Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[Frigidus]

I am an athiest and I also believe in absolute morality

Sir you can believe what you want. Whether what you believe in something ungrounded and invalid is up to you. Without a mind before the human mind, absolute morals cannot exist.
If you think you are more intelligent than Darwin, Camus and Nietzche, then believe this fallacy as you will.

1. State something as fact with no explanation as to how you concluded this
2. Make an appeal to authority
3. Accuse the opposition of some vague fallacious reasoning

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Lord Arioch]

Well i think nobody will get an answer until they die. And then IF u find yourself on "the express elevator to hell..." well remember what my dad told me: all boring people go to heaven, all funny people goes to hell.

But anyway why not wait and see what happens its not like we can avoid it:)

My favourite religion is hinduism, they just invent a god whenever they want and voila problem solved...

[Frigidus]

I am an athiest and I also believe in absolute morality

Sir you can believe what you want. Whether what you believe in something ungrounded and invalid is up to you. Without a mind before the human mind, absolute morals cannot exist.
If you think you are more intelligent than Darwin, Camus and Nietzche, then believe this fallacy as you will.

1. State something as fact with no explanation as to how you concluded this
2. Make an appeal to authority
3. Accuse the opposition of some vague fallacious reasoning

This has been discussed in depth multiple times across these evolution vs. God threads, with no valid evidence ever presented as backing up the premise of concrete morality in the absence of God. The onus is on you to bring something fresh to the table.

Fine.

Let's talk about what exactly morality is. I'm assuming that your definition of objective morality, given that you feel it is entirely reliant on a god, is that it is whatever that diety says is the proper way to act. In my mind that is a rather lackluster definition as we are 1) unable to communicate with said diety to confirm that our idea of what morality is matches up with its, 2) morality would not actually be objective as what is moral would be entirely reliant on said diety not changing its stance on what proper behavior is, and (on a more personal note) 3) it is disturbing that the only reason that we could come up with for regarding why we should not rape, murder and torture is that said diety told us not to.

Let us discard this flawed definition of morality. We must either find a more suitable method of determining what is and is not moral or accept that morality is subjective (more specifically accepting that there is no such thing as a good or bad action), whether or not god(s) exist. So since we can not yet say what morality is, let us ask what purpose morality has. Morality serves as a code of rules regarding how things that could be considered to be both alive and sentient should be treated under various circumstances. Morality has nothing to say on the treatment of things such as rocks, water or plant life unless the treatment were to have some sort of affect on life forms that are both alive and sentient. What is it about these particular life forms that makes morality apply to them? Well, these creatures, due to their ability to perceive the world around them, are capable of having desires regarding the conditions that they exist in. Violating these desires without good reason is the common thread that ties what all moral codes consider wrong together. As an example, one of the most fundamental desires, the desire to continue living, is something that all moral codes consider to be something that should not be violated without cause. Theft, neglect, adultery, deception, all of these can be considered to be an undue breach of the desires of others. Obviously the desires of two separate life forms will conflict with one another, so there also must be considered an hierarchy of importance regarding which desire should have the moral right of way. In general passive desires override active ones. If someone has the desire to take someone else's money that someone's desire to not be robbed takes precedence.

I like to avoid textwalls if at all possible, and I have painted enough of a picture of my view of morality for you to get the gist of it. I've really rushed through these basic ideas, so if you want clarification I can give it. Now the ball is in your court. I'd love to hear your reasoning behind the existence of objective morality, but I somehow have a feeling that we'll instead be focusing on mine. I'd just ask that we keep the discussion focused such that any criticisms of my belief in objective morality not be ones that could just as easily be leveled towards a believer, as god is really the centerpiece of the debate.

[mrswdk]

Why should active desires give way to passive ones? Are the desires of an asylum seeker who wishes to flee an oppressive regime and settle in Greece secondary to the desires of a Greek citizen who wishes to see his country's 'national character' kept intact? What about the desires of a prostitute who is selling her body to pay for her child's meals versus the desires of her father, who finds his daughter's line of work morally repulsive?

Is there any way for you to resolve these dilemmas without making a subjective value judgement?

[BigBallinStalin]

I am an athiest and I also believe in absolute morality

Sir you can believe what you want. Whether what you believe in something ungrounded and invalid is up to you. Without a mind before the human mind, absolute morals cannot exist.
If you think you are more intelligent than Darwin, Camus and Nietzche, then believe this fallacy as you will.

Frigidus, it's true about absolute morality being undiscoverable, but that argument cuts both ways. For example, theists can't demonstrate the soundness of their claims for absolute morality (because they can't prove the existence of god--without getting ensnared in cognitive bias and circular reasoning).

One way to get around the standard of absolute morality is to rely on 'relatively absolute absolutes'. I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property. Murder is wrong ('course 'murder' = illegitimate killing, and 'illegitimacy' can be vague), but for the most part we can determine when killing someone is wrong. Slavery is wrong (but this is covered by 'theft is wrong').

This also intertwines with the pragmatic approach. We can come to some 'realm of mutual understanding' through valid and sound reasoning in order to discover the 'relatively absolute absolutes' too. Other than the above examples, here's another one: if everyone followed Nietzsche's will to power justification, then I don't see how the world would be a better place.

[thegreekdog]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

[Gillipig]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

And you say you're not a Republican? You sure sound like one. That post could've come straight out of Phatscotty or Nightstrike.

[thegreekdog]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

I mean, your example is kind of exactly what I was thinking about (although without the tongue-in-cheek jab).

[crispybits]

For another thread is the argument about if taxation is theft or a form of compulsory purchase of services...

[BigBallinStalin]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

And you say you're not a Republican? You sure sound like one. That post could've come straight out of Phatscotty or Nightstrike.

I admire your trolling capabilities.

[BigBallinStalin]

For another thread is the argument about if taxation is theft or a form of compulsory purchase of services...

It's relevant to relatively absolute absolutes!

[BigBallinStalin]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

I mean, your example is kind of exactly what I was thinking about (although without the tongue-in-cheek jab).

Are you a 'good' Christian, TGD???

But again, good point. I'll admit that 'theft is wrong' does not hold because of the many who believe in the righteousness of taxation.

[Nola_Lifer]

"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." Richard Dawkins.

"Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of this world can be expressed as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption." Peter Atkins.

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Francis Crick.

Discuss.

This sounds like Buddhism to me

[thegreekdog]

I think nearly all of us can agree that stealing is wrong when the victim has legitimate title ownership to that property.

Really? I vehemently disagree with that.

That makes sense since you support theft without direct consent in some cases, e.g. taxation for education subsidies--as do most democrats. Good point. That's interesting! "Thou shall not steal" is violated whenever a Christian votes for a party which relies on theft.

What example did you have in mind?

I mean, your example is kind of exactly what I was thinking about (although without the tongue-in-cheek jab).

Are you a 'good' Christian, TGD???

But again, good point. I'll admit that 'theft is wrong' does not hold because of the many who believe in the righteousness of taxation.

Hmm... what I'm saying is that there are, apparently, no moral absolutes in society; nevermind that there are no moral absolutes in the "wilderness." One can justify stealing (whether or not that is taxation) in certain circumstances, therefore not a moral absolute. One can justify stealing outside of society. One can justify murder within society (war), therefore no a moral absolute. One can justify murder outside of society.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

• *Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

[crispybits]

Our moral code does still allow slavery and genocide - just not within our own species any more. We'll happily raise captive animals to work for us and conduct (regional) culls of various kinds of vermin or dangerous animals in order to protect ourselves.

If you think these examples are stupid, just think how stupid it would have sounded 2000 years ago to declare slavery of other human beings as relatively absolutely immoral.

[thegreekdog]

Thus, 'relatively absolute absolutes'. Although there is a small range of justifiable circumstances for legitimate killing and theft, I think we can agree that there is no large range of justifiable circumstances for either*.

I'm not arguing in favor of moral absolutes because that's impossible. If we wish to argue against the 'relatively absolute absolutes' of morality, then try justifying slavery, genocide, or theft* and murder (over a greater range of circumstances). Someone like Hitler could 'justify' genocide, but it doesn't follow that he's correct--given an acceptable standard of moral philosophy (which does vary, but imagine choosing a moral philosophy which allows for slavery or genocide. Would you abide by it?).

• *Theft as represented by relatively high taxation will be a disputable 'relatively absolute absolute', so like I said, you're right that this is not even relatively absolute, but as for the others?

Would I abide by slavery and genocide? No. Have others? Yes; in fact, slavery was fairly standard practice for the vast majority of the history of humanity.

And what is an acceptable standard of moral philosophy? Who sets the acceptable standard? Why do 99% of people in 2013 think slavery is immoral when 87% of people in 1000 thought slavery was moral? How did those standards change?

There are further examples of societal differences as to what is moral and immoral. For example, some cultures find female (or male) genital mutilation moral. Others find allowing only men to vote to be moral.

[Dukasaur]

Thou shalt not kill...

1. Except thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
2. Except when you need to eat
3. Except in self defense
4. Except when dealing with insects, which it's always okay to kill
5. Except when you live in a country that has capital punishement
6. Except when you live in a country that doesn't have capital punishment, but a lawfully-convicted felon is trying to flee custody.
7. Except in time of war
8. Except foreigners who you suspect may be saboteurs
9. Except Phillistines and Canaanites and other persons unclean in the eyes of God.
10. Except heretics
11. Except rabbits that are trying to eat your vegetable garden
12. Except spiders
13. Except criminals caught in the act
14. ... except (add your favourite exception here.)

The idea that religion grants some absolute guidelines is ludicrous. The ethics of worshippers are every bit as relative as the ethics of atheists.

[BigBallinStalin]

Our moral code does still allow slavery and genocide - just not within our own species any more. We'll happily raise captive animals to work for us and conduct (regional) culls of various kinds of vermin or dangerous animals in order to protect ourselves.

I'm not talking about non-humans.

If you think these examples are stupid, just think how stupid it would have sounded 2000 years ago to declare slavery of other human beings as relatively absolutely immoral.

Sure, changes in prices and property rights result in different outcomes over time, but I thought we were talking about today--not 2000 years ago. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of absolute morality.

[Lootifer]

Do you feel that people can have absolute ownership of property?

[crispybits]

Our moral code does still allow slavery and genocide - just not within our own species any more. We'll happily raise captive animals to work for us and conduct (regional) culls of various kinds of vermin or dangerous animals in order to protect ourselves.

I'm not talking about non-humans.

Like people in history haven't been talking about black people? Or foreign people? Or gay people? Or women? Who's to say we know where the dividing line is any better now with regard to other species as we did in the past when it came to different skin colours, sexualities, genders, etc? Why is a species difference any more or less arbitrary than any of those?

If you think these examples are stupid, just think how stupid it would have sounded 2000 years ago to declare slavery of other human beings as relatively absolutely immoral.

Sure, changes in prices and property rights result in different outcomes over time, but I thought we were talking about today--not 2000 years ago. To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of absolute morality.

You're arguing in favour of relatively absolute absolutes (at least I think you are, you're giving that impression), in which case my example still holds as a counter, unless you admit they are just as unknowable as the true absolutes.

[john9blue]

hey BBS, it might help to let us know why you think humans are fundamentally different from animals in terms of moral value.

i've gotta say, that sounds a lot like a religious belief.

[tzor]

Thou shalt not kill...

It's "Murder" and not "Kill."

Also it's a "Poisoner" and not a "Witch."

It is so much better in the original language and not in the translations of politicians.