Atheism and morality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The spaghetti monster argument is completely and utterly deficient in every way! Why? because the teachings, example and morality of the Christ are readily discernible, this is not the case with this futile and ludicrous proposition of yours Mr Hameeeelton! See to it and dont let it happen again.

“...because the teachings, example and morality of the Christ are readily discernible, ...”

that is irrelevant to the probability or credibility of there being a god; unless what you mean by “ the Christ” is, literally, “the son of God”, in which case the above claim is clearly false because any supernatural origins of Christ could not be “ readily discernible” just like any 'supernatural' origins of me could not be “ readily discernible”.
And if you disagree with that; suppose that the “teachings, example and morality” of the holy invisible flying chimpanzees that are said to have created the universe were “readily discernible”? Then if, as you said, “...absence of reason is not good enough, ...” , to refute it then we should consider the possibility of the holy invisible flying chimpanzees that created the universe as JUST as credible as there being a 'God' as exactly defined in the Bible.

Originally posted by 667joe
Morality and atheism are not directly related. You can be moral and religious and moral and an atheist. You can also be immoral and be either one. For example, if you are anti gay because of the bible, or anti gay marriage because of the bible, you are clearly not moral! The same would be true if you were an atheist.

Kant would say that is unlikely. Actions of true genuine moral worth are very rare indeed. At best an athiest can only hope to be amoral, by their own world view. For according to Kant all morality is based on a priori principles, and if the athiest rejects those principles then all that is left is amorality.

Originally posted by Doward
Kant would say that is unlikely. Actions of true genuine moral worth are very rare indeed. At best an athiest can only hope to be amoral, by their own world view. For according to Kant all morality is based on a priori principles, and if the athiest rejects those principles then all that is left is amorality.

You and Kant are wrong. Morality is quite simple. If you help others, it's moral. If you hurt others, it's immoral. God has nothing to do with it, or to put it another way, is something good because it is good, or is something good because god said it is good? If something is good only because god said it is good, there is no thought neecessary. This is dangerous. Do you know of any atheists who have flown airplanes into buildings? The terrorists who have done this believe that god wanted them to do it , and will actually reward them for it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...because the teachings, example and morality of the Christ are readily discernible, ...”

that is irrelevant to the probability or credibility of there being a god; unless what you mean by “ the Christ” is, literally, “the son of God”, in which case the above claim is clearly false because any supernatural origins of Christ could not be “ readi ...[text shortened]... ted the universe as JUST as credible as there being a 'God' as exactly defined in the Bible.

no your insistence on the existence or non existence of God is irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no your insistence on the existence or non existence of God is irrelevant.

Why didn't you finish your statement? It should end with ' irrelevant for me'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why didn't you finish your statement? It should end with ' irrelevant for me'.

nope its irrelevant for everyone for it cannot be proven nor dis proven and is futile to attempt to do so. The absurdity of Hamilton claims was demonstrated when it was pointed out that the so called spaghetti monster has no precepts, no principles, no tenets, no anything on which one can base an evaluation, it is in fact, meaningless. Anyhow this thread is not about the existence or non existence of God, its about atheism and morality and whether the atheists thinks of his morality as superior.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
answer the question jojo, is your morality superior to the Christ's?

Is yours?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Is yours?

I can't wait in anticipation for the answer. None here could possibly have any clue as to how robbie will answer that.

Originally posted by 667joe
You and Kant are wrong. Morality is quite simple. If you help others, it's moral. If you hurt others, it's immoral. God has nothing to do with it, or to put it another way, is something good because it is good, or is something good because god said it is good? If something is good only because god said it is good, there is no thought neecessary. This ...[text shortened]... o have done this believe that god wanted them to do it , and will actually reward them for it.

take God out of the equation then. If you help people you are moral and if you hurt you are not, is that it?

What then, if you help someone because you have an ulterior motive? Is the action then still moral? Reason would say no it is not, it is amoral. How then can we perform an action of true moral worth? Our actions must be completely free of any exterior motivation, or fear of reprisal, simply put one must do their duty for the sake of doing their duty. Human beings are genuinely incapable of doing this. No matter how much we may think that our actions are moral, there is always a glimmer or gleam of some motivation other than duty that influences our decisions.

So then we must look at what makes us moral if that is even possible. If our actions cannot be held to be truly of maoral worth, then we must be at best amoral. All of this without the determination of the existance of God. If god exists then there are universal truths that equate to morality, if God doesn't exist then morality is merely relative. Couple this moral argument with Anselm and Descatre's ontology, and prima Causa and the evidence of the existance of God becomes more and more compelling

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its transient because less than sixty years ago homosexuality was a crime, less than a hundred it was a capital crime. Consider the matter of disciplining children, when i went to school you could be belted with a very thick leather strap, six times across ones hands, yet only recently i was speaking with a lady who proffered that in smacking childr ...[text shortened]... me are a changing and that clearly, relying upon social convention is a rather transient affair.

Well firstly I don't see anything intrinsically immoral about pornography - there is a demand for it which is catered to by those who `work' in the industry. You might argue that these women are protrayed as sex objects but then firstly it is their own choice that they do this fully aware that if they're good at what they do or how they look, then being seen as a sex object is the goal. Secondly, I assert many blokes are engineered (through evolution) to evaluate a woman on a "would they?" level first (without even conciously thinking about it) and *then* go about getting to know them without necessarily raising the question again.
Finally it's surely better that people spend their time fulfilling their urges beavering away somewhere private than forcing someone else to fulfill them without consent (rape). Indeed it could be argued the acceptance of pornography is a moral improvement.
The acceptance of homosexuality and acknowledgement that they have the right to live without prejudice and oppression is also a moral improvement
As for the punishing of children through slapping them when they are doing something wrong, whether denying that is an improvement is debatable. (a heated discussion best reserved for a different thread)

But overall societal morality if it changes, tends to change for the better as humans become collectively wiser. Moreover, I didn't merely say that conventions of society are the be all and end all neither since you have to factor in our inate empathy for others and the power to reason.

Contrast this with ones interpretation of scripture which differs from person to person - a "source of morality"Reveal Hidden Contentwhich never improves since it is assumed perfect from the outset!

Originally posted by Agerg
Well firstly I don't see anything intrinsically immoral about pornography - there is a demand for it which is catered to by those who `work' in the industry. You might argue that women are protrayed as sex objects but then firstly it is their own choice that they do this fully aware that if they're good at what they do or how they look, then being seen as a se ...[text shortened]... ]it isn\'t![/hidden]which never improves since it is assumed perfect from the outset!

your opening sentances (about not seeing anything wrong with porn) are the tragic consequence of a moral relativism. That you cannot see the harm it does to society as a whole and to the human beings involved is the greatest argument I can ever produce in opposition to your world view. Maybe in time you will understand that sex workers are rarely there by choice. Even when it appears that they are, it is usually because they have little or no other viable options. Your perspective shows a lack of life experience.

Originally posted by Doward
your opening sentances (about not seeing anything wrong with porn) are the tragic consequence of a moral relativism. That you cannot see the harm it does to society as a whole and to the human beings involved is the greatest argument I can ever produce in opposition to your world view. Maybe in time you will understand that sex workers are rarely there by cho ...[text shortened]... e they have little or no other viable options. Your perspective shows a lack of life experience.

Why don't you lay out your case for how it harms society as a whole then. Be careful not to over-dwell on cases like forced prostitution which most decent people (I included) would condemn anyway, or centralising your argument around what the Bible says we should do.

Start of with perhaps something like:

Consider a typical `sex worker' Sally Smith who we'll suppose for arguments sake is representative of the majority of such workers; further let's suppose she could reasonably expect to get paid above average wage for her skills in one industry but with the observation she's stunningly attractive, figures she can make ten times the amount she'd normally get paid in a week if she poses nude for Playboy - this harms society for the following reasons...

Originally posted by Doward
your opening sentances (about not seeing anything wrong with porn) are the tragic consequence of a moral relativism. That you cannot see the harm it does to society as a whole and to the human beings involved is the greatest argument I can ever produce in opposition to your world view. Maybe in time you will understand that sex workers are rarely there by cho ...[text shortened]... e they have little or no other viable options. Your perspective shows a lack of life experience.

double post

Originally posted by Doward
take God out of the equation then. If you help people you are moral and if you hurt you are not, is that it?

What then, if you help someone because you have an ulterior motive? Is the action then still moral? Reason would say no it is not, it is amoral. How then can we perform an action of true moral worth? Our actions must be completely free of any exteri ogy, and prima Causa and the evidence of the existance of God becomes more and more compelling

take God out of the equation then. If you help people you are moral and if you hurt you are not, is that it?

What then, if you help someone because you have an ulterior motive? Is the action then still moral? Reason would say no it is not, it is amoral.
Elaborate please...explain how if I bend over backwards to help my friends (primarily because I like them and want them to know this) fully aware that they might hold me in better regard as a person or be more willing to do the same for me should I require it in the future, and ask for nothing else in return - as opposed to kicking back, letting them struggle then bribing or blackmailing them to help me out later is amoral.
Where is the "Reason" you suggest that makes this true? Are you setting yourself up for the circular argument that "God" is the font of objective morality, humans lack such objectivity and can thus only be moral if they include "God" into the equation somewhere, ergo objectively, it is morally better to behave as "God" decrees we should in the Bible, hence "God" is the font of objective morality??? 😕

How then can we perform an action of true moral worth? Our actions must be completely free of any exterior motivation, or fear of reprisal, simply put one must do their duty for the sake of doing their duty. Human beings are genuinely incapable of doing this. No matter how much we may think that our actions are moral, there is always a glimmer or gleam of some motivation other than duty that influences our decisions.
I'll assume you'll explain why our lack of true altruism is a problem in your answer to my first objection

So then we must look at what makes us moral if that is even possible. If our actions cannot be held to be truly of maoral worth, then we must be at best amoral. All of this without the determination of the existance of God. If god exists then there are universal truths that equate to morality, if God doesn't exist then morality is merely relative. Couple this moral argument with Anselm and Descatre's ontology, and prima Causa and the evidence of the existance of God becomes more and more compelling
No it doesn't! If it did I wouldn't be an atheist.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well firstly I don't see anything intrinsically immoral about pornography - there is a demand for it which is catered to by those who `work' in the industry. You might argue that these women are protrayed as sex objects but then firstly it is their own choice that they do this fully aware that if they're good at what they do or how they look, then being seen a ...[text shortened]... the Bible[/hidden]which never improves since it is assumed perfect from the outset!

For some reason I like looking at sexy women. I guess it
is one of my greatest faults.