or since you're so fond of the expression, morality is the set of "moral beliefs"...
So.... moral beliefs (plural) equals morality.

You ask "beliefs about what?"... I don't know... you're the one who says that what everyone else calls morals are "moral beliefs". You're the one who invented this biased nomenclature. I, and others, have just been trying to make you see that the nomenclature is a bit faulty.
In the meantime, you keep calling us idiots and stupids and other such expletives, while we laugh our asses out.
As long as everyone is happy, I guess no harm is done!