Are Atheists who Stand on Morality Conceding God?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?

I'm not saying a bearded man in the sky or even any conscious entity at all, but merely, something deserving of worship. If you say we want to make a society without murder because that will benefit everyone, that is different from saying, murder is wrong, just because, and that's the end of it. By doing the latter, even if the person is supposedly atheist, do they not give the same type of unconditional moral deference to that idea that is wrong "just because" that religious people give to God? Does this premise, that something is wrong just because, not take the space of a god? Is it not gaining faith, and worship?

In other words, I don't care if you worship a cardboard box, the sky, a tree, or a fortune you pulled out of a fortune cookie. If you give faith, you're arguably religious. And whatever you give faith to, is arguably a god.

[POI]

Question for Debate: Are atheists who stand on some sort of moral principle as absolute, conceding some sort of God?

I'm not saying a bearded man in the sky or even any conscious entity at all, but merely, something deserving of worship. If you say we want to make a society without murder because that will benefit everyone, that is different from saying, murder is wrong, just because, and that's the end of it. By doing the latter, even if the person is supposedly atheist, do they not give the same type of unconditional moral deference to that idea that is wrong "just because" that religious people give to God? Does this premise, that something is wrong just because, not take the space of a god? Is it not gaining faith, and worship?

In other words, I don't care if you worship a cardboard box, the sky, a tree, or a fortune you pulled out of a fortune cookie. If you give faith, you're arguably religious. And whatever you give faith to, is arguably a god.

I doubt it. But I'm not sure 'morals' can be absolute, by sheer definition? For hypothetical's sake, let's say we discover a god. WHY is this god's commands any more or less objective?

[Purple Knight]

I doubt it. But I'm not sure 'morals' can be absolute, by sheer definition? For hypothetical's sake, let's say we discover a god. WHY is this god's commands any more or less objective?

For me it wouldn't be. The idea that a very powerful alien entity is any more worthy of blind trust - faith - than Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel, is just... lost on me. In fact I would sooner trust Cletus because I don't have any reason to expect that he can fool me.

But let's say we do find this entity and people start worshiping it. Isn't it then, in some sense, a god?

[POI]

But let's say we do find this entity and people start worshiping it. Isn't it then, in some sense, a god?

Depending on one's "definition", I guess it certainly could be? (i.e.) Money might be one's 'god'. A movie star might be one's 'god'. The magic guy-in-the-sky can be one's 'god'. But the question remains, if such a cognitive agency were discovered, why is this agency's stated judgements/pronouncements about moral values and/or duties 'absolute' and/or 'objective'? This question might be geared more towards the theist who believes that "without 'god', we cannot have objective/absolute moral values and/or duties."

[TRANSPONDER]

I doubt it. But I'm not sure 'morals' can be absolute, by sheer definition? For hypothetical's sake, let's say we discover a god. WHY is this god's commands any more or less objective?

For me it wouldn't be. The idea that a very powerful alien entity is any more worthy of blind trust - faith - than Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel, is just... lost on me. In fact I would sooner trust Cletus because I don't have any reason to expect that he can fool me.

But let's say we do find this entity and people start worshiping it. Isn't it then, in some sense, a god?

Perhaps. It is for sure a powerful being. But this is the problem with 'even if God (or Jesus) came down atheists would not believe'. If God came down and said Islam was true, would Christians believe? Atheists might. Suspicious at first, we would need some convincing. But eventually, we might concede 'you look the real deal'. Meanwhile, Christians are denying everything as Allah can't be the real god.

But the point before is that absolutely, no; morals do not validate any god,, let alone a particular one. It is a human construct based on some evolved instincts - family group, personal self - worth and feelings of well - being because it is pleasing. It's all the Objectivity we need and was unintelligently designed by Evilooshun to help us survive.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

It takes zero faith to have superior moral standards so the answer to your question is a resounding "no."


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

It takes zero faith to have superior moral standards so the answer to your question is a resounding "no."

So how do you know that your moral standards are superior?

A good example is the lying thread. To me it seems like lying is wrong. I had good arguments and frankly I think I and JW won that thread when everyone was talking about the dying woman in the car accident, and telling her that her in actuality splattered-all-over-the-backseat children were fine, and the pro-lying side said, well, it's a benefit that costs nothing. And I said that if she's reading this thread now, she will not only not get that benefit when the accident comes, she will lose that benefit if she is dying and her kids are actually fine.

But as to why I argued against lying? I prefer a world where we can trust people. I don't want to be on edge all the time, wondering if I'm being lied to. I don't want "oh I though it would bring a benefit" to be a blank cheque for lying out of your butt nine days a week and twenty-six hours a day. I'm uncomfortable lying to people and I don't want to do it.

Someone else might prefer a world where lying is seen as universally permissible, even if it brings harm. Libertarians for example. Buyer beware, unless it meets the technical definition of fraud and that's going to be hard. Destroy somebody's reputation? Sure. Reputation isn't property.

If you want a clear-cut example, how do you rank these theories about lying and why? Which morality is superior? The Libertarian will tell you his morality is superior. If you disagree, how do you know you're right?

[TRANSPONDER]

I didn't follow that argument as it seemed futile.

However I doubt whether it really came out as a win for theism (never mind which god, which makes the morality argument pointless, anyway) because in fact human (humanist/secularist) morality is what we use and not religious because it has moved on. I haven't seen the later figures, but in the early days the majority of prison inmates were Christians. cuie excuse, and I can think up a few myself, but the thing is that religion (not just Christianity) can make people behave better.

It can also make them behave much worse, and in an official capacity, too, which is why national morals should not be based on religion, and Invite you to look at a few nations where it is.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]

I don't think Christianity does necessarily make anyone behave better. If it comes parceled with tight-knit communities and accountability, then I think that's probably the deciding factor in that equation.

I think "murder is just wrong and that's the end of it, no argument permitted" is a form of faith. And it's the same kind of faith, with exactly the same amount of irrationality inherent in it, as religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]

I don't think Christianity does necessarily make anyone behave better. If it comes parceled with tight-knit communities and accountability, then I think that's probably the deciding factor in that equation.

I think "murder is just wrong and that's the end of it, no argument permitted" is a form of faith. And it's the same kind of faith, with exactly the same amount of irrationality inherent in it, as religion.

Instinct can look like Faith, and Faith is perhaps instinct, too.

And instinct can be innate or taught. Fighter pilots and Racing drivers learn instinctive reaction or they are dead. So nature or nurture, Instinctive Faith is nothing to do with a god.

Logically, scientifically or on evidence, there is no reason for a god

Just as evolution does not need a god, even if materialism and science doesn't have all the answers. Cosmic origins, Life and consciousness - including morals - does not need a god to explain it adequately,' rather it is the god - claim that raises n more questions even before which god and which religion.

That is why I said the debate is futile.