Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

I understand the moral argument: that all people have certain moral feelings and the claim that this requires a higher power that is identified with God.

My point is that this argument is deeply flawed. We have some common sensitivities because we are a moral species and have evolved to work together to some extent. Those aspects on which we agree are those that tend to evolve in social species; they are the rules that tends to keep social units functional. I point out that even other species have the basics of fairness and compassion. This shows that no 'higher power' is required, just the known aspects of how life evolves.

The objectivity of morality, such as it exists, is simply that some patterns of interaction are more likely to lead to survival in social species. Altruism is, to some extent, purely a matter of such evolution.

The argument isn't that people have moral feelings.  If they are just subjective feelings selected of a just so story, then there is no right and wrong, and morality could be entirely different.  The social conventions of those who believe black people are lesser humans and should be slaves, or that the unborn may be killed, or societal conventions of Nazi Germany is no more moral or immoral than a society that cares for the poor, and who believe in not harming another.    You can't call another society immoral and stay consistent within this framework.  I find that very few people can act as if morality is subjective, and those who do, we call sociopaths and question their mental health.  Under what you defined here, rape could be considered moral, as long as those who are preyed upon, don't interfere by killing the attacker or the child.   I can't agree to that.   I think that you can measure a society or a person as being more or less moral.   That it's not just based on the feelings or emotions, and that one that does have feelings that tend towards immorality are immoral.

Once again, there are many shared values because we *evolved* to have those values because they work for survival. That is the only sense in which they are objective.

[RoadRunner79]

The argument isn't that people have moral feelings.  If they are just subjective feelings selected of a just so story, then there is no right and wrong, and morality could be entirely different.  The social conventions of those who believe black people are lesser humans and should be slaves, or that the unborn may be killed, or societal conventions of Nazi Germany is no more moral or immoral than a society that cares for the poor, and who believe in not harming another.    You can't call another society immoral and stay consistent within this framework.  I find that very few people can act as if morality is subjective, and those who do, we call sociopaths and question their mental health.  Under what you defined here, rape could be considered moral, as long as those who are preyed upon, don't interfere by killing the attacker or the child.   I can't agree to that.   I think that you can measure a society or a person as being more or less moral.   That it's not just based on the feelings or emotions, and that one that does have feelings that tend towards immorality are immoral.

Once again, there are many shared values because we *evolved* to have those values because they work for survival. That is the only sense in which they are objective.

How did you come to that conclusion? Do you think that there is anything really wrong, with a man beating his wife to make himself feel tough?

[polymath257]

Once again, there are many shared values because we *evolved* to have those values because they work for survival. That is the only sense in which they are objective.

How did you come to that conclusion?   Do you think that there is anything really wrong, with a man beating his wife to make himself feel tough?

Once again, we have evolved to have a sense of fairness and of compassion. Those actions don't show compassion.

ALL morality is based, ultimately, on fairness, compassion, and thinking through consequences. Anything that deviates from those basics leads to immorality.

[GrandizerII]

Once again, there are many shared values because we *evolved* to have those values because they work for survival. That is the only sense in which they are objective.

How did you come to that conclusion?   Do you think that there is anything really wrong, with a man beating his wife to make himself feel tough?

Well, he's beating the shit out of his wife. What exactly is right about that?

You need God to exist for you to be convinced that it's really wrong?

[Whateverist]

Christian proselytizer: Can I interest you in my ardently held belief in a super dooper powerful deity?

Me: No, I'm good. Knock yourself out but I'll be just fine without that.

[RoadRunner79]

How did you come to that conclusion?   Do you think that there is anything really wrong, with a man beating his wife to make himself feel tough?

Once again, we have evolved to have a sense of fairness and of compassion. Those actions don't show compassion.

ALL morality is based, ultimately, on fairness, compassion, and thinking through consequences. Anything that deviates from those basics leads to immorality.

I don’t see how repeating the claim answers the question of how you came to that conclusion. I also believe that you missed the second question as well.

[polymath257]

Once again, we have evolved to have a sense of fairness and of compassion. Those actions don't show compassion.

ALL morality is based, ultimately, on fairness, compassion, and thinking through consequences. Anything that deviates from those basics leads to immorality.

I don’t see how repeating the claim answers the question of how you came to that conclusion. I also believe that you missed the second question as well.

I am addressing where our moral sense comes from. yes, we agree that the man is wrong in beating his wife. The question is why do we believe that. And my position is that we are evolved to be a social species with pair bonding. Deities are not required for a moral sense to have evolved.

[RoadRunner79]

How did you come to that conclusion?   Do you think that there is anything really wrong, with a man beating his wife to make himself feel tough?

Well, he's beating the shit out of his wife. What exactly is right about that?

You need God to exist for you to be convinced that it's really wrong?

No, not at all. I think that it is really wrong, and that God is the best explanation as a basis or foundation for that moral realism. And If some guy, doesn’t see an issue with beating his wife, I don’t see that as an argument for moral subjectivity. Because morality is not based on the subject.

[GrandizerII]

Well, he's beating the shit out of his wife. What exactly is right about that?

You need God to exist for you to be convinced that it's really wrong?

No, not at all.  I think that it is really wrong, and that God is the best explanation as a basis or foundation for that moral realism. And If some guy, doesn’t see an issue with beating his wife, I don’t see that as an argument for moral subjectivity. Because morality is not based on the subject.

Ok, so you believe/accept it's really wrong, whether or not God existed.

A slightly different question: If God didn't exist, would beating your wife still be really wrong?

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t see how repeating the claim answers the question of how you came to that conclusion. I also believe that you missed the second question as well.

I am addressing where our moral sense comes from. yes, we agree that the man is wrong in beating his wife. The question is why do we believe that. And my position is that we are evolved to be a social species with pair bonding. Deities are not required for a moral sense to have evolved.

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim? And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral? I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

---

No, not at all.  I think that it is really wrong, and that God is the best explanation as a basis or foundation for that moral realism. And If some guy, doesn’t see an issue with beating his wife, I don’t see that as an argument for moral subjectivity. Because morality is not based on the subject.

Ok, so you believe/accept it's really wrong, whether or not God existed.

A slightly different question: If God didn't exist, would beating your wife still be really wrong?

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.