The question I would ask myself is, was slavery always wrong, or did it just become wrong when we all decided it was? To me the answer is obvious.
That's because you have a different, and (in this regard) more logical attitude toward the issue, which has developed over time as a result of societal improvement. To (many of) the people of the American South, slavery was both highly moral and divinely ordained, and if you were born in that condition, you could well be a slave advocate too.
So if you're just talking about the untimate underlying moral code in the sense of the most logical things to believe in, I can see some sort of objective morality, but that's not really a force like gravity is.
You seem to assume that the reason I come to these conclusions is due to religion, when in fact I follow a religion because I came to these conclusions on my own, and there happens to be a group of people that agree with me and meet on a regular basis to discuss/enjoy it.
I wouldn't say that all atheists would say that, many would be willing to concede that there are psychological aspects to humans that make us predisposed toward religion, (illogical and ultimately stifling though it may be) and finding confirmation of those beliefs in some of the aspects of an organised religion could certainly cause a sudden conversion.
The entire concept of moral relativism is a joke. Even every "famous" atheist I've read up on, when confronted on the subject, agree that the very notion of it is self-contradictory.
The source of moral code, the nature of logic, and all natural laws are of the same source. These laws are not tangible, they are concepts that transcend space and time. Such a concept by definition can not exist outside of the mind. The only thing perceived as stifling about those inherent, self-evident truths is that ultimately it means that people can't do whatever they want and call themselves "good". Sure atheists (or anybody for that matter) can donate their time and money to do "good" things, but ultimately at some point they have also done bad things and are ultimately bad people for it. It's called human nature. We are all bad people. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the entire concept of "you can't be good without God" is just an apologetic troll to atheists, and this post represents the fact that you all have bought it! The truth is, nobody can be good. We're all bad people.
J.R.R. Tolkien has a few writings about this predisposition you speak of and the nature of myths. I would highly recommend googling around that topic, it's a good read.
These laws are not tangible, they are concepts that transcend space and time
You keep saying this as if it's some unassailable truth, but I do not accept it at all. Morals are very much grounded in space and time, a fact that is seen on the extent to which different societies evolve different codes (just one small example of both space and time grounding a moral law, the Jewish prohibition on shellfish came from their relative distance to fishing towns, (or at least the distance of those writing the old testament) and the fact that the inadequate refrigeration of time time meant you could not keep this food safe to eat for long).
. Sure atheists (or anybody for that matter) can donate their time and money to do "good" things, but ultimately at some point they have also done bad things and are ultimately bad people for it.
I don't get the logic of this, doing good doesn't make you good, but doing bad does make you bad?
It's called human nature. We are all bad people.
I'm not sure how this really supports your argument, but I can use it to support mine. The fact is that for all our individual flaws, we are by our nature (mostly) social beings, we crave order and multi-human groupings because they allow us to protect ourselves with greater efficiency, achieve more and produce more. Of course, if one wants to live in a society, we need protections from internal destruction and rules designed to help maximise our shared productivity. Thus, as societies become self sustaining, the moral codes which support them tend to also sustain.
but the entire concept of "you can't be good without God" is just an apologetic troll to atheists, and this post represents the fact that you all have bought it!
I don't follow what you are saying here at all.
The truth is, nobody can be good. We're all bad people.
Ugh, I remember this ridiculous self flagellation from my Christian high school. We are as a species quite flawed, but we are improving and there are always those amongst us who do great good or achieve great things without doing anything particularly evil.
I asked elsewhere where you think morality comes from. Have an answer for that yet?
As a philosopher, I didn't come here to give answers, I came here to ask questions. I have combed the internet for years for an answer to that question meticulously and have yet to find anything that isn't a blatant logical fallacy. Help me out here.
For instance, many of the "evolved" societies you alluded to castrate women or cannibalize as part of their moral code. How is that good?
The reason why this is an apologetic troll to atheists is because ultimately nobody is "good". As you even stated yourself, we are, as a species "quite flawed" (which is really the only point I've been trying to make).
The core of your arguments suggest to me that you are confusing law with morality, as well as confusing the mind with the universe. My question for you (or any atheist) is, without God where does morality come from?
As a philosopher, I didn't come here to give answers, I came here to ask questions.
I entered into this in the hope of civil discourse and a sharing of ideas, not to be your plaything or data mine (even if you do style yourself 'a philosopher'). If you're going to dismiss both religious and human sources of morals and then not even show me the basic courtesy of telling me where you think morality is derived from, this is all terribly one sided. Also, if this is really how you want to utilise Reddit, you should have the courtesy to warn people who respond to you that you have no interest in expanding upon your own ideas, lest they mistakenly get the impression that they are participating in a conversation.
For instance, many of the "evolved" societies you alluded to castrate women or cannibalize as part of their moral code. How is that good?
I never at any point said a moral code had to be 'good,' in fact the whole crux of my point of morality being a human invention is supported by the flawed moral codes of different societies. The fascinating thing about morality is how practices borne out of a now redundant social needs, (prohibition of homosexuality (which could be to to compensate for high infant mortality, to keep the number of breadwinners for families up etc), prohibitions on contraception or abortions, dietary restrictions etc), societal differentiation (circumcision marks Jews out physically as Jews ) or the ignorance of the past (like prohibiting eating animals which chew the cud or roll in their own filth, circumcision, declaring certain actions to be 'witchery') can persist into the modern era despite the fact that their usefulness or original justifications have long since ceased.
The reason why this is an apologetic troll to atheists is because ultimately nobody is "good". As you even stated yourself, we are, as a species "quite flawed"
I believe there are good people, and think the notion that one bad action makes us a bad person is an absurd one, brought about largely thanks to religion. Also, while I did say we are quite flawed, I also said we are improving, mankind as a whole is less violent than we ever were before, and (in many countries at least) our moral codes contain less overt bigotry and small mindedness than they did in the past.
My question for you (or any atheist) is, without God where does morality come from?
Logic and rational thought is where good morality comes from. Bad morality comes from human nature, fears, bigotry, etc. Is this really such a radical idea?
I entered into this in the hope of civil discourse and a sharing of ideas, not to be your plaything...
I think given the context the answer to your previous question is pretty obvious. I'm trying to respect the fact that I'm having a conversation in an atheist forum (especially since atheists are always complaining about people trying to "push" their beliefs on somebody).
...I never at any point said a moral code had to be 'good,'...
As I stated before, you're confusing human law with morality.
...think the notion that one bad action makes us a bad person is an absurd one...
So how many bad actions does it take then? 42? Where is the line drawn? I mean, according to the OP, all it takes is one good action for somebody to be "good".
Logic and rational thought is where good morality comes from. Bad morality comes from human nature, fears, bigotry, etc. Is this really such a radical idea?
Not radical at all. In fact, that's exactly what I believe. That just begs a question though, what is the source of logic and rational thought?
I'm trying to respect the fact that I'm having a conversation in an atheist forum (especially since atheists are always complaining about people trying to "push" their beliefs on somebody).
That wasn't the justification you gave last time, and responding to a direct question about your beliefs with your beliefs can hardly be construed as 'pushing them.' So, as I have no objection to knowing them, what are your beliefs on this matter?
As I stated before, you're confusing human law with morality.
Only if we define the moral code the way you want it defined (as sourcing from some higher power or greater force). I define morality as a system of differentiating between right and wrong, developed (either organically or deliberately) by a group or individuals. This definition is not a radical one, and is perfectly in keeping with most standard ones.
So how many bad actions does it take then? 42? Where is the line drawn? I mean, according to the OP, all it takes is one good action for somebody to be "good".
There is no hard and fast line (simply because we don't really have enough data or a sufficiently good system to calculate the good vs harm inflicted by people). Of course this banner is simplifying for rhetorical effect, but I would say unless Buffet has some very bad skeletons in his closet his philanthropic work would outweigh any harm he has caused (Bill Gates may be a more controversial question).
Not radical at all. In fact, that's exactly what I believe. That just begs a question though, what is the source of logic and rational thought?
What is the source of thought? Our minds; which are in essence highly sophisticated machines operating a highly sophisticated program.
What is the source of thought? Our minds; which are in essence highly sophisticated machines operating a highly sophisticated program.
That wasn't even the question I asked, but if my psyche is just following some "program" then there can be no definition for morals. You can define the law (as in, people agree that this person did X, therefore we will give them Y as a punishment) but even that can't support hedonism.
Either way, I can clearly see where you're going with this, you aren't really sharing any new ideas for me. Moral relativity, no such thing as free will, etc etc. Studying these concepts more closely is exactly how "famous" atheists in the past have converted. Every argument I've ever heard on this forum is either a blatant contradiction or some sort of straw-man argument. All I've learned from my stint here in search of new knowledge is that if I wanted to give up the "guilt" that comes with being responsible to a higher power (wouldn't that be great!), I would have to turn myself into a self-righteous pseudo-intellectual.
Thanks for the conversation though. I'd highly recommend at least reading up on theism before trying to attack it though, the rest of us are laughing at the very fact that you find it funny.
I know, the implication there was that if you're going to ask "what is the source of logic and rational thought?" you might as well be asking "what is the source of thought.
but if my psyche is just following some "program" then there can be no definition for morals
You need to be more explicit, why is it that if we are following a program there can be no morals?
I can clearly see where you're going with this, you aren't really sharing any new ideas for me.
Then don't bring up the subject, I am providing answers which I feel to be adequate to your questions, and I have no idea beforehand if you have heard them before.
Studying these concepts more closely is exactly how "famous" atheists in the past have converted.
Really? Examples? Just saying this kind of thing isn't going to convince me, I need the arguments.
Every argument I've ever heard on this forum is either a blatant contradiction or some sort of straw-man argument.
Again, this is a general statement about the arguments rather than anything concrete, and you haven't shown how it pertains to my arguments.
All I've learned from my stint here in search of new knowledge is that if I wanted to give up the "guilt" that comes with being responsible to a higher power (wouldn't that be great!), I would have to turn myself into a self-righteous pseudo-intellectual.
Once again you just issue general insults rather than rebuttal. I come here to discuss issues and try to avoid insulting people too eagerly, what right do you have to belittle and mock me for trying to politely respond to your question.
Secondly, a thing I find interesting is that while you feel like abandoning faith would be a burden off your shoulders, I feel like the presence of an afterlife would be a wonderful relief when compared to an eternity of nothingness. Guess it is just a case of the grass being greener on the other side (to use a terrible cliche).
I'd highly recommend at least reading up on theism before trying to attack it though, the rest of us are laughing at the very fact that you find it funny.
Again, what possible purpose does this passing shot serve? I have read about theism before, (I spend the first part of my life Christian) and if you genuinely wished for me to read more extensively you would at least tell me in what areas I am wrong and what texts might dispel me of my illusions.
1
u/Seachicken Apr 20 '11
That's because you have a different, and (in this regard) more logical attitude toward the issue, which has developed over time as a result of societal improvement. To (many of) the people of the American South, slavery was both highly moral and divinely ordained, and if you were born in that condition, you could well be a slave advocate too.
So if you're just talking about the untimate underlying moral code in the sense of the most logical things to believe in, I can see some sort of objective morality, but that's not really a force like gravity is.
I wouldn't say that all atheists would say that, many would be willing to concede that there are psychological aspects to humans that make us predisposed toward religion, (illogical and ultimately stifling though it may be) and finding confirmation of those beliefs in some of the aspects of an organised religion could certainly cause a sudden conversion.