Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[fr0d0]

You said "God just is".

"Is" is a conjugation of the verb "be".

The definition of "be" is to exist.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=be

exist: have an existence, be extant;

In another post you said "I don't believe in God's existence, I believe in God".

Seriously, what does that mean?

You don't believe in God's existence, but he just "is" (exists).

It makes no sense.

Nice word juggling. We've been here before. 'be' doesn't apply. 'is' applies. To believe in gods existence would be to focus on that. I don't. My focus is on him, not the totally irrelevant matter of his potential and theoretical 'existence'. You say you were a Christian but had no rationality in that belief. you were crazy then. Plain and simple. You never understood what it was to believe?

I am genuinely interested. I can assure you that. If you mean genuinely interested and not skeptical then that's a different story. What is a God attribute? Can you explain it a bit more?

You want to understand something you have never encountered before? Without wanting to explore the territory? I'm skeptical. Nothing wrong with that.. it's healthy. Cutting off your nose to stop you smelling anything isn't the way to go about experiencing smell.

By 'God attribute' I was referring to the standard Christian amalgamation of attributes.

Did I commit a logical fallacy? Did I beg the question?

It seems you live logical fallacy.

What were these questions?

Legion

This is a realization leading to a leap of faith. It is contingent with an experience that leads you to a religious worldview.

This wasn't a realisation any more than an understanding of a rational position. There was never any 'experience' that lead me. My rational position reflected my thoughts. I could not help be what my rationalisation made me.

In the revelation of your own experience you (I apologize for by abrupt translation) realised what you were thinking was bullshit and changed belief to be what it always was in reality. Your rational position never altered from one of dismissal.

You're digressing from the topic a bit. I'm not saying anything about people making decisions for themselves or not. I'm asking you what experiences YOU HAVE HAD personally to affirm this belief in God. Specific examples por favor. I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else.

Nothing I have experienced affirms my belief in God. I am brutally critical of anything I experience and am very focussed on keeping it grounded. My belief is reliant upon constant application of faith. It's the journey that helps me learn what it is I'm doing.

[Shell B]

Since it has the basic elements of a world view, why do you believe it is not a world view? let me save you some time. You claim it is not a worldview because you know deep down inside that if you admitted that, you'd have to defend your inability to behave in a manner that comports with the presuppositions of the belief.

I've already explained why it does not. Here is a real definition of worldview. In the future, perhaps you could refrain from telling me why I disagree with something.

In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.

I am going to find it really difficult to have a polite conversation with someone who tries to tell me what I think and fear, based solely on the fact that I don't believe in a god or gods. However, I will try.

You are wrong. Honest debate is something that many (not all) atheists enjoy. I can easily explain why I think rape and murder are wrong, but you didn't ask, so I won't. The thing that you are missing is that I can believe that rape and murder are wrong and another atheist can be a serial killer. The only thing I and said serial killer have in common is that we don't believe in a god or gods. As for your comment about no absolute morality existing in atheism, it shows me that you lack a basic understanding of what atheism is.

[tavarish]

You said "God just is".

"Is" is a conjugation of the verb "be".

The definition of "be" is to exist.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=be

exist: have an existence, be extant;

In another post you said "I don't believe in God's existence, I believe in God".

Seriously, what does that mean?

You don't believe in God's existence, but he just "is" (exists).

It makes no sense.

Nice word juggling. We've been here before. 'be' doesn't apply. 'is' applies. To believe in gods existence would be to focus on that. I don't. My focus is on him, not the totally irrelevant matter of his potential and theoretical 'existence'. You say you were a Christian but had no rationality in that belief. you were crazy then. Plain and simple. You never understood what it was to believe?

I am genuinely interested. I can assure you that. If you mean genuinely interested and not skeptical then that's a different story. What is a God attribute? Can you explain it a bit more?

You want to understand something you have never encountered before? Without wanting to explore the territory? I'm skeptical. Nothing wrong with that.. it's healthy. Cutting off your nose to stop you smelling anything isn't the way to go about experiencing smell.

By 'God attribute' I was referring to the standard Christian amalgamation of attributes.

Did I commit a logical fallacy? Did I beg the question?

It seems you live logical fallacy.

What were these questions?

Legion

This is a realization leading to a leap of faith. It is contingent with an experience that leads you to a religious worldview.

This wasn't a realisation any more than an understanding of a rational position. There was never any 'experience' that lead me. My rational position reflected my thoughts. I could not help be what my rationalisation made me.

In the revelation of your own experience you (I apologize for by abrupt translation) realised what you were thinking was bullshit and changed belief to be what it always was in reality. Your rational position never altered from one of dismissal.

You're digressing from the topic a bit. I'm not saying anything about people making decisions for themselves or not. I'm asking you what experiences YOU HAVE HAD personally to affirm this belief in God. Specific examples por favor. I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else.

Nothing I have experienced affirms my belief in God. I am brutally critical of anything I experience and am very focussed on keeping it grounded. My belief is reliant upon constant application of faith. It's the journey that helps me learn what it is I'm doing.

Have some intellectual honesty, man.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be

Look it up.

Main Entry: be
Pronunciation: \ˈbē\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): past 1st & 3d singular was \ˈwəz, ˈwäz\; 2d singular were \ˈwər\; plural were; past subjunctive were; past participle been \ˈbin, ˈben, chiefly British ˈbēn\; present participle be·ing \ˈbē(-i)ŋ\; present 1st singular am \əm, ˈam\; 2d singular are \ˈär, ər\; 3d singular is \ˈiz, əz\; plural are; present subjunctive be.

1 a : to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : symbolize <God is love> <January is the first month> <let x be 10> b : to have identity with <the first person I met was my brother> c : to constitute the same class as d : to have a specified qualification or characterization <the leaves are green> e : to belong to the class of <the fish is a trout> —used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have an objective existence : have reality or actuality : live <I think, therefore I am> b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position <the book is on the table> c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted —used only in infinitive form <let him be> d : to take place : occur <the concert was last night> e : to come or go <has already been and gone> <has never been to the circus> f archaic : belong, befall

I'm not juggling anything, I'm pointing out the definition of the words you're using. I suggest you choose your wording more carefully. I don't care what your focus is, I'm telling you that the way you interpret words and concepts is incorrect.

I was crazy when I was a Christian because I didn't believe or rationalize my belief? Is that your claim?

I also find it hilarious that you assume I don't know what it was to believe in God. The "real" Christian argument rears its self-righteous head once again. Yet you have never outlined what it was to be a true christian specifically and what your personal beliefs on the matter were.

Christian belief is not an unknown area for me. I'm not pioneering unproven ground here. I'm genuinely interested in what makes you believe, because I like understanding what make people tick and act in the particular way that they do.

Cutting off my nose isn't the same as abandoning superstition.You're comparing something objectively demonstrable with something inherently subjective and dubious. Science with pseudoscience.

God attributes in which he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent? Something like that?

Nothing you experience affirms your faith, but you claimed to tests panning out every time in favor of God.

Your belief relies on faith to keep it going, and your faith is derived from a belief, which required a leap of faith to start it off. One giant circular reasoning snowball.


I'm realizing why no one else replies at length to your posts anymore. Your arguments hold no weight.

[Zen Badger]

Well, how about this then...standard philosophy...Worldviews are comprised of a set of a priori beliefs that serve as a filter through which we interpret information to arrive at our beliefs. At a minimum, Worldviews have a Metaphysic, an Epistemology and an Ethic. Atheism's metaphysic filter is "there are no Metaphysics". (Naturalism) It's Epistemology is "Logic and Reason". (Scientific Method) Finally it's Ethic is "Might makes right". (Majority Rules)

Since it has the basic elements of a world view, why do you believe it is not a world view? let me save you some time. You claim it is not a worldview because you know deep down inside that if you admitted that, you'd have to defend your inability to behave in a manner that comports with the presuppositions of the belief.

Speaking as an atheist/agnostic I consider it to be a worldview, it is in a way the frame through which we see and interpret the world..
but I'm confused by your next statement, are you expecting us to go berserk and start killing people for fun just because there is no divine retribution?

Do you have trouble comprehending the idea that an atheist can have a self imposed high moral code
for no other reason than he/she knows that it's right?

In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.

Yes you are right, there is no absolute morality in atheism.
But there is no absolute morality in the bible either.

A question if I may....

Who is morally superior?

A Christian who lives his live in a moral fashion because by doing so he will be rewarded in heaven.

Or..

An atheist who does the same but without expectation of reward or punishment after death.

[tackattack]

The latter, IMO

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

objectivitees Wrote: In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.

Oh dear,another one. This has become really tedious.

An Agnostic atheist ,I assert only "I do not believe in Gods"'. I make no claims of any kind 'as an atheist'.That means I have no burden of proof. I need explain ,prove ,justify exactly nothing. That honour belongs 100% to you.

Why on earth would I bother with some bloody minded apologist who lacks the wit to grasp the meaning of the word 'atheist'?

I don't know you or care about you. To be blunt, I don't care if you should spontaneously combust. Nor do I care about your personal superstitions,your apparent inability to grasp basic forms of logical argument or the quaint notion that atheists owe you something.

Disclaimer: due to age and irascability,I simply don't suffer fools. I'm terribly sorry,but really can't be bothered with you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism;disbelief in the existence of Gods (Concise Oxford Dictionary)

Nothing else is implied or may be inferred. Atheism is NOT: a world view,a religion, a moral code (or lack of one),a political ideology,a movement, a club or association.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on those making any kind of claim. This is not a mathematical or logical proof, but rather a conventionally acceptable amount of evidence that will warrant the claim. This burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge.

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

"Burden of proof" in philosophic or scientific contexts means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to provide warrant for the claim. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

[Tiberius]

Well, how about this then...standard philosophy...Worldviews are comprised of a set of a priori beliefs that serve as a filter through which we interpret information to arrive at our beliefs. At a minimum, Worldviews have a Metaphysic, an Epistemology and an Ethic. Atheism's metaphysic filter is "there are no Metaphysics". (Naturalism) It's Epistemology is "Logic and Reason". (Scientific Method) Finally it's Ethic is "Might makes right". (Majority Rules)

Ok, so you start off by admitting that the minimum requirement for being a worldview is to have a metaphysic, and epistemology, and an ethic. I can now demonstrate that atheism has none of these, and you can admit that atheism does not qualify as a worldview by your own criteria.

1) Metaphysics - You make the claim that atheism says "there is no metaphysics" yet this is blatantly untrue. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God...it does not rule out any other supernatural entities. A large percentage of atheists do not believe in the supernatural, but only because atheism tends to lead to skepticism, and skepticism allows people to reserve judgement on these things. It is not true to say, however, that atheism itself says there is no metaphysical realm. So already, "atheism" does not qualify as a worldview. Atheism has no opinion on metaphysics...it doesn't even make the claim that God doesn't exist; the basic definition of atheism is "without gods", or "lacking belief in gods".

2) Epistemology - You claim that the Scientific Method is our epistemology, yet I believe I have shown you before how this is not the case. There is not a single scientific argument that can verify atheism, nor theism. The scientific realm is empirical; it can no more speak on matters of Gods than it can on matters of invisible undetectable dragons. Atheism does not claim any position of knowledge, as it is defined as lacking a belief. Please read the difference between belief and knowledge...it might be helpful. Certain atheists may claim ultimate knowledge of the non-existence of Gods, but to label us all by those is to label all Catholics as paedophiles. You do not label people by their minority, you label them by the belief they have in common. Strong atheists (those who claim God doesn't exist) and weak atheists have one thing in common: they hold have no belief that gods exist.

3) Ethics - There is nothing in atheism to define ethics, nor do most atheists I've talked to argue that "might makes right". There are many instances where the "might" have been wrong (imo), and I do not support things that I believe are wrong. I believe in rights that are established through reasoned argument, on a principle very similar to Christianity's "do undo others...". This is why I respect the American constitution so much, why I think having a document that is held to almost "other-natural" status is a good thing. However, I think I would be right in saying that if you got 10 atheists together, and asked each one 10 different ethical questions, you'd get many different answers. Everyone has their own ethics, even true worldviews like a Christian worldview have different people disagreeing with interpretations. This is why you find Christians who are against abortion, and Christians who think to not abort in certain circumstances is a moral evil.

You claim it is not a worldview because you know deep down inside that if you admitted that, you'd have to defend your inability to behave in a manner that comports with the presuppositions of the belief.

Baseless claim...utterly baseless. I'd like to know how you can know what is inside our heads...if you'd be so kind.

In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.[/color]

You talk about honest debate, yet it you who constantly ignores are points, claims things about our way of thinking for which you have no evidence, or reason to presuppose. I, like Shell, can explain why murder and rape are wrong, even if I do not believe in absolute morality. Whether my explanation is agreed upon by others is very telling of relative morality's realistic nature in this world.

[Chad Farris]

"God just is"

Sounds like one of Daniel Dennett's deepities to me.

[Mandi]

If Atheism obtains (God does not exist) is there a source for morality other than oneself that is objective?

This is an argument I've heard from Christians. Morality or rather, a lack of, has to do with the said individuals' own "standards" for living. Not a belief in a magical being. In a sense though, religion does help with good morality, because some people have the: "I want to be a good person so that I can go to heaven" mindset so therefore they abide by the Bible and the "standards" that their religion sets down. So, in a sense I guess religion does play a role in someone's morality, but really (at least for me) it comes down to my standards for living, which have nothing to do with any religious doctrine.

[Rhizomorph13]

"God just is"

Sounds like one of Daniel Dennett's deepities to me.

It sounds more like a dee dee dee to me.