Atheistic morality

[mrswdk]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

[BigBallinStalin]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

[shickingbrits]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.

After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...

I don't believe in profit and lose to motivate people to improve their lives. I don't see how maximizing the military-industrial complex's profits, the prison complex, the cost of healthcare improves people's lives. I don't understand how planned obsolescence improves people's lives. I don't understand how charging sick people as much as possible improves their lives.

What I do understand is that when resources are maximized, profits are minimized. I understand that when a company makes something which lasts, the need for that company inherently disappears. I understand that if roads were built better, then the business of building roads, and the governments ability to tax people for using them would disappear. I understand that problems are the birthplace of the government and that maintaining them ensures the governments future.

I understand that a company which saves 70% of their operating costs by using an automated system only needs to offer a 10% discount to down its competitors. I understand that when there are a big 2, big 4 the synthesis resembles that of a monopoly. I understand that freeing markets does nothing to free them when there is a guy with the most chips. That prices always go up under privatization of utilities.

I know that the inventors of nuclear power envisioned energy that was too cheap to meter, that Tesla had the same idea, that the inventors of the nuclear bomb worked to end all wars. I understand that there was no profit in "improving people's lives" that providing free energy was of no interest to Morgan, that the military didn't want to give up their day-jobs and that thorium research wasn't pursued.

I understand that the common man is motivated by far more than money. That doctors existed before they were wealthy, that artists painted at their own cost, that inventors created to enhance their world view. But I also understand that those who didn't share their worldview played possum only to snap up the technology and knowledge because of a lack of morality and an insistence that they deserved more than the rest.

What I mostly understand is that your understanding of the world has been written by the wealthy winners. That most of the ivy league schools were funded with opium war dollars, they are restrictive and promote a worldview in line with that of their founders.

So no, I don't understand the need for treating each other with carrots and sticks, turning neighbours into competitors and rewarding betrayal, enriching destruction and hiding and hoarding human innovation.

[notyou2]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

I think there are a lot of religious people like him. Kind of scary isn't it?

[mrswdk]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

[chang50]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

I think there are a lot of religious people like him. Kind of scary isn't it?

Indeed,it's not really very long ago they were murdering people like us for holding different opinions,in fact they still are in the Islamic world.And they sincerely consider themselves more moral.I'm saddened more than scared to be honest.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think I understand shick now....he's judging atheists by how he would behave if he was one.This judging of other people of whom he has no empathy with has led him to his strange conclusions.I encourage someone with this stunted and limited perspective to continue with their present delusions as they would present a real menace to society if they embraced reality.It's unusual to see anyone condemn themselves with their own words as comprehensively as he has.

That and he doesn't understand the roll of profit-and-loss in motivating people to improve other people's lives while getting paid to do it in a manner which minimizes costs.

After reading that long post, it's like considering to climb the Great Wall of China...

I don't believe in profit and lose to motivate people to improve their lives. I don't see how maximizing the military-industrial complex's profits, the prison complex, the cost of healthcare improves people's lives. I don't understand how planned obsolescence improves people's lives. I don't understand how charging sick people as much as possible improves their lives.

What I do understand is that when resources are maximized, profits are minimized. I understand that when a company makes something which lasts, the need for that company inherently disappears. I understand that if roads were built better, then the business of building roads, and the governments ability to tax people for using them would disappear. I understand that problems are the birthplace of the government and that maintaining them ensures the governments future.

I understand that a company which saves 70% of their operating costs by using an automated system only needs to offer a 10% discount to down its competitors. I understand that when there are a big 2, big 4 the synthesis resembles that of a monopoly. I understand that freeing markets does nothing to free them when there is a guy with the most chips. That prices always go up under privatization of utilities.

I know that the inventors of nuclear power envisioned energy that was too cheap to meter, that Tesla had the same idea, that the inventors of the nuclear bomb worked to end all wars. I understand that there was no profit in "improving people's lives" that providing free energy was of no interest to Morgan, that the military didn't want to give up their day-jobs and that thorium research wasn't pursued.

I understand that the common man is motivated by far more than money. That doctors existed before they were wealthy, that artists painted at their own cost, that inventors created to enhance their world view. But I also understand that those who didn't share their worldview played possum only to snap up the technology and knowledge because of a lack of morality and an insistence that they deserved more than the rest.

What I mostly understand is that your understanding of the world has been written by the wealthy winners. That most of the ivy league schools were funded with opium war dollars, they are restrictive and promote a worldview in line with that of their founders.

So no, I don't understand the need for treating each other with carrots and sticks, turning neighbours into competitors and rewarding betrayal, enriching destruction and hiding and hoarding human innovation.

Oh wow... like I said "Great Wall of China."

Somehow voluntary exchange has become "carrots and sticks," and the profit motive of providing good shoes = military industrial complex and planned obsolescence.

Drop doctors' wages by 95%, and you'll get much less doctors. There's nothing wrong with the profit motive itself--unless you have something against having more doctors. A world run on good intentions alone and no profit motive would be very poor and inefficient. Do you like high infant mortality rates and more dead humans?

Yeah, people want lower cost means for providing energy. You know what rewards the effort to actually provide it? Profit.

Somehow more competition is bad. Okay, dude.

RE: durability, it's not the only aspect of a good that matters. I'm pretty sure car companies could produce cars that could last for 20 years without needing any major repair. The only problem is that they'd cost $1,000,000 for something that's equivalent to $25,000 feature-wise. Even given this choice, you wouldn't opt for it, but at least you can opt for longer lasting goods in the market place. Of course, since you dislike competition cuz prices always go up (allegedly), then you'd be cutting your nose to spite your face. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The great thing about markets is that they don't require you to believe in whether or not profit improves your life because it still does, yet you'll still bitch about it. Here you are on your computer, with your bible next to you (most likely), bitching about how profit coordinating multiple markets of buyers and sellers provides you with this stuff. Most of your comments against profit miss the point because the fundamental issue is government interfering in the market process.

[BigBallinStalin]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?

[warmonger1981]

I used to hang with some shifty people. One of those shit bags killed a dude for less than $10 and a pager. Wanna know why he killed that dude. Because when that dude was getting robbed by my friend he said you should of shot me. Guess what? He shot him. So who was in the wrong? The one who shot or the one who said "you should of shot me "?

[BigBallinStalin]

I used to hang with some shifty people. One of those shit bags killed a dude for less than $10 and a pager. Wanna know he killed that dude. Because when that dude was getting robbed by my friend said you should of shot me. Guess what? He shot him. So who was in the wrong? The one who shot or the one who said "you should of shot me "?

I've read this twice, and I can't place 'who's who' in the post.

[warmonger1981]

My bad my friend shot guy for $10 and pager.

[BigBallinStalin]

My bad my friend shot guy for $10 and pager.

Because that guy robbed him previously?

[warmonger1981]

My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?

[shickingbrits]

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?

We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.

De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.

Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.

Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.

As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.

You are living in a fairytale.

[stahrgazer]

'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler

Discuss.

First, let's add a few more:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: - by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” — Adolph Hitler

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -- Adolf Hitler

"We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. . .we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess." -- Adolf Hitler

Just as when Hitler spoke of "man" he only spoke of a certain set of characteristics that his twisted little mind arbitrarily decided was the only type of man worth calling human - and so the rest must be animals - when Hitler speaks of religious faith he means only his own arbitrary choice as to what that faith was and meant.

In Hitler's warped world, Jews didn't count as human, and Jewish "faith" was akin to atheism; in fact, anything that didn't fit into his narrow twisted ideas, or anyone who balked against his narrow, twisted, ideas, were the targets of his own personal crusade against pretty much anything, everything, and everyone he chose.

Ultimately, Hitler didn't want to worship a God as he understood God; Hitler wanted to be the one everyone else worshipped.

And then he began a series of "schools" to indoctrinate Germany's children with the "character training" and "faith" he himself chose; which was, essentially, "Have faith in me, in what I tell you to do, and eradicate anyone who stands in my way." He often convincingly disguised his plans as what "the motherland" needed; patriotism... so that to fight against what he said was to betray Germany. Those who might balk at turning in their parents, siblings, or neighbors for something or other, might do it after all for Germany.

I don't see it as much different, really, than what the crusaders were doing in past centuries; nor do I see it as much different from what Islamic zealots attempt to do in more recent years: twisting what they've chosen to believe is "God's word" into an excuse to murder anyone who sees things differently; has a different "faith."

[AAFitz]

Indeed, religion is made by men and rewritten over the years to better suit the ever evolving world. As far as morals go, that is on the individual, not any institution to say. After all, people are diverse for a reason.

Does people making up their own morals not prove that their moral codes are irrelevant bunk?

Does people making up their own religions not prove that their religions are irrelevant bunk?

[stahrgazer]

Constraint on bad behavior can be independent of religion since religiously derived moral principles have substitutes--like moral principles derived from reason/logic. So... I don't understand your contention against a morality that doesn't appeal to a god's authority (and which doesn't rely on a circular argument about a holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says that it is).

You have a reasonable point, here, BBS, especailly, "the holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says it is."

Our (mankind's) first written ideas of what constitutes morality was written in parable form in a series of scrolls, documents, letters, etc., by men who claimed they were writing the word of God. It's possible they were writing based on some humanistic moral conscience, the type of inner moral compass that you claim atheists may possess, and that you claim is independent of any God.

Well, basically then,the question is: Where does "conscience" derive?

If you've ever studied Catechism - the Catholic teachings about their religion - the claim is that conscience is a little seed of "God's will" inside all humans. The "good" that can oppose the "evil" of satan.

But we only have those old scrolls, documents, letters, etc. to go by as "proof" that this is the origin of the conscience. And, frankly, those scrolls, documents, letters, etc., are suspect because we know that back then, typically only the clergy was educated enough to write such lengthy treatises.

So, essentially, you have the indoctrinated writing the doctrines, and testifying that the doctrines are indeed the Word.

So, you have a point.

Then again, because folks who believe in a religious/God origin of the conscience have more "proof" than those who do not; so if it's "proof" you require, they win.

[BigBallinStalin]

My friend robbed the guy. When the guy was walking away he said "you should of shot me ". So my friend shot and killed him. Who was in the wrong?

Your friend stole something, pissed off the victim, and then shot him... Sounds morally wrong to me--assuming the victim didn't want to be killed at that moment. Sure, he said, "you should've shot me," but by saying that does he mean, "You should've shot me because if you don't I'm gonna find you and kill you," or "You..... because I don't want to live anymore"?

Usually, when people say that, they mean to hurt you later.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is engaging in a voluntary exchange?

We have done nothing to increase competition. That company who develops the automated system and decreases their costs by 70% will drop the price by 10% until their competitors either create their own system, which will reinforce the the original price, or drop out of competition which will then cause the price to increase.

De Beers hoards their diamonds and if a competitor comes along, they have the most interest in swooping it up.

Sure, decreasing a doctors wages by 95% will decrease the number of doctors if their social status is dependent on their income, becoming a doctor is costly and if there are other nations paying higher wages that can take in a lot of doctors.

Again, Tesla was not looking for profit for providing energy, and Morgan had already financed it. Morgan was operating on a worldview. I don't do shit unless the reward is greater than my input. He didn't see elevating the world as a reward. He saw elevating himself as a reward. He didn't see raising the level of equality as a fit end, he saw raising inequality as a fit ends.

As for making a car that last 20 years, the great depression was caused by making products too good in a system that didn't reward durability.

You are living in a fairytale.

Wow. So, how much do you know about economics and the economy?

I mean, if you're gonna criticize something, then you should be pretty good at knowing what you're criticizing, right?

If you feel that you're lacking the knowledge to do so, would you then educate yourself to fill in the gaps? Or would you insist that somehow you are still correct?

I need to know your answers because I'm not sure how best to talk to you about all this.

[tzor]

'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler

Discuss.

There is an assumption here that there is only one system of school. In the American model, one can see a separation of school on the secular and religious level. (One could argue that this goes to an extreme in the US but that is another issue.) One does not need to know the tenants of a specific faith in order to establish a basic moral code suitable for the teaching of subject matter. (Leaving the exploration of a deeper moral code to that of religious instruction as per the individual faith's core belief system.)

Now there is the problem of the selection of that moral base especially in the selection of the criteria of the secular schools, but that's a problem even if you add a religious element into it as well and is really a separate issue. As long as there exists some avenue for religion to have sufficient time resources to supplement secular education and as long as the secular school is not in direct conflict with the religious education (and yes we need to define "direct conflict" carefully because I'm not talking about evolution/creationism here) the system can work adequately.

[BigBallinStalin]

Constraint on bad behavior can be independent of religion since religiously derived moral principles have substitutes--like moral principles derived from reason/logic. So... I don't understand your contention against a morality that doesn't appeal to a god's authority (and which doesn't rely on a circular argument about a holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says that it is).

You have a reasonable point, here, BBS, especailly, "the holy book being the word of the lord because the holy book says it is."

Our (mankind's) first written ideas of what constitutes morality was written in parable form in a series of scrolls, documents, letters, etc., by men who claimed they were writing the word of God. It's possible they were writing based on some humanistic moral conscience, the type of inner moral compass that you claim atheists may possess, and that you claim is independent of any God.

Well, basically then,the question is: Where does "conscience" derive?

If you've ever studied Catechism - the Catholic teachings about their religion - the claim is that conscience is a little seed of "God's will" inside all humans. The "good" that can oppose the "evil" of satan.

But we only have those old scrolls, documents, letters, etc. to go by as "proof" that this is the origin of the conscience. And, frankly, those scrolls, documents, letters, etc., are suspect because we know that back then, typically only the clergy was educated enough to write such lengthy treatises.

So, essentially, you have the indoctrinated writing the doctrines, and testifying that the doctrines are indeed the Word.

So, you have a point.

Then again, because folks who believe in a religious/God origin of the conscience have more "proof" than those who do not; so if it's "proof" you require, they win.

I'm not seeing the 'proof' that human conscience derived from God. A bunch of old scrolls from a particular group of people who believed in a particular deity doesn't confirm that conscience came from God. You're rolling with an unfalsifiable claim; I can simply contradict your conclusion by saying, "well, that's not God, it's [insert X] which is responsible and beyond comprehension." Besides, if you get oral traditions and other writings from other places who believe in other gods, then you've got your contradictory evidence against the 'it came from God' position. And simply because we find a bunch of scrolls, it doesn't follow that the scrolls derived from god (because the writers/the scrolls say so).

A great answer to your question is, "I don't know." What does it mean to say that "conscience derives from some place?" Why only God? Why not other deities, or why not from within? Or does the brain even work like that? Does "conscience" actually exist in some place within or beyond? And if so, how can we know?

We'd have to clarify these issues to get to a convincing answer. From the little I know about neurology, concepts like love, morality, and what not don't exist in particular parts of the brain, so in one sense they don't 'derive' from the brain. Nevertheless, morality is a social project that involves the intellectual exchanges of more than one individual, so a moral code in another sense is 'derived' from the repeated interactions of human beings. It doesn't require a God to do this, and knowing humans it's easy to convince people to obey by appealing to a godlike entity (which is the more likely case of how conscience 'derives' from a deity).

RE: the "how can we know" bit, that goes back to our different standards of generating knowledge. The god argument requires faith; the science/logic approach requires falsification--since I'm taking the Karl Popperian route on this one. In other words, they believe they've won but only because they inconsistently apply their rules for generating knowledge, so it's an arbitrarily rigged game that reinforces their beliefs.

[mrswdk]

Indeed, religion is made by men and rewritten over the years to better suit the ever evolving world. As far as morals go, that is on the individual, not any institution to say. After all, people are diverse for a reason.

Does people making up their own morals not prove that their moral codes are irrelevant bunk?

Does people making up their own religions not prove that their religions are irrelevant bunk?

Yes. Were you expecting me to answer differently or something?

[mrswdk]

moral principles derived from reason/logic

Such as? Defining 'good' and 'bad' relies on just as much nonsensical circular logic as adherence to a holy book.

As OP says, atheistic morality is built on air.

We shouldn't kill each other for shitty reasons. Here's a shitty reason: "I want your shoes, and I'll shoot you if you don't give them to me."

Seems pretty clear and much less nonsensical than "god said so, cuz it's true, cuz there's this book and in it it says that god's words are true and these are god's word."

One man's shitty reason is another man's good reason. A starving man probably doesn't consider his hunger to be a shitty reason for stealing food or stealing money to buy food with. Maybe to you his hunger is a shitty reason to steal, but just because you consider his actions petty, distasteful or disproportionate doesn't make them 'immoral'. What you're doing there is confusing 'things I don't like' with 'things that are immoral'.

There are many pragmatic reasons for arguing in favor of laws that prohibit murder, theft, selling poisonous beef and so on, and those reasons are much more academically sound than 'because it's wrong'.

Do you sincerely believe that a starving person is morally justified in killing your best friend so that he can steal his shoes to sell them?

If I don't believe that something can be declared 'immoral' due to my belief that morality is an unsound concept then I obviously don't believe anything can be 'morally justified' either. If someone shoots my friend in order to steal his shoes then that is neither a moral nor immoral act.

[shickingbrits]

BBS, of course I can't look at a skeleton and say, that guy's dead, because I'm not a coroner. I lack the authority to do so. Plea on, cowboy.

You have failed to address any of the points I've made. Or, you have failed to include data into your set which disproves your set. What you have done is said, Rockefeller was the richest man in the world, therefore he is the authority on wealth. You've failed to describe the self interest which may be attached to the promulgation of policies that have been shown time and again to fail and revert to said dead authority.

Please clarify:

Free markets + fluoride = social well-being

Fluoride causes dental fluorosis



so it is in the self-interest of dentists to recommend it.

It is a toxic waste byproduct of the petrochemical industries, so it's in their self-interest to sell it instead of paying the high price of disposing of toxic waste.

It lowers IQs (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featur ... jean-choi/),
creates a more docile population (It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia.) Fluoride confuses the immune system, attacks the thyroid, human organs. It is in the self interest of government and the health profession to have humans ingest it.

You can say that putting fluoride in the water supply is good for the economy. Not only do the dental, medical and petrochemical industries gain from it, bottled water companies do as well. The government enjoys greater authority over a stupider and more docile population. Now I can see how your concepts of self-interest in profit is a good thing.

Don't describe this as either moral or a voluntary exchange. It's just the wealthy and powerful attempting to decrease competition. They have a worldview in which they are above the rubble. They wish to distract and subdue the mob. It's not the invisible hand of the market gracefully sweeping away social problems unintentionally. It is the powers that be directing a doctrine that sanctions their power and further consolidates it.

But please do tell me your unbiased opinion.

[Army of GOD]

you know it's a party when AntiAircraft Fitz and stahrgazer join