Evil Atheists

[Kayenneh]

Yet no-one has addressed the problem of subjective morality when two opposing subjective viewpoints meet.

Now, if there was such a thing as objective morality, this "conversation" wouldn't take place.

Everyone is entitled to live their life as they see fit, but that might come with some dilemmas. If you behave like and asshole, you might sooner or later be treated as one. Be kind all your life, and you might not ever be treated with kindness. Nothing is ever certain. The subjectivity comes from your own point of view, of course. You are the first person to live with your choices. I just think it's kind to try and think through one's actions as far as possible, but let's face it, not everyone can be pleased in this world. There will always be someone to object to the life you lead, so in this case a choice must be made: make decisions that you yourself can live with, or do according to yourself dubious things, that might please many more, but on the other hand will haunt you for the rest of your life. The best scenario would of course be that you do what you think is the best, and everyone around you agrees with is.

Morality is a philosophical concept, all we can do is follow actual law, and question them if they don't serve the people they were written for. To argue whether mine morality or yours is "better" or the "right" one is just as futile as two kids trying to determine if Pokémon or Digimon is better.

[Darwinian]

So far there has been a variey of responses, from "atheists are moral too" (not relevant) up to and including sky wizard hilarity (so clever). Yet no-one has addressed the problem of subjective morality when two opposing subjective viewpoints meet. Its descended into the expected undergraduate hilarious wit (see sky wizards etc) and personal attacks based on assumptions made about my personal beliefs. Is that the best that the "new atheists" can offer? I think the future of theism is safe in your hands people, just keep up the juvenile insults and avoidance of philosophical lines of questioning, repeating off the peg responses seems the be the order of the day, especially if they are non-relevant but get a round of applause from the choir...

Translation:

"I have given you a question for which I will never be satisfied with any and all answers you may give because the viewpoint that I personally hold is the only viewpoint that has any credibility and all opposing viewpoints are to be ignored or, more desirably, deliberately misunderstood in an attempt to shift attention away from the obvious irrational and woolly thinking nature of my argument so that when I leave this discussion I can tell all my friends that atheists are irrational and predictable when in reality I know full well that my argument had been completely refuted but I am too stubborn to either accept or appreciate the validity of any opposing arguments because to do so would be to agree with those whom I feel morally and intellectually superior over and that can never be allowed to happen, for I am a Christian and my interpretation of this faith is the only true path."

[Rayaan]

Translation:

"I have given you a question for which I will never be satisfied with any and all answers you may give because the viewpoint that I personally hold is the only viewpoint that has any credibility and all opposing viewpoints are to be ignored or, more desirably, deliberately misunderstood in an attempt to shift attention away from the obvious irrational and woolly thinking nature of my argument so that when I leave this discussion I can tell all my friends that atheists are irrational and predictable when in reality I know full well that my argument had been completely refuted but I am too stubborn to either accept or appreciate the validity of any opposing arguments because to do so would be to agree with those whom I feel morally and intellectually superior over and that can never be allowed to happen, for I am a Christian and my interpretation of this faith is the only true path."

That's quite a long sentence. I wonder if there's a longer version of it.

[little_monkey]

So far there has been a variey of responses, from "atheists are moral too" (not relevant) up to and including sky wizard hilarity (so clever). Yet no-one has addressed the problem of subjective morality when two opposing subjective viewpoints meet. Its descended into the expected undergraduate hilarious wit (see sky wizards etc) and personal attacks based on assumptions made about my personal beliefs. Is that the best that the "new atheists" can offer? I think the future of theism is safe in your hands people, just keep up the juvenile insults and avoidance of philosophical lines of questioning, repeating off the peg responses seems the be the order of the day, especially if they are non-relevant but get a round of applause from the choir...

I admit that I came into this thread a little late, but I did give you an answer to your scenario about your atheist "friend" lying, cheating, stabbing...

Now the problem of subjective morality when two opposing subjective viewpoints meet is a different situation. How do you resolve when a Muslim imposes his morality on a Christian? I think you know that this is a potentially dangerous situation, and if no one budges from his position, the only resolution can be war. The question is: should the world be put on the edge of armageddon because two sides claim to have the absolute truth, when in reality they are both delusional?

[Erinome]

What about the golden rule? It's been used throughout history in nearly every culture, and it's common fucking sense.

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that. I am sorry if someone already said that. I was going to read this whole thread, but my brain hurts today.

[frankiej]

I was going to read this whole thread, but my brain hurts today.

I have been following this thread since it started... It will just make your brain wish it was dead.

[Rohobian]

More of this borrowing nonsense. Provide me with evidence that morality is predated by, or in fact arises only from theism. Your morality may come from some form of theism, that does not mean that morality itself has it's origins in theism. Care to answer my question yet? On what basis do you claim superiority for your theistic source of moral authority over anyone else's theistic source for moral authority?

I'm not claiming to have moral superiority, I genuinely would like to hear a logical answer to the problem from an atheistic perspective. I have struggled with this question regarding atheism for a while and can see no adequate argument, its the main problem I have with atheism, it always seems to logically end in nihilism, i tend to be in agreement with much of what Nietzsche says on the matter. Theism seems to offer some form of common starting point on which to base morality, people may disagree but there is a common point of reference. How would two atheists resolve disputes on morality? I have yet to hear an adequate resolution to this problem.

Atheists don't require a religion to settle such disputes. Morals come from common sense. Religious people based their morals and values off of the same morals and values that other people, using common sense, came up with. Those morals and values become law, regardless of religious belief. Religion and morality are not co-dependent.

I have given you VERY logical answers, you have chosen to ignore them. Please go back and read my answers. If you don't find them logical, then I'm sorry, there is no hope for you. You are simply too stubborn, brainwashed, and set in your ways to convince otherwise. I truly mean that in the least condescending possible way. I apologize if it comes across as such.

[Skepsis]

My first problem with this is that I wouldn't call atheism a worldview. It is merely a view on a certain subject regarding a belief, the belief in God.

On that note, there would be no way to tell them that they are wrong using a moral standard derived from atheism itself, but rather from a belief you hold regarding morality. In this sense, you are more than able to be both an atheist and have anti-pragmatic views which contrast the man in the hypothetical.

It is common for theists to think that, because most atheists don't accept the silly absolute morality credence that is so often spouted by apologists, that we couldn't have a moral standard due to some set criteria.

To get the hypothetical pragmatist to abandon his views on this subject you would have to reason out the negatives to his view and explain why your view accomplishes similar things but has fewer downsides. For example:

By harming other people in your society, you will have less to fall back on when you falter, as your pragmatic/objectivist views don't include altruistic behavior. This means, of course, that because he was a jerk to attain his wellbeing, he will have less comrades to fall back on when his funds collapse or a disaster strikes.

[StatCrux]

The imaginary guy you speak of is clearly an arse... End of.

Which imaginary guy? please quote me

[DaveD]

You describe your religious views as orthodox. It is not unreasonable to suppose that you believe in one of the versions of the Abrahamic god.
That god, as described in the "holy" scriptures, is an arse.