How can Atheists deny that the moral decline of America isn't their fault?

[sandorski]

Well sadorski, that depends on what denomination you affiliate with.

Indeed. Which is the main problem with it, it's based upon the Subjective opinion of those claiming it exists.

 

[Oyeve]

Atheists are almost as annoyingly stupid as religious zealots. Actually, on par.

 

[mikeymikec]

There's a moral decline in progress, and it's because of people who don't believe the same thing you do? Sounds like as good a reason for a jihad as any!

 

[Moonbeam]

I had to go through my posts again, and I think you missed the meaning of my comment.

The rules of religion are not inherently the cause of morality, as exampled by the fact that immoral things are justified through religion. The argument of this thread, was that only religion can be the backbone of morality.

No it wasn't. What I was asking is if atheist and,or, moral relativists can offer an alternative to the moral force of religious faith, some justification for morality that wouldn't best be delt with by cheating if there werenobodyaround to catch you at it.

 

[alzan]

If the goal is to feel good, then doing good for others while expecting nothing in return is the best way to accomplish that goal. Everyone wins.

Doing good for others while expecting nothing in return is for suckers.

/s

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you explain how my take on evolution is wrong?

Evolution = Positive traits are more likely to be passed on, as they would benefit the individual(s), Negative traits are less likely to be passed on, as they would hinder the individual(s).

If being "moral" were a benefit, they would be more likely to be passed on. As I explained before, the increased utility of the "morals" would make them more likely to be added to the individual(s). This could be passed through genetics where the brain would internalize the behaviour physically, or mimicked by others who wish to be successful.

If you cut off the tails of mice they will not have baby mice that don't have tails.

If you teach people it's good to wash their hands tou won't get children who are compulsive hand washers.

 

[realibrad]

If you cut off the tails of mice they will not have baby mice that don't have tails.

If you teach people it's good to wash their hands tou won't get children who are compulsive hand washers.

Holy crap. (pun intended)

Turns out, if you cut off the foreskin of little boys, then their kids are more likely to cut of their children's foreskins.

You seem to be under the misconception that people cannot influence their genetics. That is not a surprise, as you like most people seem to be uninformed about evolution. Do some research on how quickly societies were able to keep the gene for milk digestion active. Evolution is pretty complicated, so I its understandable that you would not know a part of it. Do look up that topic though, its quiet interesting.

But, your idea that behaviour cannot be established into culture is wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fine, but that's exactly where I asked not to take the discussion and you are wrong about what is taught. There is a recognition among many of religious faith in the existence of something called redemption that is a life changing event, and that those who experience it properly actually feel forgiven. The actions of a person who has known real grace differ from those who just imagine they can get it for free. Their wish to act morally becomes internalized.

I'd be first to say that too many Christians aren't really faithful to the values they are to hold. There are those who do think that by confession the wrongs they do are forgiven, but I think that repentance is far more genuine and if God does judge us on our character, I'd think that saying "I was bad, let me off so I can do more bad things" would not go far. On the other hand if one repents that means a change in attitude and a sincere desire to not repeat the same mistakes. It is not proof against error, even the same ones, however it is an attitude which is qualitatively different. I am fortunate to know those who "deny themselves and pick up their cross daily". They do what they know to be right and while it may cost them something they gladly do so, not as a "get out of hell" free card or for any other reason than why the Samaritan helped his neighbor the Jew, which was really the furthest thing from the accepted norm. These are rare people who have seen beyond themselves to the needs of others and I respect them. Others I view less charitably.

 

[realibrad]

No it wasn't. What I was asking is if atheist and,or, moral relativists can offer an alternative to the moral force of religious faith, some justification for morality that wouldn't best be delt with by cheating if there werenobodyaround to catch you at it.

Yes. Its the utility argument. I would argue that a utility argument will give you far better moral outcomes than a religious one.

 

[Retro Rob]

And you would be wrong. I would say that God is a construct of ignorant people trying to fill the gaps of what they do not know.

No one knows everything, so in reality, we all are ignorant of something...some more or less than others.

It's only human to fill those gaps, either using God, or some philosophical explanation...we all chose one or the other until we find satisfactory answers.

No person I've ever met just leaves gaps empty, because if they did, we wouldn't have science.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do Aetheists not follow morals for the same reason the religious do? The threat of consequence, hell in your case.

I wouldn't call anybody who obeys laws our of fear of getting caught a moral person. He would cut your throat, perhaps, if he knew he could get away with it. Real morality has to depend on something else. A religious person, for example, might believe in a loving god and also might wish to be like that himself for some reason.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is Absolute Morality?

Absolute Morality is the belief that morality is founded on some universal truth that is true for everybody.

 

[Vaux]

It's only human to fill those gaps, either using God, or some philosophical explanation...we all chose one or the other until we find satisfactory answers.

Problem with that is, history has shown that once we begin to have answers, people continue their false beliefs. Or they just change the rules.

Morals and religion are definitely not connected. As was already mentioned, it's believed that morals were an evolutionary trait, developed from early humans realizing it was more beneficial for them to get along than to always be at war with each other, if I remember correctly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Holy crap. (pun intended)

Turns out, if you cut off the foreskin of little boys, then their kids are more likely to cut of their children's foreskins.

You seem to be under the misconception that people cannot influence their genetics. That is not a surprise, as you like most people seem to be uninformed about evolution. Do some research on how quickly societies were able to keep the gene for milk digestion active. Evolution is pretty complicated, so I its understandable that you would not know a part of it. Do look up that topic though, its quiet interesting.

But, your idea that behaviour cannot be established into culture is wrong.

"So, if I murder the biggest person in my tribe, I gain today, but lose tomorrow when I need to hunt or defend my tribe. This understanding can then become instinct and passed to other generations through culture and or genetics." How does understanding pass to instinct via genetics? I think what you really mean is that the evolution of the possibility to come to such an understanding confers survivability, and that the brain power needed will where it appears will be selected for.

 

[PowerEngineer]

No one knows everything, so in reality, we all are ignorant of something...some more or less than others.

True enough.

It's only human to fill those gaps, either using God, or some philosophical explanation...we all chose one or the other until we find satisfactory answers.

Only true if you can't accept "I don't know" as a place holder.

No person I've ever met just leaves gaps empty, because if they did, we wouldn't have science.

Not true. Rob, you convince me that you don't understand the nature of science every time you make statements like this. Treat yourself to stronger doses of Richard Feynman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4

(I have to wonder why OP decided to raise this lightning rod in P&N instead of the discussion club. I also have to wonder what I'm doing here. )

 

[Retro Rob]

Problem with that is, history has shown that once we begin to have answers, people continue their false beliefs. Or they just change the rules.

Ok, if we never have all the answers, every person will always have false beliefs...because we don't have all the answers.

Once we have absolute answers, only then can we call current beliefs related to those answers false.

Until then, you're just sounding like your run-of-the-mill atheist,.

Morals and religion are definitely not connected. As was already mentioned, it's believed that morals were an evolutionary trait, developed from early humans realizing it was more beneficial for them to get along than to always be at war with each other, if I remember correctly.

This is a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how religion originated, so you cannot say morals and religion aren't connected. There are literally hundreds of hypotheses related to the origin of religion, and you cannot tell what people feared, or what they worshipped from examining the fossils of beings that have been extinct for perhaps billions of years.

Once you get some facts, then come back and talk.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd be first to say that too many Christians aren't really faithful to the values they are to hold. There are those who do think that by confession the wrongs they do are forgiven, but I think that repentance is far more genuine and if God does judge us on our character, I'd think that saying "I was bad, let me off so I can do more bad things" would not go far. On the other hand if one repents that means a change in attitude and a sincere desire to not repeat the same mistakes. It is not proof against error, even the same ones, however it is an attitude which is qualitatively different. I am fortunate to know those who "deny themselves and pick up their cross daily". They do what they know to be right and while it may cost them something they gladly do so, not as a "get out of hell" free card or for any other reason than why the Samaritan helped his neighbor the Jew, which was really the furthest thing from the accepted norm. These are rare people who have seen beyond themselves to the needs of others and I respect them. Others I view less charitably.

I think this is exactly what I am saying and I believe the phenomena is real. I am asking if atheists can bring any such notions to the table that might inspire a desire to be moral in people. From the replies so far it's not looking too good.

 

[Retro Rob]

Only true if you can't accept "I don't know" as a place holder.

Not true. Rob, you convince me that you don't understand the nature of science every time you make statements like this.

Philosophy is the basis of science, which is the point I'm trying to make. Without asking "what if", or "perhaps if I..." etc, and we have no experimentation...we will only accept the answers given to us by someone.

Not having answers is what drives the desire to find them. "I don't know" isn't a good place holder -- "I'm going to find out" is a much better one.

 

[Moonbeam]

True enough.



Only true if you can't accept "I don't know" as a place holder.



Not true. Rob, you convince me that you don't understand the nature of science every time you make statements like this. Treat yourself to stronger doses of Richard Feynman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4

(I have to wonder why OP decided to raise this lightning rod in P&N instead of the discussion club. I also have to wonder what I'm doing here. )

I think the subject of politics gets tied up with moral questions all the time. I think also that liberals always lose elections because they are morally conflicted. Their morality is gray and theoretical. If you don't want to go for the gut, like conservatives do, you might want at least to go for the heart. But you have to have one first. This liberal brain defect is why, in my opinion, liberals always let the lunatics win. They don't understand morality.

 

[sandorski]

No one knows everything, so in reality, we all are ignorant of something...some more or less than others.

It's only human to fill those gaps, either using God, or some philosophical explanation...we all chose one or the other until we find satisfactory answers.

No person I've ever met just leaves gaps empty, because if they did, we wouldn't have science.

No we don't.

 

[sandorski]

Absolute Morality is the belief that morality is founded on some universal truth that is true for everybody.

What is it then?

 

[sandorski]

Not having answers is what drives the desire to find them. "I don't know" isn't a good place holder -- "I'm going to find out" is a much better one.

No. You're just nitpicking and not very well either. Clearly the dude saying, "I'm going to find out" also is part of the "I don't know" camp. Not only that, your "better" statement could be completely untrue. Meaning, Dude may not find out even if he tried.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. You're just nitpicking and not very well either. Clearly the dude saying, "I'm going to find out" also is part of the "I don't know" camp. Not only that, your "better" statement could be completely untrue. Meaning, Dude may not find out even if he tried.

No, its not nitpicking. People who don't know something doesn't mean they care about finding out.

You just think I'm indicting atheists as being unscientific. Don't get all defensive.

 

[Vaux]

Ok, if we never have all the answers, every person will always have false beliefs...because we don't have all the answers.

Once we have absolute answers, only then can we call current beliefs related to those answers false.

Until then, you're just sounding like your run-of-the-mill atheist,.



This is a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how religion originated, so you cannot say morals and religion aren't connected. There are literally hundreds of hypotheses related to the origin of religion, and you cannot tell what people feared, or what they worshipped from examining the fossils of beings that have been extinct for perhaps billions of years.

Once you get some facts, then come back and talk.

Facts? That word has no place when you are talking about religion.

You don't need all of the answers to realize a false belief. You know those thousands of things that religion claimed or took credit for throughout history that turned out were completely false or never have happened at all? I guess all of that doesn't matter to you.

So, since all religions are a fantasy, it's easy to say that morals never came from it.

 

[sandorski]

No, its not nitpicking. People who don't know something doesn't mean they care about finding out.

You just think I'm indicting atheists as being unscientific. Don't get all defensive.

Negative. I'm just pointing out that your dismissal of "I don't know" is incorrect, especially given your alternative to it. They are essentially the same thing.