my Atheism will soon be over, but before...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

before it is I want to know, as an atheist I’ve had alot of trouble, alot, of finding which path of moral value I should take. We’ve come to the conclusion that they cannot be objective, but only relative from this belief. However, with at least 7 different atheistic moral starting points, from whence does an atheist choose? Should I go with Rand, Sartre, Skinner, who? Is the ego the most imporant thing? What should be held in highest value?

I’m only saying that to be agnostic, you can just live apathetically. But to be atheist, well now, I think we all know you must be passionate about your belief. I mean comon you’re choosing not to believe in something that you don’t believe in in the first place, and you are directly running away from theistic lifestyles. So the atheist constructs his/her own, through many various ways. Now then, what should an atheist go for to live a good life atheistically? Why don’t I see more of you atheist ever debating with each other on lifestyles hmm?

Let me just say, lets not live under the illusion that if there is no God we are now on the same playing feild morally and ethically, that is a lie.

Should atheism be compiled all together like all religions are? If not why do it to religionist? And then atheists wonder why people accuse atheist of being immoral. In fact I wonder as well, agnostics, how do you draw the line there? Both are unbelievers, except atheist are stronger disbelievers…? I think atheism is best described as believing in what we can see, feel, taste, etc. and discarding everything else that can’t be seen, tasted, touched, etc. I find that a rather small box to live out of.

Let me just say this atheistic framework is crap. And if God does exist, he’s very unhappy with me for doing this. I’ve been pulled over for speeding, miserable in happiness, got in a wreck today and totaled my vehicle… my brother and I almost drowned. And when my theist freinds come crying to me about their atheistic messed up lives, I couldn’t help them because of this test I’ve tried.

I’m sorry, atheism just doesn’t work for me. I guess you could say, and listen closely, that I’m going to stick with a theistic lifestyle, and you can look at it as atheism- only that I’m dumb for believing in God. I hope you get that, I’m saying you can look at it atheistically if you want as a belief that believes you should believe in a higher power and follow it’s certain values to live happier, and you can add this to your collection of atheistic frameworks, since there are at least 7 I know of.

Thanks.

2

youre right. atheists do have to define their own morals. i think everyone else does too whether they use god or not but thats besides the point.

what a lot of atheists end up doing though is basing it on what society does around them. in that sense they can be a better gauge of morality than a theist in the sense that more people will agree with what theyre doing/saying. you can take all of the christian values and put them to use in a way that not even christians can.

3

But, there can be objective morals without God. I think that the Euthyphro dilemma points us toward that conclusion.

For naturalistic objective morals, check out William Talbott’s Which Rights Should Be Universal.[/code]

4

Club - I qualify as an atheist - I am not passionate about that “belief”. Just what is there to be passionate about?

Morality, regardless of its source, operates as a social contract. The social contract is the minimal case for morality. This contract may be unilateral, bilateral, multilateral. It’s neither “subjective” nor “objective” - it’s collective. It may be dictated form “above” - a despot, a pharoah, a priestly caste, stone tablets. But even then, it must be accepted to some degree, in practise, by the members of the group to which it applies - even if that acceptance is forced.

I’m not trying to argue theism/atheism here. But you might want to peruse The Republic, the Nichomachean Ethics and several other works between them and, say, Rawls’ Theory of Justice before you claim that there is no such thing as a coherent nontheistic, or certainly nonchristian, moral system. I don’t don’t really have the time or space to review the history of moral thinking here.

I don’t know why you believe that an atheist chooses a moral system as an atheist. Most people don’t choose one at all - regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I like Gatorade - orange, lemon/lime or fruit punch. But I don’t choose them “atheistically”.

5

Amen brother Faust.

Club, the problem you’re having is in the assumption that morals come from religion…I’m sorry, they don’t.

When I became agnostic from Christian, my moral values didn’t change. When I became atheist from agnostic, my moral values didn’t change. I didn’t need a replacement before I made the switch.

As Dawkins points out, anybody who needs a religious reason, or the fear of punishment, not to murder and rape and steal, doesn’t sound like a very moral person to begin with. There are far greater reasons not to do these things than a smack on the ass by God.

6

This will be the most contentious point between atheists and theists of Club29’s persuasion. A Christian will tend to have difficulty understanding the notion that morality could be “for the sake of social harmony” rather than “because God said so.” For if morality is for the sake of social harmony, then morality exists to serve man; but the Christian believes that morality is a way that man serves God. Thus the consequences of a morality, how well it serves man, is of importance to the atheist, while the source of morality is what will be important to the Christian.

7

Include “harmony within the Kingdom of God, at God’s command” - the classic unilateral contract. The social aspects of human life are likewise ordained by God, evidently.

Does that help?

8

why not simply place highest value on what you value most personally, a set of moral etihic can be a personal choice as much as a social contract, I’m agnostic, or rather I choose to be agnostic because I do not know all the answers. There are still things I beleive and value, but they are personal in nature, so my choices are my own.

I’m not certin but perhaps you and other athiests could find this somewhat useful, I know I have.

Peace

9

Club,
It seems that the problem does not lie with Athieism or any other system of belief or non-belief. The problem lies with you…and me…and almost every other person in this little philosophical community. It stems from the way in which our brains work. We are thinkers. We are incapable of just accepting something at face value. We must delve deeply into it and analyze everything. Through analytical thought you may find that the “truth” you once believed is now utter nonsense and what we once viewed as nonsense seems truthful. Being a thinker can be a great burden. It is a great deal of work and it is difficult to continue that work when we see all around us those who accept simple answers to complex problems and rely on “god” to do their thinking for them in that arena. They seem happy and content in their thought. Their ultimate questions are given answers that don’t require thought…only faith. But for me, and possibly you, the gate to that simple path is not open. Our thinking minds will not allow it. Morality is not found in a religion or any philosophy. Theists do not have a monopoly on morality. I must say that I agree with Faust’s “social contract” theory. Morality comes to us through societal expectations and morality changes as the thinkers in society begin to challenge the status quo. In the end morality comes from within. Most people, however, do not want the responsibility for their own morality and they turn it over to “god”. Although being a thinker may seem to be a great burden, it is truly a gift. Keep searching my friend, for the the journey itself is the destination.

10

Thanks for all your replies.

I agree with at least something everyone of you have said.

And I definitely see your point faust. Maybe it was you dorky to acted as if I’m implying that without religion I would have no morals, I disagree, and I do it easily by looking out the window. Everyone has morals, but I’m only discussing the objectivity of them, and claiming an objective base for them. I don’t think I’m necessarily saying whether or not one exists, that’s your own opinions here, I just wonder… How would someone without a belief in transcendent being, or something that has formed a universal concrete moral law, believe that they have objective universal morals? How can you do that? No, not how can, how can you say that when you know that people disagree? If they disagree you must argue why they’re wrong, but where is the argument for this?

I don’t feel i’m discussing, or arguing now, I’m simply asking the question.

11

Club - There are nontheistic rationalists, who don’t believe in a transcendant being, of course, but who hold that logic itself constitutes a universal law, or at least a durable way to reckon such laws. They needn’t claim that “something” formed these laws. Many rationalists do think that something made these laws, and these are mostly theistic, or at least deistic, rationalists.

I don’t happen to think this approach works, by the way. So, I am one of those that disagree. I think the average rationalist would tell me that my agreement isn’t necessary - that I am simply mistaken. That there is a universal principle or two that I am not aware of, and that don’t depend upon my awareness or acceptance of them in order to exist.

But more to the point, I think, universality is not required by all moral systems. Again, some rationalists provide a handy example. These folks assume that the group (morally) is composed of only those who agree, and that one consequence (the really important one) of a serious breach in this agreement is banishment, if not physically, then morally. Rationalism cum rights may see all rights taken away from those who break the code. These systems obviously do not assume complete adherence, as they have a provision for its absence. The miscreant need not recognise his own guilt to be guilty.

12

Give us an example of some of these reasons

.

13

Chimps hunt in packs , kill other chimps from neighbouring areas , other monkeys , and usually cannabalize them , we are an evolved chimp , it was ok at one time , why is it wrong to kill now , and be a cannibal , what do the atheists here say to that

.

14

Given the religious justification that has been used for wars (in both the past and present) I am unsure that religion offers a solution to this problem.

Indeed, it is a tragic fact that in any moral system, killing and death seem to find a justification.

15

Most of the great atheist philosophers believed we construct our own values. And if that’s the case you can’t claim an objective moral law from a naturalistic stance. And to say one exists, you’d only infer so Does a law giver, or a reason for our existence. This was my only point.

I’m not at all saying you have no reason to be upset, or that killing the innocent is ok. I’m only saying naturally there’s no way you can claim objectively it’s wrong in an abosolutist since. It’s not about who’s right or wrong, whether a moral law exists or not, that’s for you to decide. My only point was atheistically, you can only take a subjective stance on morals, but yes you can argue that yours are objective, you can evel “feel” that way, but you have no base at which to do so, only to pursuade people why such and such is better, but pertaining to “rights” and “wrongs” that the whole universe should live by you have no ground to do so, because you have no belief that allows you to do so.

16

There have been suggestions that there is no universal morality, only an individual personal morality. Each person pieces together a patchwork quilt of values, taboos, and ethical positions that become their personal morality. Whether this morality is coerced social or religious morals or is chosen by an individual through careful deliberation, all morality is personal.

Some have suggested that the only genuine morality is that of empathetic response to every new experience guided only by percepts and not our precepts.

17

Dol - I have a lot to say about that, frankly. Starting with the idea that the concept of “ok” may not apply to nonhumans to begin with. I have never read any chimpanzee ethics, so i cannot be sure, however. I actually have read some human moral writing that refers to other primates, but that doesn’t mean that actual chimp “ethics” is being described.

Also, if I merely took the examples around me, from whatever species, as gospel, I would be a bit confused. The examples abound, and often contradict each other.

We may have evolved from a single cell animal. I wouldn’t know how to behave like such a creature if I tried.

Morality, at minimum, is a way to control behavior. It’s a device employed toward the goal of social order. It seeks to avoid endless retribution by private parties. It places judgements about behaviors of individuals against other individuals in collective hands, be those hands religious, governmental, broadly societal or more narrowly organisational. Morality creates referees. So did the National Football League. Last time I checked, the members of that group were all human, although I have my doubts about Ladamien Tomlinson sometimes.

Club - as I have pointed out, the metaphysical reality of an objective basis for morality does not imply an omniscient being. In some forms, it does include one. You can argue against any form of rationalism (although you position is starting to look like a type of rationalism), but to dismiss them out of hand does not refute them. Again, I think they can be refuted, but so can your moral position. But the rationalist position, in general, is not always a “subjectivist” one. It can be, but it is not always.

18

Can any of the atheists here outline some of these reasons

.

19

The golden rule comes to mind.

Boooooonnnnnnng.

20

Yes but in most spiritual systems the devotee is taught that evil is alright to use , as long as its done properly

.