what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[Mister Agenda]

Largely the same places they get theirs from, with the obvious exception.

[Cato]

Despite my previous answer, I don't really run around kicking people in the balls.

The typical way I handle this is to ask my interlocutor if believers are big on stoning to death disobedient children. After the obvious answer I then point out that the standard of good and evil for believers is also extra biblical. No amount of goal post shifting or obfuscation can avoid this conclusion.

[Anomalocaris]

Atheist: From the chain of all physical events leading up to this moment.
Christian: God.

So, are you ever going to learn that you don't have the right to speak for us, or is this blindingly arrogant state you're in permanent?

No, and that is far from the only thing he would never learn.

[downbeatplumb]

what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

I'd say:

"Your mum asked me that last night while I was banging her."

Probably

[Simon Moon]

Why is morality defined as the well-being of sentient beings? That’s completely arbitrary.

Nothing arbitrary about it.

We all inhabit the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws. What hurts or hinders my well being, and ability to thrive, also has the same effect on others.

We can determine that life is preferable to death, comfort is preferable to pain, freedom is preferable to slavery, health is preferable to disease.

I don't see anything arbitrary.

[Statler Waldorf]

Somethings are universally bad, like killing people. As a social species, we need each other to live healthy lives. People who go around killing others will find themselves ostracized, regardless of what culture they come from. Though exceptions can be made, depending on the circumstances. Killing an outsider is not considered as bad as killing a family member. Even the bible says that sometimes it's ok to end someone's life sometimes.

Why is it always wrong to kill other people? Animals kill one another all of the time. Is it wrong to kill other people from other societies who are competing with yours?

If I take them seriously I answer:

….
And if they are bunch of stupid fanatics that can't conceive the idea of morals without god I say to them that my morality comes from the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

This is not even the argument being raised so you’re wasting your time. The argument is that without God atheists cannot justify their views on morality.

So by appealing to the FSM you are conceding that you need a transcendent law giver in order to have morals? Bold strategy, we’ll see if it works out for you.

It may be incomplete but it isn't arbitrary.

No, it totally is arbitrary. I could just as easily stipulate that morality is defined as whatever is most painful to other sentient beings, whatever is best for non-sentient beings, whatever is best for myself over all others, whatever is best for my children over all others’ children and so on and so forth.

Our evolved senses, as I stated in a previous reply in this thread, of empathy, reciprocation and a basic sense of fairness determine what is good and bad, in the main.

This is an example of the “is/ought” fallacy, you cannot reason from the way things are to the way things ought to be. Secondly, apparently we’ve also evolved the ability and desire to mass murder one another, rape one another, lie to one another, and torture one another. Are all of those things therefore morally good actions?

If morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct then one can say that such systems are universal (amongst human populations). One cannot say, however, that the actual values and principles are universal.

I guess we have a different definition of Universal. Who gets to stipulate their morality? The individual? Family? Society? Species?

It isn't my job to define morality. Arbitrary? Hell as an expert, grown up human being I just shoot from the hip. Do it. Don't do it. Screw it, I'm not deciding for all time or for everyone or for every conceivable situation. I'm constantly responding to complex situations. I'm not in prison yet and I'm sure not worried about hell.

It almost seems that you are agreeing with the Christians on this one. You do not seem to have a coherent definition of morality which is exactly their point.

Since your begging, is it? I thought that was what was in question.

Again, you seem to be proving my point.

We atheists keep delicate information such as our cheat sheets, propaganda and lies on a special website, it's also where all our secret plans to take over the world, dominate the education system, try and trick people into believing evolution is true, plant fake dinosaur bones and secretly start conflict between different religions.

Funny. You do not find it the least bit amusing that those who claim to be the real “free thinkers” start threads essentially asking for cue cards to read when challenged on their positions? I got a chuckle out of it myself.

But we may consider that moral, depending on the circumstances. Society may feel that killing a person who is a direct threat to you or your loved ones is a moral act. Or, uh... killing someone who was collecting firewood on the Sabbath.

…so according to your definition of morality both killings are morally good acts?

There are some actions that I find difficult to argue as not being inherently bad, such as rape. But most are going to be conditional, even if we consider them wrong in nearly every other circumstance. The wealthy company owner who cheats his employees out of a fair wage is doing something wrong. The man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family will probably be seen in a different light.

In a purely material Universe why would any act be inherently bad? Only because some people find them distasteful?

Logic does.

Oh good, well then logically prove it for me…

Because logic is universal.

Why is logic universal? How would logic being universal necessitate that morality is universal?

That doesn't mean a good act is always seen as such by the observer, or vice versa. Interpretation is something else.

Are you saying there could be morally evil acts that everyone falsely interprets as being good?

Not really, if you think about it: sentient beings, even under a theistic worldview, are the only beings capable of defining and identifying morality, and more importantly, they're the only ones capable of acting morally, and reacting to external stimuli. Without sentient beings you don't have any actors through which moral actions on either side of the spectrum can be performed, nor observed and identified.

I am not sure this is even a correct statement; fish and reptiles are sentient but hardly seem capable of making moral decisions. Also, if morality is merely defined as the well-being of sentient beings does that mean that you’d choose to save two fish over the life of one Human?
Even if what you were saying was factually accurate it is a non-sequitur. The fact that a being is capable of doing something in no way necessitates that being ought to do that thing. The fact that sentient beings are the only beings capable of having a definition of morality in no way means we ought to have any such system. Why not define morality as whatever is best for myself? Whatever is most painful for others? Whatever is best for my children? It’s completely arbitrary without God.

What else is there? In a world devoid of sentient beings, does morality even exist? To be clear, you don't think so either, since (I think, feel free to correct me) you believe morality comes from god, who is a sentient being. That morality concerns the well being of sentient life is just a corollary of the fact that sentient beings are the only objects which morality, regardless of its source, can act upon.

I do not think you actually believe this. Is it morally permissible to rape or kill someone who is unconscious since they are no longer sentient?

I like that answer.

…so there is no coherent definition of morality?

Everyone gets their morality from the same place. From within themselves, their parents, all the people involved in raising them (including school teachers, church leaders, t-ball coaches etc.), and life experiences.

…so if someone’s parents teach them that it is morally good to kill and rape others then it is morally good to kill and rape others?

Anyways I think the best rule to love by is, don't be a dick. That pretty much covers everything.

Why not? I know a lot of people who got very far in life by being dicks. Are they supposed to sacrifice their own success and well-being? Why?

Morality - such as it is - may originate from one's close-in growing up environment, then expand into one's culture and geographical location.

…so it is morally good for one culture to kill and rape another culture?

So slavery, rape, genocide, abortion, and violent murder are acceptable to Christians?
That would explain this:

Again, this is not the argument. The argument is that without God you cannot justify your belief in the existence of morality. Without God why is slavery, rape, genocide, abortion, and any type of murder morally wrong?

It's not that easy. Some of us are compatibilists.

As in you believe in the compatibility of God’s pre-ordination and man’s will?

So, are you ever going to learn that you don't have the right to speak for us, or is this blindingly arrogant state you're in permanent?

Are you saying it is morally wrong for him to speak for you? Why?

---

Largely the same places they get theirs from, with the obvious exception.

From Yahweh? I agree.

Despite my previous answer, I don't really run around kicking people in the balls.

The typical way I handle this is to ask my interlocutor if believers are big on stoning to death disobedient children. After the obvious answer I then point out that the standard of good and evil for believers is also extra biblical. No amount of goal post shifting or obfuscation can avoid this conclusion.

You’ll have to be more specific.

No, and that is far from the only thing he would never learn.

Is it morally wrong for him to speak for you? Why?

I'd say:

"Your mum asked me that last night while I was banging her."

Probably

…if you are trying to demonstrate the moral depravity of the unbeliever then well done sir.

Nothing arbitrary about it.

We all inhabit the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws. What hurts or hinders my well being, and ability to thrive, also has the same effect on others.

That’s an unprovable assumption but I will play along…

We can determine that life is preferable to death, comfort is preferable to pain, freedom is preferable to slavery, health is preferable to disease.

I don't see anything arbitrary.

How is what someone else prefers relevant? You skipped a few steps. How do you define well-being? Why only sentient beings? Why should a person do what is preferable to someone else? Why not what is preferable to them only? It’s completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's weird. I could have sworn I just posted prison statistics that clearly show more religious people have a very tenuous grasp on ethics as compared to atheists.

Strange how Waldorf ignores them in his Word Salad.

He's in fact claiming the very morality the Bible supports: slavery, rape, genocide, abortion, murder... Is only wrong with God?

It almost seems as if Waldorf Word Salad hasn't read the bible. Otherwise he would know any Christians who don't support such things are behaving ethically in spite of their religion instead of due to it.

And no matter how he tries to ignore it, and repeat that only God is the source of morality, he can't seem to explain the statistics demonstrating Christians are far more likely to end up in prison for following biblical morality.

The only explanation, it seems, is that Waldorf is attributing a person's innate conscience to God, without any support for his claim, and significant evidence against, as secular people seem to behave more ethically than the religious.

For example:

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-hu...d-religion

Any response to the above, or will e continue selectively responding and demonstrating his confirmation bias?

[Tonus]

But we may consider that moral, depending on the circumstances. Society may feel that killing a person who is a direct threat to you or your loved ones is a moral act. Or, uh... killing someone who was collecting firewood on the Sabbath.

…so according to your definition of morality both killings are morally good acts?

They would be moral to the members of the society that defined them as such. I would not call them good, as I would not personally think that it's good to kill a person in either circumstance.

There are some actions that I find difficult to argue as not being inherently bad, such as rape. But most are going to be conditional, even if we consider them wrong in nearly every other circumstance. The wealthy company owner who cheats his employees out of a fair wage is doing something wrong. The man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family will probably be seen in a different light.

In a purely material Universe why would any act be inherently bad? Only because some people find them distasteful?

My point is that few actions can be judged independent of context. Perhaps there are no actions that could be objectively labeled as bad. I pointed out one action that I cannot make conform to that idea.

[Esquilax]

I am not sure this is even a correct statement; fish and reptiles are sentient but hardly seem capable of making moral decisions.

You're looking at it backwards, is the problem: "only sentient beings are capable of taking part in moral thought," is not the same statement as "all sentient beings do take part in moral thought." The former is a subset of the latter.

Also, if morality is merely defined as the well-being of sentient beings does that mean that you’d choose to save two fish over the life of one Human?

No, because there's a progression of complexity at play here; the one human is, at least within the terms I am able to detect, more sentient than the fish. That said, if given the option I'd still prefer it that nothing died.

Even if what you were saying was factually accurate it is a non-sequitur. The fact that a being is capable of doing something in no way necessitates that being ought to do that thing. The fact that sentient beings are the only beings capable of having a definition of morality in no way means we ought to have any such system. Why not define morality as whatever is best for myself? Whatever is most painful for others? Whatever is best for my children? It’s completely arbitrary without God.

Entirely untrue: if morality only affects sentient beings- and it does, I don't think anyone here is going to argue that rocks feel the consequences of moral actions- then their reactions to the stimuli those moral actions cause form a part of one's moral determinations. You dislike pain, pain in general serves no good purpose as it denotes physical injury, so therefore pain is generally bad for sentient beings, and that forms a cornerstone of our moral systems. And to cut you off from the inevitable "that's in human terms, not god's terms," god seems to recognize that pain is bad too, as that's a part of the punishment he inflicts upon humanity in Genesis.

I really don't get why you'd consider this a nonsequitur... well, I do, but if you'd been thinking of the argument on its own terms, rather than through the prism of "everything is meaningless without god," you wouldn't consider it that at all. My given premise is that, since only sentient beings are capable of observing and taking part in moral actions, morality concerns sentient beings exclusively, it just sort of naturally follows that the welfare of sentient beings becomes a component of morality, with those actions that allow them to flourish, so that there are continued sentient minds to take part in morality, being morally good. We survive by cooperating, our lives are immediately improved by our ability to band together and delegate tasks, which is why humans specifically benefit from not being psychopaths.

I do not think you actually believe this. Is it morally permissible to rape or kill someone who is unconscious since they are no longer sentient?

I'm not going to play games with you, Stat: the person who is unconscious isn't totally non-sentient to begin with, and there is a very reasonable expectation that they will return to full consciousness in the future, potentially even during the act you perpetrate on them. We both know this, I really can't imagine why you'd think this wouldn't be my answer.

[Simon Moon]

How is what someone else prefers relevant?

It is relevant because I want to live in a society where my well being is relatively safe from others, so I care that others well being is also safe.

ow do you define well-being?

I already did.

Life, freedom, comfort, health, ability to thrive.

Why only sentient beings?

That's another discussion.

Why should a person do what is preferable to someone else?

Because a society with rules where members have a reasonable chance at well being, means that I will also have a reasonable chance at well being.

Why not what is preferable to them only?

Because I or a loved one may be a victim of their preferences that are not in line with the well being of others.

It’s completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

How is the fact that the vast majority of people prefer to; live, be pain free, not be slaves, be arbitrary?

This is not rocket science.

Here's a thought experiment that may help.

Imagine you are part of a group of people with varying backgrounds, sexes, races, and beliefs. Your group is in charge of creating a new society, but when you are finished, you have no idea if your gender, color, beliefs, etc will be the most accepted.

So, how would you go about designing this society in a way that, even if you ended up in the lowest status, with the minority race and beliefs, you would have a chance at a decent life other than maximizing well being in that society?