Questions

[Light of Truth]

Hello. This is my first official post (besides my introduction post ), so I apologize if I have asked something that another thread has answered.

I just became an Atheist maybe six months ago. Anyway, I have a friend who is devoutly Christian, and he has asked me some of the following questions, which I haven't been able to answer. I am hoping to find those answers here.

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

These are some of the things he asks me, and I am not able to defend an Atheist point of view very well. How do y'all account for human thought and morality? Thanks!

[Anomalocaris]

Hello. This is my first official post (besides my introduction post ), so I apologize if I have asked something that another thread has answered.

I just became an Atheist maybe six months ago. Anyway, I have a friend who is devoutly Christian, and he has asked me some of the following questions, which I haven't been able to answer. I am hoping to find those answers here.

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

These are some of the things he asks me, and I am not able to defend an Atheist point of view very well. How do y'all account for human thought and morality? Thanks!

1). Yes

2). They define it without make believe submission to the make believe dictates of a make believe tyrant. There is difference between right and wrong to most atheists. Truth do not come from creator for creator is false. Some atheists naturally would murder, most would not. Many theists murder in the name of their god, including those who would not have without their god.

[Tiberius]

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

All the evidence currently suggests it is.

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

Atheists define morality in numerous ways; some believe in relative morality; some, like me, believe in moral nihilism (i.e. that morality is ultimately meaningless).

It is not true that the lack of a creator means there is no truth; truth is simply the outcome of any event at a specific point in time. There is no need for a God in order for that to exist.

What I would personally argue is that there is no higher meaning, and thus any claim to morality is not absolute, even if it is based on a known truth. This doesn't mean I believe that cold blooded murder is "just fine"; it means I don't have a belief that it is "good" or "bad" in any ultimate way. I may feel bad when I hear about a cold blooded murder, but that isn't morality at work, that is my personal form of ethics.

So there is a difference between what I perceive to be right and wrong according to my own beliefs about ethics, but there isn't a difference between right and wrong according to my views on morality, since I do not believe that "right" and "wrong" are even meaningful descriptors of anything to do with morality.

[Anomalocaris]

One does not need a higher meaning for morality. There need be no ultimate good or bad for for one to adopt an effectively binding set of pragmatc good and bad.

[Autumnlicious]

I see morality as a set of behaviors that are endemic to a social species, like humans or chimpanzees, and are related to how one interacts in a group and how the group interacts relative to itself.

From the perspective of the selfish gene with a social structure factored in, you find that a lot of behaviors are justified - treating others poorly will lead them to treat you poorly, thus one would wish to enhance their success by not being an utter pillock.

Altruism between close relatives (genetic, as in brother/sister) is justified as merely allowing one or more persons to benefit at the expense of one, but since close relatives share extremely close DNA, then allowing another to succeed means you've succeeded partly, as you've spread your genetic code by proxy.

Altruism between friends is merely when one has redefined the concept of their friend's genes to be on the same importance as their own (like as in altruism between close relatives).

In my mind, there is nothing about behaviors that cannot be explained without some part of evolution butting it's head in.

But that's just me.

[theVOID]

Hello. This is my first official post (besides my introduction post ), so I apologize if I have asked something that another thread has answered.

I just became an Atheist maybe six months ago. Anyway, I have a friend who is devoutly Christian, and he has asked me some of the following questions, which I haven't been able to answer. I am hoping to find those answers here.

1.) If someone is an Atheist and believes in materialism, how do they account for thought? Is human thought just a chemical reaction?

Chemical and Electrical, Yes. Thought is a mechanism in the brain that evaluates concepts and models relative to other concepts, goals, sensory input etc. We experience this evaluation as thought and it is this experience/awareness of this process that is "consciousness", or at least part of it.

2.) If someone is an Atheist how do they define morality? Christianity's moral system is irrelevant to an Atheist, so how do they define what is right and wrong? Is there even a difference between right and wrong to an Atheist? If there is no creator of the universe, then there is no truth, so there can be no right and wrong for an Atheist, which means that an Atheist believes that cold blooded murder is just fine.

Firstly, truth has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of any person or being at all. In a world without intelligence what-so-ever truth is still what actually is. Any statement that accurately describes any aspect of anything at all is "true".

As for morality:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Good is that which fulfills the desires in question. Bad is that which thwarts the desires in question. (Good for me is that which fulfills the most and/or strongest of my desires, Good for you is that which fulfills the most and strongest of your desires - This is the common form of "good")
3. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
4. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is that which fulfills the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires (has the greatest positive value).

[Tony61]

1. The origin of thought and consciousness are tough issues and far from being solved by religionists or secularists. Biologists account these phenomenon through the process of emergence. This is not to say that there is an answer to this perplexing issue, but certainly it is not more simply answered by the concept of a Judeo-Christian deity. Another reference here.

2. Morality is easier. Morality, ethics, social interaction and behavior have been around and codified long before any extant religion. In some respects, it has been the various organized religions that have co-opted ancient morality, much of which is based on the maintenance of social order to improve quality of life and ensure communal survival. Before the Ten Commandments we had the Hammurabi Code, the Confucian Analects, and subsequently we've had the Nicomachean Ethics and countless other works not directly related to theistic belief systems. Humans are generally moral animals, the good will act good regardless of their religion, and the bad will act badly.

[Anomalocaris]

Firstly, truth has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of any person or being at all. In a world without intelligence what-so-ever truth is still what actually is. Any statement that accurately describes any aspect of anything at all is "true".

As for morality:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Good is that which fulfills the desires in question. Bad is that which thwarts the desires in question. (Good for me is that which fulfills the most and/or strongest of my desires, Good for you is that which fulfills the most and strongest of your desires - This is the common form of "good")
3. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
4. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is that which fulfills the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires (has the greatest positive value).

I would argue truth is a artifact of an perceptive mechanism evolved for the purpose of organizing mental models of the material world. Without intelligence, the rest of the material world continue to exist, and continue to behave. But the organized perception would not exist and so truth would not exist. So truth does not exist regardless of whether god exists. Truth only exist because you exist, and truth appears to be shared only because the perceptive mechanisms of your peers are similar, and when conditioned by similar social programing, generate similar communicable artifact.

[theVOID]

I would argue truth is a artifact of an perceptive mechanism evolved for the purpose of organizing mental models of the material world. Without intelligence, the rest of the material world continue to exist, and continue to behave. But the organized perception would not exist and so truth would not exist. So truth does not exist regardless of whether god exists. Truth only exist because you exist, and truth appears to be shared only because the perceptive mechanisms of your peers are similar, and when conditioned by similar social programing, generate similar communicable artifact.

That makes truth contingent upon minds, if no perceptive mechanism exist then nothing is true.

If truth is contingent upon minds then without minds A =/= ~A would be "untrue", which is false.

[lilyannerose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq7-GuiLGZ8

Here's a good discussion only the crime is "rape" and "murder" starts about two minutes in.