My Immoral Morals

[Persephone]

I am an atheist. As such, many people claim i have no morals because i don't believe in god. Here are my "morals" then. Please inform me; how are the following statement immoral?

1. Don't kill people, unless it's self defense, or for the protection of others (I.E if your mother is cowering in a corner about to get raped, go ahead and shoot him.)

2. Do not under any circumstances rape another human being or sexually molest them in any way.

3. Be kind to other people. Try not to take out anger or frustration on them, because how would that make you feel? Not good. Philosophy: I know when i get a compliment or nice gesture it makes me feel good. I should do the same to others so that they can feel good too. This goes for charitable acts, helping people, ect.

4. Try to see everything from both sides before you form an opinion on it.

5. Do not do anything you are not educated in, are not mature enough, or responsible enough to do. I.e, yes i have had pre-marital sex with my boyfriend. We talked about it, felt comfortable with it, learned the fine mechanics, discussed what might happen and how we would deal with it, and even set aside money as an emergency fund for such consequences. We use two forms of protection every time, it is always consensual, and plays no real importance in our relationship. (If we could not have sex it would not change our relationship at all.)

6. Know when you are beat and acknowledge it. If someone beat you out for a promotion, congratulate them, don't be jealous if they beat you fair and square.

7. Racism, sexism, profoundly outspoken judgmental religion, and other forms if ignorance and bigotry should be avoided. It shows you to be stupid as well as hateful.


So on and so-forth. Other than number 5, these pretty much mirror "real" morals. How exactly are mine fake?

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Is it wrong to lie? If so, is it always wrong to lie? Are there any situations you can think of where it would be right to lie?

Is it wrong to take another humans life? If so, is it always wrong to take another humans life? Are there any situations you think of where it would be right to take another humans life?

It's never wrong to lie or take human life, for whatever reason. Distasteful, perhaps. But not Wrong.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Can you prove at all that we even have this inborn knowledge of right and wrong? Then can you prove its from god? Then can you prove its from the christian god?

That's called an appeal to ignorance. Its a logical fallacy.

[Treefur]

Can you prove at all that we even have this inborn knowledge of right and wrong? Then can you prove its from god? Then can you prove its from the christian god?

That's called an appeal to ignorance. Its a logical fallacy.

It's not an appeal to ignorance since he was claiming that we have this inborn knowledge of right and wrong. I was asking him to demonstrate that his claim is at all correct.

[Treefur]

Can you prove at all that we even have this inborn knowledge of right and wrong? Then can you prove its from god? Then can you prove its from the christian god?

That's called an appeal to ignorance. Its a logical fallacy.

It's not an appeal to ignorance. He was claiming that we have a inborn knowledge of right and wrong from his christian god. It was a completely unsubstantiated claim so I was asking for any evidence at all.
The evidence against a christian god giving us all an inborn knowledge of right and wrong is empirical. It's the disparate moralities of all the nations and cultures. We are on different pages in the world. Therefore, not an appeal to ignorance.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

The moralities of the separate nations and cultures are more striking in their similarities than their differences.

I was perhaps too quick to call an appeal to ignorance. If your position is that he cannot provide empirical evidence of the existence of a God-given morality, therefore God must not have given us morality, than that is an appeal to ignorance. If you are merely asking for evidence, then there is no fallacy for you have made no argument.

[Treefur]

The moralities of the separate nations and cultures are more striking in their similarities than their differences.

Yes, that's no wonder with globilization and diffusion of culture. Of course nations of the same era would have a high chance of sharing certain morals. But can you claim the same morals from historical nations and societies? Was killing always wrong? Ancient Rome might disagree with you while they watch their gladiator battles. Morals change, and I don't see any evidence throughout history that we ever have had any inherent moral knowledge of right and wrong. It's entirely biological, cultural, and societal.

[McCulloch]

The moralities of the separate nations and cultures are more striking in their similarities than their differences.

Yes, and the size of flocks of migratory geese are more striking in their similarities than their differences. It seem that certain sets of moral codes are better suited to our adaptation to our environment than other ones. Societies adopting them thrive, societies which did not, did not thrive.

I was perhaps too quick to call an appeal to ignorance. If your position is that he cannot provide empirical evidence of the existence of a God-given morality, therefore God must not have given us morality, than that is an appeal to ignorance. If you are merely asking for evidence, then there is no fallacy for you have made no argument.

Whoever makes the claim that God has given humanity morality, is obliged to provide evidence of that claim. If such evidence is not provided, we can be justified in rejecting the claim. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Whoever makes the claim that God has given humanity morality, is obliged to provide evidence of that claim. If such evidence is not provided, we can be justified in rejecting the claim. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

That is an appeal to ignorance.

Look at it this way.

If I said that you were a child molester, and my proof was that you had not provided any evidence that you weren't, should that be sufficient?

To the other poster, murder has been defined in many different ways throughout history, but I am almost positive that no society has EVER had the law that any man could kill another whenever he pleased.

[McCulloch]

Whoever makes the claim that God has given humanity morality, is obliged to provide evidence of that claim. If such evidence is not provided, we can be justified in rejecting the claim. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence.

That is an appeal to ignorance.

Look at it this way.

If I said that you were a child molester, and my proof was that you had not provided any evidence that you weren't, should that be sufficient?

To the other poster, murder has been defined in many different ways throughout history, but I am almost positive that no society has EVER had the law that any man could kill another whenever he pleased.

The one making the claim provides the evidence. If you claim that there is a God, provide evidence. If I claim that there is not a God, I will provide evidence.

If you said that I was a child molester, and your proof was that I had not provided any evidence that I wasn't, your assertion would not be taken seriously. Similarly, if you assert that there is a God and you provide no evidence, your assertion would not be taken seriously.

[whoneedsgodanyway?]

This is an excellent topic to discuss and one I have often thought about.

As social beings our minds are constantly being shaped by the society we live in. E.g. If you'd been brought up in a culture that believes in cannibalism as an important spiritual ritual, it's unlikely you would find this 'evil'.

I think there is a serious problem in blindly following any societal or cultural instruction on morality, this goes for religious teachings as well. I say this for a couple of reasons:

1. All crimes vary. There is no standard murder; each one is different depending on the people involved, the circumstances, the weapon, premeditation, history. It would be impossible for one blanket punishment to be applied to all murders (without the vast majority of punishments not fitting the crime).

2. Blind faith. Unfortunately people will always want to conform, as social animals this is the easiest and safest thing to do. However this can lead to very 'bad' results, even if the society considers them to be righteous (the Crusades, Slavery etc.).

It can't be helped that we happened to have grown up being taught a particular set of moral values but once these have been learned, these our the tools we must use to live in the most moral way we can and if societies morals disagree with our own on a particular issue, think long and hard before going along society.

Something I realized while writing this, in the judicial system, when deciding if a man is innocent or guilty; the judge doesn't simply consult a list of punishments representing the populations average morality; instead he uses a randomly selected group of individuals who must apply their own personal set of morals.

Another thing I'd like to point out: Globally religion is in decline (especially in the developed world) but over the last few hundred years our sense of morality seems to have improved. By this I mean: Neighboring towns don't tend to go to war anymore, many countries have outlawed the death sentence, women, black people, gay people have equality, human rights in war, etc. etc. (Very little of which, was brought about by religion I might add).