The Morality of Atheism

[bilby]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

 

[bilby]

God's moral laws are objective because;

1. They are omnisciently wise. (Not guesswork)

They are deeply lacking in both omniscience and wisdom. As illustrated by his failure to require suitable latrine siting to prevent the spread of pathogenic microorganisms (of which the laws are clearly oblivious)

2. They are impartial. (For our benefit not His)

They are explicitly partial towards his 'chosen', at every level.

3. They are enforced and enforceable. (A law which isn't enforced hardly even qualifies as a law - let alone an objectively real law.)

There is zero evidence of any enforcement at all. Heaven and hell are mere rumor, and observation shows that good people suffer, and bad people prosper, on a regular and persistent basis.

 

[Person19960]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this? What's wrong with deriving morality from a text published by a 501(c)(3) church or organization?

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

When does your good hearing make you wonder what you really heard? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm HOH.

 

[bilby]

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

I oppose the idea that forgiveness is a topic that originates in a "holy" text.

Of course it is mentioned in them; They pinch good ideas from all over, to leaven their bad ideas into a whole that is unassailable by the simpletons who swallow their claims.

The Bible says "thou shallt not kill". If I think that's a good rule, this does NOT imply that I am compelled to ALSO think that "thou shallt not suffer a witch to live" is a good rule (particularly as the latter clearly contradicts the former).

The Bible, like all "holy" texts, is a mess. It's incompetent as a guide to anything; That's not the same thing as it always being wrong.

Indeed, a "holy" text that were ALWAYS wrong (should such a thing be possible) would be a very useful guide - we could just confidently always do the opposite of what it says.

Unfortunately, "holy" texts are not always wrong, any more than they are always right. It's that which renders them valueless.

I am not required, by my disdain for a "holy" text, to disagree with or contradict every single part of it; To do so would be no less insane than agreeing with every single part of it.

There are not two classes of text: (TRUE or FALSE); There are three: (TRUE, FALSE, and SOME OF EACH). The third category is the least useful, the most common, and includes every "holy" text I have ever encountered.

 

[bilby]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this?

Because I genuinely am pleased to hear Lion provide a clear and unequivocally non-theistic basis for morality.

It demonstrates both that morality does not derive from gods or scripture; and (more importantly) that Lion understands this, and is not the unthinking moral automaton (having has outsourced his entire morality to his church) that he often claims to be.

 

[Person19960]

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

I oppose the idea that forgiveness is a topic that originates in a "holy" text.

Of course it is mentioned in them; They pinch good ideas from all over, to leaven their bad ideas into a whole that is unassailable by the simpletons who swallow their claims.

Are not the most ancient texts considered holy? I don't know offhand what the oldest texts are. But what if a person who sang the praises of her dead cat had been thought of as a goddess in ancient Egypt? I ask because I saw and liked this:

Here is the prayer and translation in text:
Heiroglyphs:𓇋𓉔𓇌 𓎯𓏏𓏏𓁐 𓇋𓅱 𓎛𓏁𓊃𓏏𓀁𓏪𓍿 𓅓 𓂋𓏤 𓈖 𓀅𓂝𓍿 𓅭𓏏𓁐𓎯𓏏𓏏𓁐
Transliteration: ἰhy bꜣstt ἰw ḥswt.ṯ m r n ἰmn-ꜥ.ṯ sꜣt-bꜣstt
Pronunciation: ίâhý B'ästἐt ἰōѡă ḥâşἐѡt•etjă em râ ân ίâmūn-ąō•etjă S'ät-B'ästἐt
Direct Translation: hail (goddess) Bastet now Her praises are in the mouth of a Priestess (of Bastet), S'atbastet (meaning daughter of Bastet referring to my chosen Kemetic name)
Final Translation: Hail Bastet! Now Her praises are in the mouth of Her priestess S'atBastet.

I don't know what is older, other than symbol languages such as those in Asia and in math, neither of which I know.

(Translation by Niall Bjorn.)

 

[bilby]

Are not the most ancient texts considered holy?

Not by me.

I think they are fascinating, and give us a unique insight into how ancient people lived and even how they thought.

But there's no such thing as "holy"; It's an enrirely fictional category, like "perpetual motion".

Humans are good at fiction. It's practically our defining feature.

Ranke and Fisher, apparently independently of each other, suggested in the 1960s that our soecies would be better called Homo Narrans (Storytelling Man) than Homo Sapiens (Wise Man), a name which suffers a terrible lack of humility.

In a further advocacy of humility, Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen suggested in 2002 that we drop the Homo genus altogether, and recognise that humans are a part of the chimpanzee genus, making us Pan Narrans (The Storytelling Chimpanzee).

 

[Lion IRC]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this? What's wrong with deriving morality from a text published by a 501(c)(3) church or organization?

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

When does your good hearing make you wonder what you really heard? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm HOH.

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

 

[Person19960]

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

Hm, @Lion IRC , how would that be knowable by our human minds?

 

[Person19960]

Are not the most ancient texts considered holy?

Not by me.

I think they are fascinating, and give us a unique insight into how ancient people lived and even how they thought.

But there's no such thing as "holy"; It's an enrirely fictional category, like "perpetual motion".

Humans are good at fiction. It's practically our defining feature.

Are there secular ancient texts, though, @bilby ?

 

[bilby]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this? What's wrong with deriving morality from a text published by a 501(c)(3) church or organization?

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

When does your good hearing make you wonder what you really heard? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm HOH.

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

Everything is superior to God, except other purely fictional entities.

And I am not challenging His moral law, because there isn't any such thing.

What you think is God's moral law is a bunch of stuff made up by people. People who knew a lot less about reality than is known today. It's not particularly difficult to come up with better moral laws than those recorded in the Bible, by the men who wrote it.

And it's very obvious that no all knowing or all powerful entities were involved in the writing of that (or any other) text.

 

[bilby]

Are not the most ancient texts considered holy?

Not by me.

I think they are fascinating, and give us a unique insight into how ancient people lived and even how they thought.

But there's no such thing as "holy"; It's an enrirely fictional category, like "perpetual motion".

Humans are good at fiction. It's practically our defining feature.

Are there secular ancient texts, though, @bilby ?

Depends what you mean by "secular".

 

[Lion IRC]

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

Hm, @Lion IRC , how would that be knowable by our human minds?

The same way I can know what's on your mind.

 

[Person19960]

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

Hm, @Lion IRC , how would that be knowable by our human minds?

The same way I can know what's on your mind.

DR B_____????

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this? What's wrong with deriving morality from a text published by a 501(c)(3) church or organization?

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

When does your good hearing make you wonder what you really heard? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm HOH.

"We should forgive our enemies, but not before they are hanged."
- Heinrich Heinie

​

​

 

[Person19960]

I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all.

So, there's no need for any gods or holy texts in your morality?

That's good to hear.

Hey, @bilby , why do you say this? What's wrong with deriving morality from a text published by a 501(c)(3) church or organization?

Forgiveness is morally ethical to me, and, forgiveness is a topic mentioned in a "holy" text. Do you oppose forgiveness?

When does your good hearing make you wonder what you really heard? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm HOH.

bilby misses the point that whilst you don't need God to act morally, you DO need something superior to God if you want to to challenge His moral law - replacing it with your own.

Everything is superior to God, except other purely fictional entities.

And I am not challenging His moral law, because there isn't any such thing.

What you think is God's moral law is a bunch of stuff made up by people. People who knew a lot less about reality than is known today. It's not particularly difficult to come up with better moral laws than those recorded in the Bible, by the men who wrote it.

And it's very obvious that no all knowing or all powerful entities were involved in the writing of that (or any other) text.

How do you know what I think? Are you following me on all of my socials? Do I have enough for Friday with Dr R___?


How do you define "God" - and why would you do so?

Did you not say that the most ancient texts were not holy, or was that someone else?

To that person, or whomever, I ask: What secular or non-religious texts exist (other than those I asked about, earlier). I simply do not believe there are or were many enduring non-religious pre-Hieroglyphs or other texts. Recipes, war plans, maybe.

I have every reason to think that the earliest and most enduring texts were primarily religious, or "holy," for many centuries; and this applies to all languages other than maths.

Of course, I'd like to know more facts and information. Thanks.

 

[bilby]

I have every reason to think that the earliest and most enduring texts were primarily religious, or "holy," for many centuries; and this applies to all languages other than maths.

Of course, I'd like to know more facts and information. Thanks.

I suspect that writing itself (and even language itself) was considered magical, and that "holy" is a word meaning "magical stuff we do, as opposed to the evil magic of those guys".

Regardless, the religious content of ancient writings is not particularly valuable, its value lies in what it tells us about the life and times of the writers.

If someone writes about the gods sending a great flood, it's the flood that's significant, not the alleged gods. If someone is writing prayers for rain, it's the history of the drought, and the societal belief that prayer can help end it, that are interesting, not what it can tell us about how to make it rain tomorrow.

 

[AdamWho]

I am glad to see that I was correct in my assessment

Obedience and moral actions are different. You have to think to have morals, you don't have to think to be obedient.

People who claim to derive their morals from religion are either confused about where they actually derive their morals or they are simply obedient and lack a moral foundation. They admit as much when they say things like "How can you be moral without a god?".

I claim that all religious people, in that they are moral at all, borrow their morality from the secular culture around them.

The people who claimed to derive their moral codes from religions have (circuitously) admitted that they actually get them from secular sources (law, social contract).

The fact that they stubbornly deny this when confronted directly is irrelevant. We should let them have their delusion, lest they become serial killers lacking a celestial panopticon

 

[GenesisNemesis]

3. They are enforced and enforceable. (A law which isn't enforced hardly even qualifies as a law - let alone an objectively real law.)

They are not enforceable, seeing as your god supposedly flooded the Earth because only one person was following his instruction.

 

[pood]

A “celestial panopticon” is pretty good. Wish I’d thought of that.