3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAn Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral." If life has no ultimate meaning and nothing exists for each of us other than this physical life, then anything goes. Even the (lame) argument that an Atheist's "morality" stems from their concern for what is "good for the human race" makes absolutely no sense because the human race's survival doesn't mean anything--and isn't necessarily good. Maybe it's better that the human race die off so "Mother Earth" can quit being destroyed. That idea is just as moral as ANY other from an Atheist perspective.
I agree with all of that except the 'no morality' bit. I think some atheists have a superior morality than some of the ones pushed by theists, but neither group have a single view on the matter.
A true Atheist is a Nihilist. Everyone that claims not to believe in a creator--while claiming not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.
Hang on here. Morality doesn't depend on Christianity.
Morality, which anyone usually has a basic understanding of, is usually reinforced by parents and teachers be they theist or not.
Being a non-Christian is no defence in any courtroom against any of the henious crimes that have been attributed to atheists on this thread.
And everyone is well aware of this.
Originally posted by sumydidYou clearly have a very different definition of the word 'immoral' than I do. What is your definition? It appears that to you, morality is doing whatever you have to to avoid getting punished by God.
An Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral."
.... because the human race's survival doesn't mean anything--and isn't necessarily good.
What does the human race's survival mean to you? How does theism make it more meaningful to you than to me? How does it make it necessarily good?
Maybe it's better that the human race die off so "Mother Earth" can quit being destroyed.
Oh, so now keeping mother earth in good shape is 'good'. Where does that come from? Your religion?
A true Atheist is a Nihilist. Everyone that claims not to believe in a creator--while claiming not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.
And I would argue that everyone who believes in a creator is no different ie they too are nihilists. I say that the meaning of life is based on what value I give it, you say it is based on what value God gives it. But there is still no 'objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value' in either view. In fact I would argue that a claim of 'objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value' is contradictory to the definitions of the words.
Originally posted by sumydid🙄🙄
An Atheist has no reason (or right if they are truly Atheist) to declare any act "immoral." If life has no ultimate meaning and nothing exists for each of us other than this physical life, then anything goes. Even the (lame) argument that an Atheist's "morality" stems from their concern for what is "good for the human race" makes absolutely no sense becaus ...[text shortened]... not to be a Nihilist--is on some level, an Agnostic. Yeah that's right I said it.
Read some books on secular ethics.
1 edit
-Removed-You're saying a bunch of things in this thread, virtually none of which seem correct. What about that whole thing about how atheism is a "philosophy"? That was another joke, right?
By the way, you do realize that your argument is one big contradiction, right? You cannot say on one hand that atheism cannot give you morals; and then claim on the other that atheists, in virtue of their atheism, are committed to some version of hedonism. You cannot say that atheism cannot account for any moral dimension; and then claim that atheism is a "philosophy", wherein normative dimension is implicit to how you use the term. Again, you ought to figure out what exactly you intend to argue.
-Removed-No, you haven't been coherent. You started off by saying that atheism implies no morality. Then you said that atheism commits one to the maxim do whatever pleasures yourself. But that maxim exemplifies some version of hedonism, which has moral dimension because it relates one's own pleasure to the good. So you contradicted yourself. Again, I would suggest you do some research on 'atheism' and educate yourself on what it is in the generic sense and also what different versions there are in a more particular sense (like strong versus weak, etc, etc). But, as I mentioned, in none of those senses is 'atheism' itself a "philosophy" in the way you intend the term.
Your argument in this thread is a another diluted variant of that gem of an argument that simply contradicts itself, such as when a theist claims that atheism cannot provide one with any moral commitments and then turns around and says atheism is directly responsible for providing all sorts of bad or undesirable moral commitments.