[Note: it has been a week since I posted this, and there have been no comments from Atheists, delineating any moral precepts which they might have. So I will post it again; surely with the Atheist organizations claiming "good without god", some Atheists at least must have a firm grip on what "good" means within the context of Atheism. On the other hand, maybe it just depends on the situation, and "good" is merely whatever the Atheist wants it to be at a certain moment.]
Atheism comes with no moral code attached. So any moral code which an Atheist might have must come either from personal subjective invention, or it comes from the personal subjective invention of another Atheist and has been coopted. It is possible to coopt the Judeo-Christian moral code, while rejecting the moral authority which gives that code its teeth.
So the challenge here is for any or all Atheists to share your personal moral code, and then to defend it however you choose to do so.
How do you define “morals”?
What are your top ten principles for your own behaviors and attitudes?
What are your top ten principles for the behavior of others?
How many Atheists share your moral code in all aspects?
How do you define “good” and “bad”?
Is there an external, physical basis for your definitions of “good” and “bad”, and if so what is it?
Are “character” traits featured in your moral code? For yourself? For others?
What, if any, consequences attach to the failure to live to your moral code?
26 comments:
http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Ethics.htm
Conclusion
Thus, no matter which way it is turned, the sphere of atheism reflects an image of dishonesty, either intellectual, moral or both.
Therefore, a claim of honesty, either moral or intellectual, by an Atheist is a logical paradox, type 1 and type 2(b).
Atheist morality is a logical paradox.
It's a good thing I found this site. To think I'd gone so long considering myself a moral atheist without accepting the truth of that logical paradox.
I should send this to some secular Facebook page.
I give some examples in my reply to you from the last post. It's the links to the Rational Wiki site that you had dismissed out of hand earlier, if I remember correctly.
That's probably why you don't get any responses. You won't accept anything but the subjective biblegod's set of morals...no matter that he doesn't bother to live up to them himself.
So...how can you tell if god is "good" or not?
Why does it have to be "ten" principles anyway?
So...how can you tell if god is "good" or not?
Duh, 'cos God is good so therefore whatever He's said to have done (or whatever is done in His name) is good, no matter how vile or contemptible. And if you don't believe it He'll torture you because He loves you! Amen.
Reynold,
1. I don't think the lack of response is based on what I personally accept. I think it is because, like yourself, they actually have no principles other than to react to each situation in some fashion, and then call it moral, retroactively.
2. Atheists claim "good" doesn't exist; so for the Atheist it doesn't matter. Only the situation matters. So your attempt to force judgment of god is hypocritical, because you don't force "good" on yourselves, you merely declare your reactions to situations to be moral.
3. Don't like ten? Make it fourteen, or twenty seven, or seventy nine, or whatever. So far there is not even one (1). All these Atheists and not even one actual moral principle. That speaks a lot, doesn't it? (yes, it does).
Yep, atheists have no morals. They just do whatever they like and then proclaim that act to be good.
Of course they also say there is no such thing as good, so immediately we see the logical paradox in action.
The paradox is further realized when they claim that the actions of a deity are "evil", just because he drowned the entire world or some such. Completely ignoring that as a divine being he is beyond the moral judgments of humans.
Any moral basis of the atheist is completely co-opted from theistic sources. That's why all laws with true moral authority are grounded in Judeo-Christian heritage.
Moral codes such as reciprocal altruism, Kant's Categorical Imperative and similar ethical structures are impossible without invoking a deity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule
godless,
I see that you have regressed to your original childish snark so that you don't have to carry on conversations with the adults. That's really too bad; you were doing so well there for awhile. At least you use Caps now.
If you ever want to make a point for actual discussion, let us know.
Surely you've misinterpreted my tone.
I'm pretty sure almost everything I've said was a paraphrased (or direct & sourced) quote from yourself. So, I'm not sure at what point you are interpreting what I am saying as snark?
Do you disagree with anything I've stated?
If you ever want to make a point for actual discussion, let us know.
Actually I was thinking you could expand on how reciprocal altruism is merely a subjective code, with no moral authority, consequences, etc..
Stan, don't you ever run out of straw to build your strawmen from?
Seriously: Where are you getting this?
You know, the more you talk like this, the more I'm convinced that your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is a lie...you do nothing but throw out old xian canards.
Anyway, my reply is up and I figure it deals with this "issue" you've brought up here, including this idiotic claim you brought up:
3. Don't like ten? Make it fourteen, or twenty seven, or seventy nine, or whatever. So far there is not even one (1). All these Atheists and not even one actual moral principle. That speaks a lot, doesn't it? (yes, it does).
If your views on atheists is based on what you were like as an atheist, then all it shows is what you were like, and still are.
Not us.
Hello Stan , while I m looking for any argument for that Atheist have any moral source I found this article.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html
Which has many fallacies and wrong assertions. I think it can also show atheist delusions on theist moral values. If you can examine this article , it would be good .
Reynold,
Your continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative merely proves the point: Perhaps I should start calling you an Athhole, and your empty belief system, Athhole-ism.
You speak for all Athholes, do you? You must be quite the omniscient phenomenon.
But, know what? You can't get away with not addressing issues by calling them straw men (the only logic fallacy that most Athholes know).
And yes, I fully understand that you must insult rather than address issues: you have nothing to present (although I will go to your response over yonder).
As for idiotic, the claim that Athholes are good and moral, yet they cannot present even one actual Athhole principle that demonstrates "goodness", nor can they even define it... well, it is your word, and your insult.
As for following common sense, just where did that lead in the Atheist dictatorships of the 20th century? Explain how that works for all the Athholes which you represent, OK?
Cyrus,
Thanks for the link. It might take me awhile to get to it...
Your continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative merely proves the point: Perhaps I should start calling you an Athhole, and your empty belief system, Athhole-ism.
"Xian
Christian. It comes from the Greek name for Christ, Xristos, and is essentially the same notation as we commonly see with Xmas.
Another variation on this is Xtian, although the addition of the extra t is not entirely proper."
At my Catholic high school the teachers used xians to represent Christians all the time as Christians have for hundreds of years. But of course you don't know that.
Stan
Your continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative merely proves the point: Perhaps I should start calling you an Athhole, and your empty belief system, Athhole-ism
The word "xian" is an abbreviation.
Compared to the constant slander and demonization of atheists by you, that little abbreviation is literally, nothing in comparison.
So unless "Athholes" is an abbreviation, all you've done is shown that you're more childish than that guy you castigated earlier, godlessnomore
Trust me, when I choose to insult you, you will bloody know it, as one of the forum thread titles on SFN will show. There, I am insulting you. A small taste of your own medicine, as well as a description of your character. Feel free to refute that if you want.
You speak for all Athholes, do you? You must be quite the omniscient phenomenon.
Don't you speak for all atheists whenever you make your bigoted blanket statements about "the lack of empathy" and "stinginess" and "lack of a moral code" and whatnot?
Aren't you asking for someone to speak for all atheists when you put up this post asking for an "atheist moral code"?
You're asking a diverse group of people for ONE moral code. The rational wiki link I gave in the SFN reply to you has an example of a general one, but you've ignored that entire reply.
Anyway, now, when I try to answer you, you make fun of that, saying "must be quite the omniscient phenomenon."?
So what is it you want then?
But, know what? You can't get away with not addressing issues by calling them straw men (the only logic fallacy that most Athholes know).
I have answered all the "issues" you brought up in my respsonse to you.
And yes, I fully understand that you must insult rather than address issues: you have nothing to present (although I will go to your response over yonder).
Again....pot-kettle-black. Do better than this eh?
As for idiotic, the claim that Athholes are good and moral, yet they cannot present even one actual Athhole principle that demonstrates "goodness", nor can they even define it... well, it is your word, and your insult.
So again, you've ignored the links and quotes I gave and pretend that we have no morals at all. As I said earlier: If your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is true, then all you've really done by all your posts is show the lack of your character, not the lack of ours.
In my reply to you, I've given links and quotes, all of which you've so far ignored so you can keep pretending that atheists have no morals.
As for following common sense, just where did that lead in the Atheist dictatorships of the 20th century? Explain how that works for all the Athholes which you represent, OK?
Dealt with in my SFN reply.
The commies, etc only cared about power, NOT common sense or "atheism". Soviet Russia especially was bad on the sciences like genetics, by accepting Lamarckism and persecuting "darwinism".
Hitler of course, used your religion to get away with his anti-semitism. He likely wasn't one himself, but it was still your religion's legacy that he used.
"continued use of the misspelled word "Christian" as a pejorative"
When writing the name "Christ", it is quite common to abbreviate it to X or x, representing the first letter (chi) of the Greek XPICTOC khristos. For example, "xmas" is a common abbreviation of "Christmas". "Xian" just means "Christian".
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the use of the abbreviation "xian" or "xtian" for "Christian" dates back at least as far as 1634. Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian". Priests would record Christenings using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn".
So no, it's not an insult.
Take a religious studies class and trust me, you'll start using it. It's just practical common sense.
Interested parties will find stimulating information on morality at this web-link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Neuroscience
Reynold,
[I’ll reply later today or possibly tomorrow to your reply over yonder: the below is a reply just to the comments here]
The use of “xians” offends many actual Christians as does the word “Xmas”. However, that is of no importance to this blog, I suppose. You undoubtedly will continue its use regardless of the intolerance which it displays. There are no Christian works I have read or bibles which use the term; my experience is that it is used by Atheists primarily, (I don’t know about Catholics) and it is used by Atheists in a pejorative sense. Still, you may call them anything you want, but some terms of intolerance will result in being eliminated from conversations here.
Now. I admit to using the term “Atheists” improperly, and I will try not to continue that bad habit. I should be referring to Atheism and not to Atheists. The reason is that Atheism, as an assertion or proposition, is specifically a void and nothing more; Atheists are free to fill that void however they wish and with whatever they wish because the void of Atheism gives no guidance whatsoever. Especially glaring is the absolute void which Atheism, as an assertion or a proposition, presents to the Atheist on the subject of morality, the definition of morality, the definition of good and evil, whether morality actually even exists, and the sources of life, intellect, agency, and even whether those things actually exist. Atheism addresses only the issue of a deity. Nothing more.
This void allows, even necessitates, that the adherent to Atheism either create his own answers to these subjects, or accept the answers which other adherents have created for these subjects, or ignore any further thoughts regarding the consequences of Atheism. But these positions are not engendered by Atheism or a part of the proposition of Atheism, they are separate from but enabled by Atheism. Further, many of them are directly contradictory, such as Consequentialism vs. Virtue Ethics; Friedrich Nietzsche’s Anti-Rationalism vs. Scientism; Deontology vs. Aristotelian Peripatetics; Kantianism vs. Relativism; and so on. Wikipedia lists 91 Ethical Theories to choose from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethical_theories
Rigorous analysis by comparison of each ethic against the other, including possible combinations of ethics would be 91 factorial analyses, and it is dubious that such a thought process or anything near it has been done by many Atheists. So rather than based on rational analysis of available concepts, it seems more likely that personal proclivity comes into play in choosing an ethic to accompany and fill one’s Atheism void.
So, since Kant’s idea of what is “good” is at odds with Consequentialism’s concept of “good”, and Nietzsche denies that “good” even exists and favors “will to power” instead, then for adherents of Atheism to claim that Atheists are “good without god”, is either absurd, false, or it is tautological. Without a single definition of “goodness”, the claim cannot be valid that all “Atheists are good without god”, unless Atheism is tautological with “good”, which is both absurd and false.
This is the basis for the claim that knowing merely that a person is an Atheist gives no hint of what that person’s personal ethical/moral theory might be, or even if that person actually has a moral theory at all. Further, there is no reason to believe that whatever the Atheist’s moral theory is today will be the Atheist’s moral theory tonight.
”Don't you speak for all atheists whenever you make your bigoted blanket statements about "the lack of empathy" and "stinginess" and "lack of a moral code" and whatnot?”
When Atheists proudly claim their superior empathy and morality, my response is to give the actual evidence regarding those claims; then you call that response bigoted. So far in the past several days you have called me a liar, an idiot, and a bigot. Elsewhere you apparently attack my character. You apparently cannot refute (Note 1) any of the evidence, so you ridicule, which is a staple of Atheism a la’ PZ “ridicule works” Meyers, and a favored technique of that faction. Unless you can refute the evidence, you have no grounds for your charge of bigotry. In all of this your apparent rationality is suffering terribly, especially since you make no positive case for your own positions, and have produced no sense of any moral theory. Merely calling me an idiot, bigot, liar, etc is not in any fashion rational positive argument for any position which you might hold, or at least want us to think that you hold.
”Aren't you asking for someone to speak for all atheists when you put up this post asking for an "atheist moral code"?”
Of course not; I am asking for Atheists to present their individual Atheist moral code. Nice try though.
”You're asking a diverse group of people for ONE moral code. The rational wiki link I gave in the SFN reply to you has an example of a general one, but you've ignored that entire reply.”
Of course I didn’t ask for a single code, I asked specifically for a “personal moral code”; read it all the way through, or at least up to the second paragraph.
I’m on someone else’s computer now, and I haven’t had time to read your reply. Be patient, it’s a virtue (oh wait, maybe not: I’ll have to read your reply to find out what virtues exist, if any).
”So what is it you want then?”
Read the actual request… sheesh.
”And yes, I fully understand that you must insult rather than address issues: you have nothing to present (although I will go to your response over yonder).
Again....pot-kettle-black. Do better than this eh?”
This merits discussion.
You have called me a liar, bigot, idiot and have attacked my character.
I have presented actual evidence regarding polling data on actual Atheists and their responses. This actual data has insulted you. So you call me liar, idiot, bigot, etc., based on your apparent embarrassment by the actual, factual data.
And you see no difference.
” So again, you've ignored the links and quotes I gave and pretend that we have no morals at all. As I said earlier: If your claim of being an atheist for 40 years is true, then all you've really done by all your posts is show the lack of your character, not the lack of ours.”
And again, Atheism has no morals attached to it. That is a raw fact. Your refusal to accept that fact is causing you to attack my character. If you cannot accept raw facts, then you are certainly not “fact based”, as many Atheists claim to be.
If you wish to submit a rational answer, you must demonstrate that the Atheist principle, “there is no god”, or even the agnostic principle, “there probably is no god, pending material data which I find congenial”, or the recent intellectual dodge, “I gots no god ideas in my head”, is a moral or ethical statement. Because that is all there is to the void of Atheism. There is absolutely nothing more to the void of Atheism: read Nietzsche (the only honest Atheist, in my opinion); anything which is added to those principles is NOT Atheism, it is added to Atheism. Atheism is the void, a void which can be filled with any ethic whatsoever, or absolutely no ethic at all. And that is what you need to argue against. Or call me more names or whatever.
”The commies, etc only cared about power, NOT common sense or "atheism". Soviet Russia especially was bad on the sciences like genetics, by accepting Lamarckism and persecuting "darwinism".”
The Soviets, the Maoists, the Pol Pot Atheists were enabled by the void of Atheism. They added Consequentialism to their Atheism, and as Consequentialist Atheists, they committed mass murders and eugenics to the tune of 250,000,000 murdered humans. The fact that Atheists today defend these monsters as “not real Atheists” is both a “Not A Real Scottsman” Fallacy, and indicative to non-Atheists of the mental flopping that Atheists use rather than to admit the obvious: they were Atheist. As an interesting side note: they killed other Atheists. All part of Consequentialism, and “honest Atheist” Neitzsche’s projection of “will to power” as the real consequence of Atheism, as you say.
”Hitler of course, used your religion to get away with his anti-semitism. He likely wasn't one himself, but it was still your religion's legacy that he used.”
Finally we agree; Hitler purged the church of Christian leaders, martyring some of them. Then with the remaining pusillanimous toadies, he used the name and institutional respect of Christianity to foment false doctrine, “Hitlerism” as it were, under the name of Christianity. It was not Christianity, any more than a “rolex” bought in a Taiwan alley is an actual Rolex: it was counterfeit. And it was a Consequentialist move.
Note 1:
The refuting source you gave did not actually refute the Barna poll, and actually contained a third source which sides with Barna. The claim of non-religious motivation being due to compassion is undisputed – without compassion there would be no non-religious motivation at all; what is disputed is (a) the level of motivation and compassion experienced and acted upon by the non-religious, and (b) the concept that there is no compassion involved in non-Atheist responses, which are always larger than Atheist responses, and are “thought to be motivated by fear”, a demonstrable logical fallacy.
Perhaps you have more data to show, we’ll see.
Of course atheism has no morals attached to it. That's because it's not meant to be an ethical position of any sort. It's an epistemological one -- God does not exist (positive) or I don't believe there to be Gods (negative). You say that atheism is necessarily relativistic, however this has been refuted so many times by atheists past and present that it's absurd. The irony is that you must subjectively demonstrate the existence of God by cherry-picking at particularly irrelevant facts of nature and wild logical extrapolations to claim that he objectively exists. If anything, the question of God's existence is a moral paradox since there's no basis for asserting that his morals are objective. How can you prove that when you can't even prove his existence? Atheists on the other hand can be moral non-cognitivists, utilitarians, deontologists and others including relativism itself. Your attempt to conflate atheism with a property it doesn't even possess is at best severely misinformed and at worst, dishonest. Not even touching the broader problematic of how you claim atheists need to corroborate their claims -- shifting the burden of proof. Indeed, theists only been able to demonstrate God's existence rationally. Because God cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions to undergo empirical testing, he must be countered on that same rational level. And it's hard to refute an assertion that cannot be empirically falsified by a series of experiments. So theists have an advantage -- if you wish to call it that -- in that sense, though I'd call it built-in intellectual dishonesty.
No reaction to my link to neuroscience of morality? Interesting.
Robot,
I'm not sure what you want. You have not drawn any conclusions from these studies, either of their scientific validity, their long term value, their usefulness for philosophical or ideological arguments, so all I can do is to try to evaluate the article itself.
What that link seems to say is that moral reasoning involves too much of the brain to be called a moral module, and is thus "domain-global".
However, this seems to contradict another statement it makes:
"This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings."
I think that this second statement is a gratuitous extrapolation, and I think it should read,
" This does not either falsify or validate incorrigibly the notion that moral reasoning is always and without exception related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings"
This illuminates the problems with taking contingent scientific (unreplicated) factiods from articles about papers about analysis about data about experiments; the summaries can tend to make rationalized claims which are outside of the actual knowledge provided by the experiment; taking rationalized, contingent knowledge (three times removed from actual experiment) as the basis for an ideological argument, or worse, the basis for a worldview, is hazardous to the truth value of that worldview.
David says,
”Of course atheism has no morals attached to it. That's because it's not meant to be an ethical position of any sort. It's an epistemological one -- God does not exist (positive) or I don't believe there to be Gods (negative). “
You seem out of touch with the current Atheist fad of denying having any God-theory at all, in order not to be held accountable for defending their assertions. For example, in your personal definitions you can be held to the burden of proof for making both the positive and negative assertions: an assertion which is made with no reason for making it has no reason for anyone to accept it. So what is the evidence which you possess for making either of those assertions?
And my assertion has always been that Atheism, the rejection, has no morals attached. Just as you say. Atheism is the void which enables any or no moral theory to be held. If an Atheist also adopts moral theory X, he is an Atheist-Xist (e.g. Atheist-Consequentialist). That's why just knowing that a person is an Atheist says absolutely nothing about whether that person even has a moral theory, much less what it is. And that is the reason that Atheists are not trusted beyond the level of rapists and sexual abusers.
”You say that atheism is necessarily relativistic, however this has been refuted so many times by atheists past and present that it's absurd. “
This is an empty claim. It has no content, only unsubstantiated opinion.
Further, since Atheism has no moral theory attached to it, the Atheist is free to take whatever man-made theory he wishes (or none at all), and he is free to change theories whenever it is convenient to do so. That is necessarily relativist. No Atheist has any moral obligation to remain with any moral theory; he is totally free, and it is this freedom which Atheists tend to tout. And it is this freedom from obligation to any moral theory which renders Atheism totally relativist.
”The irony is that you must subjectively demonstrate the existence of God by cherry-picking at particularly irrelevant facts of nature and wild logical extrapolations to claim that he objectively exists.”
There is no such thing as a “wild logical extrapolation”; this is another empty assertion, without substance or evidence.
A logical deduction is either True or False. It is quite easy to prove it either True or False. (But there are rules; Atheists tend not to like absolute rules, such as the rules for disciplined logic).
So your statement here again has no substance; either take the Atheist Challenge and use logical deductive reasoning or empirical evidence to falsify the proposition, or do it right here and right now, your choice.
” If anything, the question of God's existence is a moral paradox since there's no basis for asserting that his morals are objective. How can you prove that when you can't even prove his existence?”
I do not make that assertion. So your complaint must be about ecclesiasticism, not Theism. And until you refute the actual original assertion, or until you provide empirical evidence to the contrary, you have no valid idea regarding whether such an agent exists or not.
Continued from above,
David says,
” Atheists on the other hand can be moral non-cognitivists, utilitarians, deontologists and others including relativism itself. “
Sure. Wiki lists 91 possible moral theories, many of which are contradictory. Or like Jeffry Dahmer, Atheists may surely have absolutely no moral code at all, except maybe for the accidental evolution of the human animal, and the consequential Will To Power a la' Nietzsche.
As demonstrated above, and verified by yourself, any moral theory an Atheist might have is relative only to that individual Atheist, at one specific and particular time, and is subject to change without notice: totally relativistic.
”Your attempt to conflate atheism with a property it doesn't even possess is at best severely misinformed and at worst, dishonest. “
You have shown only confirmation of my position as I have pointed out, and you have shown absolutely no evidence to the contrary; that is intellectual malfeasance. My position has always been that Atheism is a void, which might or might not be back-filled with some human-derived ethical theory. You need to make sure you know what the opposing assertion is before you declare it "dishonest".
If you want to refute something you cannot do so merely by claiming angrily that “refutation has occurred, so you are dishonest”. Claiming dishonesty without any validating evidence for irrefutably validating that claim is bigotry. Surely you will want to avoid those issues in your future comments.
’Not even touching the broader problematic of how you claim atheists need to corroborate their claims -- shifting the burden of proof.”
The Burden of Rebuttal has always been in place. It is a standard rational tenet. Atheists can and do refuse it in order to protect their complete intellectual/logical void and lack of evidence for supporting their own position.
That refusal doesn’t negate their actual responsibility.
And once again, assertions made without any reason have no reason for being believed.
If you can’t give irrefutable logical or empirical reasons which undeniably prove your position, then there is no reason to believe it.
”Indeed, theists only been able to demonstrate God's existence rationally. Because God cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions to undergo empirical testing, he must be countered on that same rational level. And it's hard to refute an assertion that cannot be empirically falsified by a series of experiments. So theists have an advantage -- if you wish to call it that -- in that sense, though I'd call it built-in intellectual dishonesty. “
If intellectual dishonesty means accepting a logical fallacy as the basis for your theory of knowledge, then the problem is with Scientismists, such as yourself. Here's why:
It is not possible to find evidence for Set[!A] by searching only in Set[A], and performing that search with techniques which are valid only in Set[A] and are not valid in Set[!A]. Demanding that Set[A] produce evidence for or against Set[!A] is the infamous Atheist/Scientismist Category Error. Demanding that this logical fallacy be the basis for knowledge about Set[!A] renders your claims of Theist dishonesty nonvalid, and rather that charge applies to your own Theory of Knowledge.
And yes, Theism is rational (meaning logically, deductively sound). It is up to you to refute it, rationally, using sound logical deduction.
Otherwise, your belief system is without either a logical or empirical basis, and is thus a blind belief.
Post a Comment