Is there a God of atheism?

[EricH]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

That is so precious. So tell us, where did you study evolution?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

That is so precious. So tell us, where did you study evolution?

I do think Learner misunderstands evolution theory. Behaviors are certainly selected for and against, there is no doubt about that because the underlying genetic predisposition is what dictates the behavior. In a larger sense the "behavior" of genes and even less complex structures can fit into such a discussion. But those behaviors are amoral and asubjective. Those behaviors don't give a whiff about language and how we as a species categorize them. Perhaps Learner can be more precise or wishes to explain further.

 

[pood]

 
The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

That is so precious. So tell us, where did you study evolution?

I do think Learner misunderstands evolution theory. Behaviors are certainly selected for and against, there is no doubt about that because the underlying genetic predisposition is what dictates the behavior. In a larger sense the "behavior" of genes and even less complex structures can fit into such a discussion. But those behaviors are amoral and asubjective. Those behaviors don't give a whiff about language and how we as a species categorize them. Perhaps Learner can be more precise or wishes to explain further.

I could be wrong, but I’m guessing he thinks there needs to be an Objective Morality that only Goddy can explain and evolution can’t. Maybe he will elaborate. Of course there is no “objective” morality in the sense he seems to mean, but that’s perfectly OK.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you have faith in what you believe?

Which sense of the word faith? 1. Confidence or 2. Religious faith that goes beyond mere confidence to include teachings to ignore critical thinking and contrary evidence?

1 or 2?

I understand faith as confidence or trust that a claim is true. Do you put faith in your own thoughts? If not, then why do you have no faith that there is no God of atheism? If you do have such faith, then you're on my side!

You are creating a false equivalence.

No I didn't.

It's time for you to admit that you do have a God.

You're just plain wrong. Suck it up and move on.

 

[Emily Lake]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Moral objectivity is an article of religious faith. Without an arbiter of morality, it cannot be objective.

All morality is subjective. What is considered moral varies by era, by geography, by culture, and indeed by person.

From an evolutionary perspective, however, caring about others is a naturally developed characteristic, and it's evident throughout a plethora of social species. Pretty much any species that has evolved to live in a group has also developed a tendency to care for other members of their group. Survival of a herd species is dependent on the survival of the herd as a whole. That doesn't necessarily mean that every single member of that herd must have the same level of care from every member of the herd, there's a lot of squish involved. But what it does mean is that caring about the wellbeing of others is an evolutionary adaptation.

Humans are a social species. We're wired to care about others, and empathy is a well-documented element of cognitive development in our species. So much so that individuals that do not develop empathy are considered to be displaying a significant aberration.

 

[Learner]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Moral objectivity is an article of religious faith. Without an arbiter of morality, it cannot be objective.

In regards to faith (in God). 'Moral objectivity' from that view is an understanding, that has been demonstrated to be true by actions i.e. people willing to suffer or give up their lives, sacrificing themselves for their belief and to do for others - disagreeing of course with your atheistic perspective, as I quoted above.

All morality is subjective. What is considered moral varies by era, by geography, by culture, and indeed by person.

I have been quite aware of this... as you 'state the obvious'. The initial post I made which you initially responded to, was highlighting the same description.

From an evolutionary perspective, however, caring about others is a naturally developed characteristic, and it's evident throughout a plethora of social species. Pretty much any species that has evolved to live in a group has also developed a tendency to care for other members of their group. Survival of a herd species is dependent on the survival of the herd as a whole.

I'm not arguing against this.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every single member of that herd must have the same level of care from every member of the herd, there's a lot of squish involved. But what it does mean is that caring about the wellbeing of others is an evolutionary adaptation.

Fair point of view. I don't need to argue against this.

Humans are a social species. We're wired to care about others, and empathy is a well-documented element of cognitive development in our species. So much so that individuals that do not develop empathy are considered to be displaying a significant aberration.

Ok, well this is not an argument 'in anyway' against my initial post about the two moral concepts. All the human aspects of human cognition and caring etc, I would have thought, was generally understood by both theists and atheists alike.. regardless how one thinks the human emotional mind first developed.

Again..both moral concepts can be demonstrated by actions...

..what do you think of the line where Jesus commands those who follow him, to love their neighbours and their enemies and people who follow this?

 

[Learner]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

That is so precious. So tell us, where did you study evolution?

In London ... Started way back in secondary school when I was 11, lol. That was pretty much the standard.

How about a good argument for a change? I certainly would have expected some good ones now, under your reincarnation.

 

[Learner]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

That is so precious. So tell us, where did you study evolution?

I do think Learner misunderstands evolution theory. Behaviors are certainly selected for and against, there is no doubt about that because the underlying genetic predisposition is what dictates the behavior. In a larger sense the "behavior" of genes and even less complex structures can fit into such a discussion. But those behaviors are amoral and asubjective. Those behaviors don't give a whiff about language and how we as a species categorize them. Perhaps Learner can be more precise or wishes to explain further.

You can get the gist in my response to Emily Lake #466.

Posters trying to make the argument, explaining moral-objectivity is "not possible" because of the evolving biology!? Read what you're all saying. People are liking and agreeing to the absurdity too!?

 

[Learner]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Maybe you should take an evolution class and then you might know what you’re talking about for a change.

As you may gather in the few posts previous to this response. Teaming up for the sake of atheism, tends to overlook the absurd. Moral Objectivity doesn't exist because of "evolution"...huh?

It would be more precise to say, that it's you lot that doesn't know what you're talking about.

 

[steve_bank]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Maybe you should take an evolution class and then you might know what you’re talking about for a change.

As you may gather in the few post previous to yours. Teaming up for the sake of atheism, tends to overlook the absurd. Moral Objectivity doesn't exist because of "evolution"...huh?

It would be more precise to say that it's you lot that doesn't know what you're all talking about.

Are lions. orcas, and wolves moral or immoral?

Ever watch video of Orcas hunting and tearing apart live seals? Bloddy.


The idea us humans are something other than what we are by evolution is in part in the west is derived by Christian reading of Genesis.

You can argue that reiigion and gods served to put a veneer of civility over our human nature. In the case of the ancient tribal Jews 10 Commandments allegedly mandated from a god to not steal, lie, go after another man's wife, and coveting what others have.

Clearly rules for social order. Sating it is demanded by a god who will punish violators occurs across time and cultures.

In a benign form Santa Claus. To kids Santa knows when you are good or bad. If you are bad you get a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking.

Morality s a social consensus.

We are what a long evolutionary path made us. No more or less that any other living thing. There is no purpose, intent or guiding force to evolution.

 

[Rhea]

..what do you think of the line where Jesus commands those who follow him, to love their neighbours and their enemies and people who follow this?

Well, the people who profess to love him don’t take it very seriously and never have through history.
So I think he successfully demonstrated that there is no objective morality pretty conclusively.

 

[Rhea]

Posters trying to make the argument, explaining moral-objectivity is "not possible" because of the evolving biology!? Read what you're all saying. People are liking and agreeing to the absurdity too!?

I think you are completely missing the argument they are making, because you;re arguing something different.


They are saying that evolution demonstrates why no “objective morality” is necessary for multiple societies to end up developing similar moralities… because evolutionary pressures will drive “morality” and evolutionary pressures can be very similar in different societies.

In other words, if morality was caused subjectively by evolutionary pressures, what you’d expect to see if this were true matches EXACTLY what you do see: morals have some commonalities across most societies with some outlier societies that end up with very different evolutionary pressures, AND morals are not understood exactly duplicate by every human AND morals become situational for most humans.

This is exactly what you’d expect to see if morals were driven by overall survival trends, not an edict from a god(dess)(es).

 

[James Brown]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

 

[Learner]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

 

[bilby]

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

See, the problem with this is that the existence of a Moral Objective Standard is logically contradictory.

No Moral Objective Standard can exist; Therefore all Christians (and anyone else) who agree to this are demonstrably and provably wrong - either they are wrong in believing God to be a Moral Objective Standard, or they are wrong in believing God to be non-fictional (fictional characters can, of course, have logically contradictory properties. That's just bad writing, rather than being fundamentally impossible).

 

[ideologyhunter]

I know this has been said a zillion times about Objective Moral Standards, but I've still never seen a Christian harmonization of Matthew 5 and Galatians 3 that makes sense under a supposed objective morality.

In the first, Jesus says, "...as long as heaven and earth exist, not the smallest point or detail of the Law will be taken away, not until the end of all things...whoever disobeys even the least of the commandments and teaches his friends to do the same, will be the least in the Kingdom of heaven....you will be able to enter heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God commands."
In the second, Paul says, "No one is put right with God by means of the Law, because the scripture tells us that 'Only he who is right with God through faith shall live.'...the Law kept us as prisoners until the new faith could be revealed. We were under the Law until Christ came, until we could be set right with God through faith...Now that the time of faith has come, the Law is no longer in charge of us."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

god is also the source of immorality, moral relativism since he created everything. And contradictions. Don't forget contradictions:
After all, god is love. Also, he is an angry and jealous god. Oh, and, by the way, true love has no fear and is slow to anger; and anger is cruel, and wrath is like a flood, but jealousy is even more dangerous. Which is why genocide is okay when god commands it or if an invisible person whispers to murder your son on an altar. It's the greatest test of faith ever. Also, thou shalt not kill. But also kill the gays! Stone them but not in a good way.

 

[steve_bank]

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The mother of all Cristian apologetics and rationalizations.

By the way Learner, should everyone follow the Leviticus rules?

 

[Rhea]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

You changed the words.
James said “people would agree on moral issues”
You said “abide by moral law”

These, of course, are not the same thing.

Agreeing that a moral code exists is like saying “we all agree that theft from a store is against the law”
Uniformly abiding by that law, is an obviously different topic.


I ponder whether you do that on purpose, or whether, in your mind, you don’t understand that there is a difference between understanding a moral issue and abiding by a moral code.

“If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues,” regardless of whther they all can, will or do abide by them.

“The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!” and everyone would agree on what that morality from that objective source is.

You did not refute James’ point. At all.

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

aaaaaahhhhh I would say that no, not all Christians agree that “God is the Objective Moral Standard” first because many Christians have a real problem with the world-drowning god’s morality - they are deeply troubled by it - and they think Jesus has better morals than YHWH, and second because they cannot agree that an objective standard exists or what that standard is, one can no longer argue that they agree on its objectivity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you have faith in what you believe?

Which sense of the word faith? 1. Confidence or 2. Religious faith that goes beyond mere confidence to include teachings to ignore critical thinking and contrary evidence?

1 or 2?

I understand faith as confidence or trust that a claim is true. Do you put faith in your own thoughts? If not, then why do you have no faith that there is no God of atheism? If you do have such faith, then you're on my side!

You are creating a false equivalence.

Honestly, it was a proper way for him to wrap up his thread.