BF2S Forums Where do Atheists think they get the right?!?

btw.  answering a question with another question is not "debating."

This forum is a "debating" forum... if you were wondering.

Stingray24 wrote:

To CPoe and topal:
It seems to me that the two of you are some of the most well-spoken members of our forum in general.  If I understand correctly, you consider yourselves atheist or agnostic.  Apologies if I am incorrect.  Surely between the two of you, there is a thoughtful response to the question at hand.  I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Edit:
And Fen, now that you've joined the thread.

Specifically I am none of these: agnostic, atheist nor am I a believer (this “belief” thing as a concept is a self-annihilating concept when examined critically or philosophically). In a loose way - it would be safe to say: I am an atheist to all myths (mythology) - yet find it contains great value (a different shade of meaning for the word "belief"), but I am not an athiest to what I do not actually know (God and or anything else actually unknown). How can I be an athiest to what I don't actually know or cannot know. It is a meaningless statement to me to say I am agnostic or an atheist to abstractions of mind.

Where does one begin, when there is a mountain of error standing before me?

What is moral?
What is moral vs. ethical?
What is just a custom and has nothing to do with ethics (right or wrong)?
What is the true origin of any religion?
What is belief and faith?
What is true origin of the limits of compassion, human bonding, altruism, etc (nature maybe?)?
What is the anthropomorphic projection of being?
What is psyche?
Is moral relativism actually a FACT(!) borne out by the evidence?
People (including you and the original poster); are atheists in a sense; to other religious traditions (myths).
How do words actually acquire meaning (over time) - and therefore what do they really mean or indicate?
Why do I consider uncertainty an important component of any ethical, spiritual, moral - principle?
If God is, does God conceptual have to be set at odds with nature (known-nature); or why do people separate creator from the creation itself (as evidenced)?
Acceptable grammer use vs. improper erroneous grammer when considering logical syntax.
Etc.

Honestly a detailed response is dependant upon my mood. Not sure if I feel like it - as of course it could be lengthy. Maybe someone else will post something less pendantic than I almost certainly would.

doublestuforeo wrote:

btw.  answering a question with another question is not "debating."

This forum is a "debating" forum... if you were wondering.

LOL, instruct us further please...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-04 12:55:33)

Atheists and people of religion all have a grasp of good, bad, right and wrong.  For religious people they have their belief in a supreme being(s) to give them a good base for their morality. Atheists, my self included are also brought up with the same base of morality. It may sound strange to someone who views an Atheist as a "god basher" but some of the ten commandments are meant for everyone to adhere to no matter what they believe. Things such as "Thou shall not murder" and "Thou shall not steal" are what everyone should live by. While other things in these "commandments" make Atheists giggle the five or so "ground rules" that tell of what not to do because it sucks ass to be on the receiving end of em (getting stuff stolen, getting whacked and hearing your neighbor bone your wife for example). So basically treat others the way you want to be treated.

doublestuforeo wrote:

THIS TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Can you guys even read?

I don't believe in moral relativism.  I can't see how Atheists can believe in anything but moral relativism.  However, this is not about me being right and you being wrong.

Here is the question I am posing, and I will post it again in as kind a way as possible, so I don't get everyone cying again.

On what grounds do Atheists feel they have the right to suggest an action or policy be "right" or "wrong?"

I think you'll find that some of us have tried to answer and posed questions to counter your point.

I believe for a start, as an atheist, that murder, rape and theft are wrong as they infringe on others in a negative way that I would not like to happen to people I care for. I believe I have the same right as any other person to state an opinion.

I assume you are trying to say you think the only 'person' that can say what is "right" or "wrong" is God, and even religious people are only stating a personal opinion based on there belief.

doublestuforeo wrote:

topal63 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

btw.  answering a question with another question is not "debating."

This forum is a "debating" forum... if you were wondering.

LOL, instruct us further please...

Okay.

Making a off topic statement in an attempt to pointlessly make someone look stupid is simply a sign that you can not debate them on the subject at hand.  At this point, you leave the debate.

Actually No... that will not happen. I am not suggesting pure-stupidity. I am pointing out with your own statements your lack of humility contained in both the premise of this thread and the person making the absurd claim.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-04 12:04:17)

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?

The world is not binary. There are rarely any absolutes on this planet. The seeds of religion, a tool devised by humanity to civilise us and take us out of primeval drudgery and to exert power/influence on others, were planted thousands of years ago. In those dark times humans needed to work together to move forward in adverse circumstances. Kind of like ants, bees, chimpanzees, etc., a system developed that allowed them to co-exist relatively peacefully with their own kind.

Look at chimpanzees. They don't worship a god. They work communally, won't kill (thou shalt not kill) or hurt each other (love thy neighbour), have social hieraarchies within tribes (respect your elders). When threatened by another tribe of chimpanzees the tribe will fight and even eat their foes (war). All very human characteristics. These are the values and codes of morality that later were described by humans through the fables of the various religions that developed on this green and blue rock. They are intrinsic parts of communal mammalian behaviour. They are not the product of some ridiculous epiphany some camel herder had on top of a mountain.

Civilisation manages morality. Morality lives and breathes. There are a few givens, as demonstrated by the chimps but the culture in which you are brought up in large part dictates what is moral and immoral, building on an historic development of morality that started when our brains evolved the ability to have such a thing.   If one adhered to the bible you would treat homsexuals like second class citizens - preposterous. I don't think that book is relevant at all. It gave western civilisation a start in terms of doing the dirty work of civilising us but you could well be worshipping the Egyption Sun God Ra and preaching his merits if history had taken a different course.

My moral code is this - it's a no-brainer for social animals (for example humans):

1) Don't kill unless your life depends on it.
2) Don't steal unless your life depends on it.
3) Treat others as you would hope to be treated yourself.
4) We are all equal.

I'd say most chimps adhere to said code.


PS Debate is a cross-fire. Not answering questions that spill out of the OP is pretty lame if you ask me.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-04 12:11:06)

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1

Your post has everything to do with religion. You may not see that, but if you don't you are seriously deluded.

Perhaps that's what you meant in your OP, it is not what it stated. It was also written in such a way as to lead replies. Logical, honest and succinct it is not.

Lets go through and answer the individual points:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

What about moral pluralism? What about the multitude of other perspectives that this can be viewed from? It is also perfectly possible to take a morally absolutist viewpoint.

As an Atheist (which is totally irrellevant to the point), personally my views depend upon the situation and are based upon my own instincts and the values that have been instilled in me through my social environment. This does not preclude me from taking a morally absolutist stance on some issues.

What is the logic behind that statement? Why can't you understand how someone who doesn't believe in God can come to the same viewpoint on ethical issues?

You make a lot lot of grandiose references to philosophical ideals, without seeming to understand what they mean. If you do understand what they mean, you are not expressing yourself properly.

doublestuforeo wrote:

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

I believe that human instinct developed through genetic evolution and plays an important role in our own perceptions of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It is interesting that you brought up rape, which is often used as an example by biologists to demonstrate points very similar to this (Prof. Robert Winston's book Human Instinct goes into some detail on this). It is far more likely that a woman will become pregnant after being raped than after consentual sex, this is a throwback to when rape was an important evolutionary device which would result in the strongest being the most successfull at passing on their genes. When humans became a more social species living in communities such behaviour was shunned, as those who survived best in a community were those who worked together and respected those alongside them. This point in time is considered by many to be an crucial period for the formation of morals on both the genetic and social level.

I've explained that very badly, but hopefully you'll get the gist.

doublestuforeo wrote:

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

This is where your post becomes really quite offensive and indicative of your apparent delusions on this topic. Morals are there because humans are social creatures and require a 'social code' of sorts to coexist harmoniously. Until humans became social creatures morals didn't matter.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?

Of course. On the same grounds as everyone else. Everyone has the right to make moral judgements. What is right or wrong is determined by what society finds to be acceptable or not.

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?

The world is not binary. There are rarely any absolutes on this planet. The seeds of religion, a tool devised by humanity to civilise us and take us out of primeval drudgery and to exert power/influence on others, were planted thousands of years ago. In those dark times humans needed to work together to move forward in adverse circumstances. Kind of like ants, bees, chimpanzees, etc., a system developed that allowed them to co-exist relatively peacefully with their own kind.

Look at chimpanzees. They don't worship a god. They work communally, won't kill (thou shalt not kill) or hurt each other (love thy neighbour), have social hieraarchies within tribes (respect your elders). When threatened by another tribe of chimpanzees the tribe will fight and even eat their foes (war). All very human characteristics. These are the values and codes of morality that later were described by humans through the fables of the various religions that developed on this green and blue rock. They are intrinsic parts of communal mammalian behaviour. They are not the product of some ridiculous epiphany some camel herder had on top of a mountain.

Civilisation manages morality. Morality lives and breathes. There are a few givens, as demonstrated by the chimps but the culture in which you are brought up in large part dictates what is moral and immoral, building on an historic development of morality that started when our brains evolved the ability to have such a thing.   If one adhered to the bible you would treat homsexuals like second class citizens - preposterous. I don't think that book is relevant at all. It gave western civilisation a start in terms of doing the dirty work of civilising us but you could well be worshipping the Egyption Sun God Ra and preaching his merits if history had taken a different course.

My moral code is this - it's a no-brainer for social animals (for example humans):

1) Don't kill unless your life depends on it.
2) Don't steal unless your life depends on it.
3) Treat others as you would hope to be treated yourself.
4) We are all equal.

I'd say most chimps adhere to said code.


PS Debate is a cross-fire. Not answering questions that spill out of the OP is pretty lame if you ask me.

That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?


I dont remember all the questions I have been asked.  I have only ignored questions that had nothing to do with the thread (basically all of them.  Including yours).  However, since you really seem to want answers, I will answer yours.

I believe homosexuality is immoral (you will take that as me saying I treat the like "second class citizens."  This is not even remotely the case at all.  I believe homosexuals should have the right to get married, and have every right that anyone else does.).

I don't believe there is any circumstance in which it is okay to stone a woman to death.

If I can answer any other pointless questions... please let me know.

doublestuforeo wrote:

...... but once again, I do not believe in moral relativism.  This thread is about moral relativism.

I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.

doublestuforeo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?

The world is not binary. There are rarely any absolutes on this planet. The seeds of religion, a tool devised by humanity to civilise us and take us out of primeval drudgery and to exert power/influence on others, were planted thousands of years ago. In those dark times humans needed to work together to move forward in adverse circumstances. Kind of like ants, bees, chimpanzees, etc., a system developed that allowed them to co-exist relatively peacefully with their own kind.

Look at chimpanzees. They don't worship a god. They work communally, won't kill (thou shalt not kill) or hurt each other (love thy neighbour), have social hieraarchies within tribes (respect your elders). When threatened by another tribe of chimpanzees the tribe will fight and even eat their foes (war). All very human characteristics. These are the values and codes of morality that later were described by humans through the fables of the various religions that developed on this green and blue rock. They are intrinsic parts of communal mammalian behaviour. They are not the product of some ridiculous epiphany some camel herder had on top of a mountain.

Civilisation manages morality. Morality lives and breathes. There are a few givens, as demonstrated by the chimps but the culture in which you are brought up in large part dictates what is moral and immoral, building on an historic development of morality that started when our brains evolved the ability to have such a thing.   If one adhered to the bible you would treat homsexuals like second class citizens - preposterous. I don't think that book is relevant at all. It gave western civilisation a start in terms of doing the dirty work of civilising us but you could well be worshipping the Egyption Sun God Ra and preaching his merits if history had taken a different course.

My moral code is this - it's a no-brainer for social animals (for example humans):

1) Don't kill unless your life depends on it.
2) Don't steal unless your life depends on it.
3) Treat others as you would hope to be treated yourself.
4) We are all equal.

I'd say most chimps adhere to said code.


PS Debate is a cross-fire. Not answering questions that spill out of the OP is pretty lame if you ask me.

That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?

Not implanted, evolved. But that is only a part of it.
We also have a more complex social structure and system of communication which makes it easier to find common moral ground, particularly with those in the same social environment. Which is why many customs from other cultures may seem barbaric or immoral to some people - much like women being stoned. We also have law enforcement systems in place which help, fear of retribution for ones actions makes it a lot easier to stick to a moral code - which is where we come to religion. Religion is just like a law enforcement system, enforcing a moral code with the threat of retribution if you do not adhere to it.

In any case, all the things you pointed out also happen in human society, even amongst - gasp - some Christians!

doublestuforeo wrote:

That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?


I dont remember all the questions I have been asked.  I have only ignored questions that had nothing to do with the thread (basically all of them.  Including yours).  However, since you really seem to want answers, I will answer yours.

I believe homosexuality is immoral (you will take that as me saying I treat the like "second class citizens."  This is not even remotely the case at all.  I believe homosexuals should have the right to get married, and have every right that anyone else does.).

I don't believe there is any circumstance in which it is okay to stone a woman to death.

If I can answer any other pointless questions... please let me know.

I asked about the stoning because in either Leviticus or Dueteronomy it states that that's exactly what should be done to a woman who has been raped but didn't scream, rather oddly.

Bertster covered the rest I think. Cheers B.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?

An example of morality being dictated by society is that in Nazi Germany it became the normal mode of thinking that Jews were in fact inferior subhumans and that there was absolutely nothing wrong with killing them whatsoever. Similarly female circumcision is practiced in some countries - an act some might consider immoral but in those regions of the world to not do so might be considered immoral.

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1

So according to you, it's morally correct to kill a homosexual by throwing rocks at him in the town square and letting him go on with his life is morally totally not done?

Anyway, your post was ALL about religion. You asked Athiests specificaly, making it a post with a religious intent. Should you have left it out, then it would be a normal topic. Instead you pretty much asked us: 'Only my god can be right, how on earth can all these non believer claim their morals are right?!!!'

Anyhoo, I shall try to answer your topic leaving religion out of it. As a normal person, taking any kind of religion out of the story, I take my morals from what I think is right and what I think is wrong. I base my morals on my own experiences and my own opinion and not on anyone else. For example, just because women are of somewhat equal standard to men in the western culture, it doesn't have to be the same in the middle east. Thats not for us to decide, it's a culture thing, deal with it.

And to go back to your original question: 'We' get the right the say right from wrong because we are alive human beings. You worshipping some dipshit in space doesn't make you special... except for the fact that it makes you a total idiot.

Tiger