Christians take on the more nihilistic atheists

[brewer]

"Bottom up"? Where is Vorlon when you need him.

God does not equal morals. No God does not equal no morals. End of story.

[henryp]

I don't believe in morality.  And I don't believe in the "Good for me, good for the herd" mentality.  To me, they are delusions.  Or maybe a better phrase would be a misrepresentation of reality.

Are you speaking against objective vs subjective morality or are you actually saying that humans don't make choices while considering consequences to others?

I don't believe humans make choices.  

That being said, I think humans follow the morality they make up in the same way humans follow the God they make up.  

So the distinction is the notions of morality, God, and unicorns exist, but morality, God, and unicorns don't actually exist.

Or maybe they do.  I suppose it depends on whether or not you view an irrational view of the world as 'real.'  If I have an imaginary unicorn in my head that I named Jasper, and I pretend we play fun word games together.  Would you say Jasper exists?  What if rather than pretend, I really believed Jasper was a unicorn in my head that played word games with me?  Would that make him real?

Either way, I find the idea of morality, subjective and objective, as irrational nonsense.

[henryp]

"Bottom up"? Where is Vorlon when you need him.

God does not equal morals. No God does not equal no morals. End of story.

Story back on.
Can no god ever equal no morals?  Could that be rational, or do you view some inconsistency in it?  

You guys get caught in the same arguments so often, It's hard to break away from the generic responses, I think.

[Jehanne]

In my opinion, atheism is a bottom-up philosophy as opposed to a top-down one.  The fact that where I am sitting on the Earth right now, spending my days & nights going around in a circle at approximately 750 mph is not something that was intuitively obvious to people for millennia on end.  After all, who would have thought of something like that?  And, yet, you can fit into a typical high school gym the number of individuals who would vehemently deny such a proposition and who would be willing to make a public stand for their ideas.  Ditto for consciousness, free will, "something from nothing," etc., not being "top down" conclusions but "button up" ones, having been formulated by decades of scientific evidence and thought.  I have spent my whole life of nearly 50 years open to the existence of god, and yet, god does not speak to me at all, and yet, theists would have me believe that I will encounter him/her/it once I am dead, as if death is an "experience" which, finally, brings one into a direct encounter with the divine.  However, with the range of "after death" possibilities (with annihilation being the most likely one), I don't see why I should favor one alternative (say, heaven/hell) over another (say, reincarnation) over yet another, ad infinitum.

Life has meaning and purpose because we choose to give it meaning and purpose, and, why not?  The alternatives are utter chaos; if I see a human or non-human animal suffering, I do whatever I can to help that individual.  I don't like to suffer and I don't like seeing others suffer as well, which is why we, as an organized society, mandate that 911 operators be prepared to work nights, weekends and holidays.  I don't see any reason to appeal to some sort of "high power" to justify my dislike of suffering; on the other hand, there are folks who like suffering, either themselves or watching it being inflicted on others or even inflicting such suffering themselves; we refer to such individuals as being psychos.

NO it is not a "philosophy"....... There are atheist Jews, atheist Buddhists, there are atheist who vote Republican and Libertarian and Liberal. Some atheists think "all this" being the universe is a giant living thing. I find that idea as hokey as any standard ancient woo with a human like super power. 

"Atheist" merely means "off" on god claims. Outside that our "worldviews" can be and are diverse. 

Now, if you want to argue the averages of atheists being more accepting of science, that is a better argument, but even then atheists can and do have their own woo claims as well. We don't agree on all things all the time, so it is improper to attach an "ism" to the word "atheist" or call it a "philosophy". Atheists can have philosophies, but the word itself is not an all encompassing philosophy.

Now science being a method, proves that consciousness in biological life is an emergent property and not a starting point and that life is finite. 

But that is not atheism, because like I said, Buddhists have their own superstitions and would call themselves atheists, and pantheists as well do not believe in a god, but believe "all this" is part of a bigger awareness. All can be atheists with completely different philosophies.

I probably should have used the word methodology as opposed to philosophy.  I was using "philosophy" kind of like "football coach" philosophy.  We're evidence driven critters, for the most part.  Why believe in things (such as god) for which there is no evidence?  Because, there are literally an infinite number of such "thingys" which one could believe in!  I could get a piece of wood, paint it, put flowers on it, and put it in my backyard and say that it was "god".  Who knows?  Maybe I could start a cult and have people show-up at my house for worship services!  But, I don't even take myself that seriously!

---

"Bottom up"? Where is Vorlon when you need him.

God does not equal morals. No God does not equal no morals. End of story.

Organized religion probably had an evolutionary advantage, in providing societal cohesion and group conformity.  However, do not start evangelizing the chimps!

[brewer]

Can no god ever equal no morals? 

You may need to expand on this.

God and morals are independent of each other. Yes, you can have a situation when there is no god and no morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is a god and no morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is a god and morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is no god and morals. You could break it down even further if you like. i.e. 75% god and 15% morals. What ever percentage floats your boat.

[henryp]

Can no god ever equal no morals? 

You may need to expand on this.

God and morals are independent of each other. Yes, you can have a situation when there is no god and no morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is a god and no morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is a god and morals. Yes, you can have a situation when there is no god and morals. You could break it down even further if you like. i.e. 75% god and 15% morals. What ever percentage floats your boat.

I'm not looking for a possible existence.  I'm talking about the existence we've got.  The one with 0% God.  Is a belief in no morals rational in our existence?

[Brakeman]

I don't believe humans make choices.  

WTF?? That's silly. Of course we make choices. You made a choice to respond to my text and you used your morality to temper your textural response. Morals do not have to be big issue like murder, theft, or adultery. It can be as small as agreeing on forum standards and abiding by forum rules.

That being said, I think humans follow the morality they make up in the same way humans follow the God they make up.  

So the distinction is the notions of morality, God, and unicorns exist, but morality, God, and unicorns don't actually exist.
..
Either way, I find the idea of morality, subjective and objective, as irrational nonsense.

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun: morality

   principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Google

Behavioral principles are certainly not irrational. Objective morality as exemplified by commandments from gods or claimed as natural laws are irrational and this is the basis for the Subjective vs Objective morals debates.

[brewer]

I'm not looking for a possible existence.  I'm talking about the existence we've got.  The one with 0% God.  Is a belief in no morals rational in our existence?

I've got 0% god and morals (subjective). I'm sure the percentage varies depending on the situation. Can't comment on yours or others. What do you consider rational?

[henryp]

WTF?? That's silly. Of course we make choices. You made a choice to respond to my text and you used your morality to temper your textural response. Morals do not have to be big issue like murder, theft, or adultery. It can be as small as agreeing on forum standards and abiding by forum rules.

   principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

A fun thing for me, is that I often have to pretend to believe in things I don't believe in just to engage in conversation.  So I'll waffle back and forth between what I believe and what most believe a bit in here.  Forgive me if my language gets mixed up.  It's not easy to keep track of.

Re: It's silly to suggest we don't choose:  

From your perspective it appears to be a choice.  But that could just be due to a lack of knowledge.  A rock rolls down the hill towards a tree, and we think "It might hit the tree."  With our understanding of the situation, both hitting the tree and not hitting the tree are a possibility.  But reality is that there is no uncertainty. (barring some quantum randomness).  With complete knowledge we would not see the possibility of two outcomes.

You believe I chose to respond to the text.  But we have no evidence that in our universe in that exact scenario I could have done anything else (again barring quantum randomness).  You and I just didn't know whether I would hit the tree or not, so it appears there was a choice made.

Re: Your definition of Morality.

I don't believe right/wrong or good/bad behavior.  Going back to our rock, I don't think you would attribute morality to the path the rock takes rolling down the hill.  You would never call it an evil rock, or a rock that did something morally wrong.  I assume you don't believe rocks can behave morally/immorally.  As someone who doesn't believe in free will, I can no more rationally view a human as evil than I could a rock, or the weather.  

Pretending I believe in free will:  I've chosen to be motivated by practicality.  I don't respond to you like a jerk, because I want the conversation to continue, as I receive positive feedback from talking about this stuff.  Quantifying it in terms of good or bad is trying to make it something it's not.  If you want to murder a bunch of people, that's no different than not wanting to murder a bunch of people.  Actions are just actions.  Some actions oppose my goals practically, but that doesn't make them wrong or immoral.  Instead, I favor laws.  We make practical rules to prevent unwanted behavior.  Our not wanting it doesn't make it wrong or immoral.  Just unwanted due to reality.  I don't want to die.  That is a fact.  So I will look to keep myself from being murdered.  I support laws that prevent murder in the same way I avoid crossing rickety bridges over large ravines.  Both help keep me alive.  I don't think you would call my decision not to cross the rickety bridge a moral decision?

[henryp]

I'm not looking for a possible existence.  I'm talking about the existence we've got.  The one with 0% God.  Is a belief in no morals rational in our existence?

I've got 0% god and morals (subjective). I'm sure the percentage varies depending on the situation. Can't comment on yours or others. What do you consider rational?

Rational, I'd say, would be coming to logical conclusions based on the knowledge or beliefs you have about our existence.