Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Of course. Although I find your question slightly ill-formed. God is morality, in a way.

Whatever that means.  It's one thing to derive a moral system from a magic book, or from beliefs about some silly god, but that's not morality in any way that matters to me.  

Morality
-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
-a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society
-the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.
Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

Now let's listen to the guy's wise reasoning : “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

You read that right : it's okay to kill the haemophiliac infant. And he gave a sound utilitarian argument for this position.

I am not arguing from authority here, or implying that atheists should advocate for the same ideas, but I think that this guy demonstrates that we can philosophize any moral position to the realm of acceptable if we don't have some ultimate reference.

Don't you think it might be prudent to allow for simple human error when it comes to a book?  If some scribe gets a jot or a tittle wrong god's very existence is somehow on the line?  I think we can safely set the first proposition aside as ludicrous.  The second touches on your personal view of the moral field.  If it turned out that we lived in a world with no god you would suddenly lose all ethical sense, and the world would be morally unintelligible?  I would be very interested to see how you complete this sentence.

In a world with a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is wrong.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is __________________.

In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.

That's quite the claim.  It's not as though a god needs to be present for something to be defined.  Being generous, gods may or may not exist, but we certainly do..and we define things.  Similarly, we exist and judge.  

Is your objection to humans being able to judge and define things, or that our definitions are wrong? 

Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.

I guess that's one reason to be glad that I'm not Peter Singer?   

Now let's listen to the guy's wise reasoning : “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

You read that right : it's okay to kill the haemophiliac infant. And he gave a sound utilitarian argument for this position.

I am not arguing from authority here, or implying that atheists should advocate for the same ideas, but I think that this guy demonstrates that we can philosophize any moral position to the realm of acceptable if we don't have some ultimate reference.

If you read carefully, you might see that the above does have an "ultimate reference" - total amount of happiness.  I agree with you here, though.  It's true that different rational products will follow from different moral systems, and that a moral system can be reverse engineered to justify any action.  

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

What inherent moral compass?  You're unwilling to state that skullfucking your neighbors' kid would be wrong in a world without a god.  It doesn't sound, to me, like you have one.  You believe..instead, that things are only right or wrong insomuch as a god is in or out of the room.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What inherent moral compass?  You're unwilling to state that skullfucking your neighbors' kid would be wrong in a world without a god.  It doesn't sound, to me, like you have one.  You believe..instead, that things are only right or wrong insomuch as a god is in or out of the room.

Precisely. If your moral compass is dependent on a book, there’s nothing ‘inherent’ about it (although it’s entirely possible that the authors of the book were making some sort of attempt to reflect an inherent morality).

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

They certainly were. We all are. Regardless of whether we have an inherent moral compass, and regardless of whether or not there are moral facts; we all communicate to each other as though we do, and there are.

I think that one of the more compelling a priori justifications for moral judgement is described by non natural realism. If you want to know what "bad" is, go watch a group of adults kick a child to death.

[R00tKiT]

That's quite the claim.  It's not as though a god needs to be present for something to be defined.  Being generous, gods may or may not exist, but we certainly do..and we define things.  Similarly, we exist and judge.  

Is your objection to humans being able to judge and define things, or that our definitions are wrong?

Of course we don't need religions to behave morally. As I said before, morality is a theoretical problem for atheism, not a practical one. It does become a practical problem too when it comes to more complicated social issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, etc. That's where we basically split ways. Being generous is universally regarded as good although it still lacks a justification for why it's good. And good is a very loose word itself. At least when we have holy books/theism we narrow this stuff down.
My objections is then that your definitions are wrong.

I guess that's one reason to be glad that I'm not Peter Singer?  

You still need to have good theoretical grounds to rule out his arguments.

What inherent moral compass?  You're unwilling to state that skullfucking your neighbors' kid would be wrong in a world without a god.  It doesn't sound, to me, like you have one.  You believe..instead, that things are only right or wrong insomuch as a god is in or out of the room.

Of course I can state it's wrong without god. But my statement would be meaningless, objectively speaking. Skullfucking the neighbors' kid is something I know I will never do, but the challenge is with articulating this position based on sound definitions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course we don't need religions to behave morally. As I said before, morality is a theoretical problem for atheism, not a practical one. It does become a practical problem too when it comes to more complicated social issues, such abortion, homosexuality, etc. That's where we basically split ways. Being generous is universally regarded as good although it still lacks a justification for why it's good. And good is a very loose word itself. At least when we have holy books/theism we narrow this stuff down.
My objections is then that your definitions are wrong.

There is no category of moral system that atheism poses any practical -or- theoretical problem to. Atheism is a position on god belief, not a position on morality.

Why do you think generosity is good?  Chances are I would refer to the same things.  

You still need to have good theoretical grounds to rule out his arguments.

Why?

Of course I can state it's wrong without god. But my statement would be meaningless, objectively speaking. Skullfucking the neighbors' kid is something I know I will never do, but the challenge is with articulating this position based on sound definitions.

Why would it be meaningless?  The statement means the same thing to me in a world with or without a god.  IDK, it may not mean the same thing to you, depending on whether there is or isn't a god..but it's a fair bet that it would still mean something.

Don't you think?

[R00tKiT]

There is no category of moral system that atheism poses any practical -or- theoretical problem to.  Atheism is a position on god belief, not a position on morality.

I am aware that atheism simply means the lack of believing in god. But this position has consequences, namely, that an atheist can't adhere to any moral system based on religious premises. My claim is that atheism can't have a coherent moral system. Atheists can of course endorse any moral statement, but that doesn't mean they can justify it.

Why do you think generosity is good?  Chances are I would refer to the same things. 

I actually don't know why, maybe because making other people happy increases my happiness myself. But this cute metric obviously falls apart on more subtile examples;

Generosity is good because god said so is at least a grounded response, although it seems like an "overkill".

Why would it be meaningless?  The statement means the same thing to me in a world with or without a god.  IDK, it may not mean the same thing to you, depending on whether there is or isn't a god..but it's a fair bet that it would still mean something.

Don't you think?

This something you're talking about is what I already refered to as the inherent moral compass. You know, the thing that prevents you from going out now and stabbing anyone walking, and it's generally more than just being afraid of cops. This thing can't answer all the moral issues. When the latter becomes complicated, we need more reliable moral systems, that's why I advocate for religion.

Islam gives clear answers to complicated moral issues. There is literally a really simple list of forbidden things : fornication, homosexuality, talking behind someone's back, usury/charging high interest, etc. With the absence of religion, you need to calmly listen to whores articulating their case for cheating, because it's somewhat moral - increases the whore's sexual satisfaction - as long as the poor husband doesn't find out. This kind of situations is what warrants clear definitions of what morality is, what individual freedom means, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am aware that atheism simply means the lack of believing in god. But this position has consequences, namely, that an atheist can't adhere to any moral system based on religious premises. My claim is that atheism can't have a coherent moral system. Atheists can of course endorse any moral statement, but that doesn't mean they can justify it.

No moral system is based on any religious premise.  Religious premises are added as relevant purported facts to moral systems open to all human beings regardless of their beliefs.  

For example, a person who believes that right and wrong are based on gods will and a person who believes that right and wrong are based on how happy something makes them.... are subjectivists.  

Why do you think generosity is good?  Chances are I would refer to the same things. 

I actually don't know why, maybe because making other people happy increases my happiness myself. But this cute metric obviously falls apart on more subtile examples;

Generosity is good because god said so is at least a grounded response, although it seems like an "overkill".

Grounded in subjectivism, yes.  If god said otherwise, would it be otherwise?  As a person who refers to moral facts, I don't think so.  What is good is good no matter what anyone has to say on the matter, and what is wrong is wrong no matter what anyone has to say on the matter.  That's bound up in what it means for something to be a fact.

Why would it be meaningless?  The statement means the same thing to me in a world with or without a god.  IDK, it may not mean the same thing to you, depending on whether there is or isn't a god..but it's a fair bet that it would still mean something.

Don't you think?

This something you're talking about is what I already refered to as the inherent moral compass. You know, the thing that prevents you from going out now and stabbing anyone walking, and it's generally more than just being afraid of cops. This thing can't answer all the moral issues. When the latter becomes complicated, we need more reliable moral systems, that's why I advocate for religion.

Islam gives clear answers to complicated moral issues. There is literally a really simple list of forbidden things : fornication, homosexuality, talking behind someone's back, usury/charging high interest, etc. With the absence of religion, you need to calmly listen to whores articulating their case for cheating, because it's somewhat moral - increases the whore's sexual satisfaction - as long as the poor husband doesn't find out. This kind of situations is what warrants clear definitions of what morality is, what individual freedom means, etc.

In your formulation, "skullfucking the neighbors kid is bad" would no longer mean "god told me not to skullfuck the neighbors kid".....but...what about skullfucking the neighbors kid has changed?  Anything?  Not for me, and because I'm a moral realist, who asserts that the objective facts of skullfucking are what makes it bad - not what a god has to say (or doesn't) about skullfucking...nothing relevant to the moral status of skullfucking changes when a god enters or leaves consideration.

Following?

As for clear answers, there's a huge set of clear and simple answers to questions that are wholly and irreconcilably wrong. Clarity is no certification of accuracy...and "god said so" makes nothing objectively right or wrong at all. Islam is a moral nonstarter - from a realists perspective. If you wanted to advocate for more reliable moral systems, then you'd need to start advocating for a moral system in the first place. Following orders is not a moral system. That you can't specify goodness outside of those orders very persuasively argues that you have no inherent moral sense, or compass, nor any moral agency whatsoever. If it were true, ofc...which I strongly doubt to be the case.

Little known fact. American soldiers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders - but if orders were what made something lawful, that would be incoherent. If unlawful orders are possible - orderness does not make lawfulness - and the same is true of morality. If an immoral order is possible - than orderness does not make morality. Immoral orders, like unlawful orders, are possible.

QED

[LadyForCamus]

Whatever that means.  It's one thing to derive a moral system from a magic book, or from beliefs about some silly god, but that's not morality in any way that matters to me.  

Morality
-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
-a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society
-the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.
Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

Now let's listen to the guy's wise reasoning : “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

You read that right : it's okay to kill the haemophiliac infant. And he gave a sound utilitarian argument for this position.

I am not arguing from authority here, or implying that atheists should advocate for the same ideas, but I think that this guy demonstrates that we can philosophize any moral position to the realm of acceptable if we don't have some ultimate reference.

Don't you think it might be prudent to allow for simple human error when it comes to a book?  If some scribe gets a jot or a tittle wrong god's very existence is somehow on the line?  I think we can safely set the first proposition aside as ludicrous.  The second touches on your personal view of the moral field.  If it turned out that we lived in a world with no god you would suddenly lose all ethical sense, and the world would be morally unintelligible?  I would be very interested to see how you complete this sentence.

In a world with a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is wrong.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is __________________.

In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

Why is it immoral to rape someone, Klorophyll?

[vulcanlogician]

Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people

So, I don't think it's Singer himself who is to blame for this bizarre idea, but rather it is that he staunchly advocates for utilitarianism. When most (reasonable) philosophers look at utilitarianism closely, they conclude that it is not a tenable position. But I also see where Singer is coming from, too: it's far more tenable than most other moral theories, and perhaps it has the fewest complications. Ethics is pretty messy when you get right down to it. At least someone is willing to stand knee deep in shit and try to argue for what may be right.