What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[Beto]

Does that mean you have a proof for the laws of logic and the scientific method? Or do you just assume them anyway?

I need more proof than this mind boggling machine I'm looking at right now?

[Fallibleone]

My position is that objective moral values do not exist.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

We are still waiting for evidence for the first claim:

You must have gone to the "is not, is not" school of rebutting a debate.

Stick to the subject. We've been here before and the return journey is unwelcome.

You can always expand on your position like...

'My position is that objective moral values do not exist. Any value placed on a moral act is only emotional and has no objective reality, to say that an act is good, bad, evil etc. is meaningless. People simply act in whatever way they feel serves their own best interest.'

Can you agree with that?

I say what I mean to say. If I want to expand on my position I will. I will not be coerced. I will not have words put in my mouth because it makes things easier for you to have a caricature of a position to argue against, and I will not be drawn off-course.

Please re-read the part of my post which you omitted and ignored. It was you who made the first claim. It falls on you to provide evidence for it. The attempt to draw attention away from your unsupported claims has failed.

Here is your claim again lest we forget:

Without a god there is no absolute moral standard.

It became apparent that since you believe in God, objective morals would need to be shown to exist, because God and objective morals somehow prove each other. Each relies on the other. Therefore you have gone on to claim that objective morals exist. Despite countless calls for you to back up those claims with evidence, all we have seen is 'it's obvious', 'when you do something wrong you feel bad' and 'trust your moral compass'. This is not evidence. Please supply some or withdraw your claims. This has gone on for long enough. Your claims have been indulged for long enough.

I have never met anyone who believes that moral values are subjective, even the "live and let live" crowd starts believing in objective moral values when their own rights get trampled on.

You've 'met' several here. I've arguably (as usual, it depends what you mean) had my 'rights' trampled on and still believe that objective morals do not exist.

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

I am growing tired of the repeated violation of rule #5. Every time you post unsupported assertion is piled upon unsupported assertion and again and again I find my calls for evidence ignored in favour of more.

Please explain how you know that those people 'really don't believe it'.

Please explain how their actions say that they do believe in objective morals.

So things are not as black and white as you seem to suggest. This is a very good example of how objective morals don't exist. What you consider wrong, I might not. Or what I consider wrong at one point in time, I might not in the future.

This may be where we are having a problem, I am not suggesting that things are black and white,

Oh? You're not saying that for everything there is a right or wrong answer, 'like a math problem'?

This is a perfect example of how we differ because we use words in a different way.
To me the idiom "black and white" means "to have a simple and very certain opinion". To you it is just right and wrong.

Since you are aware of what 'black and white' means to me and some other people, in that you replied using the definition (black and white) yourself first of all, it is curious that the defence now is that the term means something else to you.

Here you missed my point entirely.
When I first used the idiom of 'black and white' I assumed that it meant the same to you as it did to me, but from the context of your reply I became aware that we differ on the meaning of the idiom.
So I will clarify my position on objective morals again.
Take out a piece of paper and draw a horizontal line across it, and in the middle draw a short vertical line, then label one side 'good' and the other 'bad'.
All moral behaviour will fall on one part of the horizontal line. The behaviour that falls on the extreme left or right will be obvious and even children will have no trouble knowing what is good regarding those acts. But, the acts that fall close to the middle will be difficult to know if they are good or bad, they can be complicated like math problems, but they will fall on one side of the center line or the other.

I see. But I thought you said that there is one basic principle which all others can be boiled down to: 'thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. What is the need for your paper and lines if all one must do is measure an action against this? Of course the main problem here lies, as is often the case, with definitions and subjectivity. This time, it is the definition of 'love'. Whose definition of 'love' have you employed, and what is it? Whose idea of the correct amount of love are you using? Can one ever love other people as one loves oneself?

Here is the part of my post which you missed out:

This is a revelation indeed, in the light of what your position was at the beginning. At that point, objective morals couldn't be more simple.

olavisjo wrote:
We all know that morality is real, we do not make it up, we discover it the same way we discover mathematical truths only easier. Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"


Once more, How do you know? How do you know that either of your conflicting statements is true?

No talk of pieces of paper or lines. No sign of a sliding scale of morality. We discover morality the same way we discover mathematical truths, only easier. Even children figure it out! I am sure you are familiar with the term 'moving target'. Please try to answer my question. How do you know that either of your conflicting statements is true?

All these principles can be reduced to one, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

So in fact these still nameless but apparently real principles are not very complicated. There is actually only one, which is to love people like you love yourself. The principle on which objective moral values are all based is 'love one another'? All this fuss and all we really had to do was to ask 'does a certain behaviour show love for one another?' in order to work out if something is immoral or not?

Well, there are a couple of problems with this.

1)How do you know that this is the one principle which all morals rest on?

2)How then do morals have anything to say regarding things not contradicting this 'principle'?

3)How does declaration of the central principle of objective moral values count as evidence that objective morals exist?

1) If you can think of another, I am all ears.[/quote]

No, olavisjo. This is not an answer. I am questioning your statements of fact, and it is up to you to answer the question. Do not ask me to give you alternatives. I asked you how you know this is the one principle which all morals rest on. Could you answer please?

2) If there is no contradiction, go for it.

So you are fine with homosexuality? It is moral? That is good to know.

3) I don't know if the declaration serves as evidence, it is only a tool for evaluating moral values.

It doesn't serve as evidence. You know why? Because all the statement of this principle is is a baseless assertion made by you which you would have stand as evidence in order to support your previous baseless assertion. Now this assertion is 'only a tool' and no longer the fundamental principle which all others could be boiled down to.

Olavisjo, I am seriously coming to doubt the value of a game in which one side will not recognise the tried and tested rules of play. That side will win hands down, because they are able to play fast and loose (think picking up a football (soccer) and running with it, tripping people over, ignoring the whistle for half time and scoring by saying you have scored) while the other side stands back open-mouthed at the injustice of it. I don't like to whinge, but I feel like the side which is losing because the other side is running with the ball. Can you see what I mean?

But you have already shown that the law is not good enough for you in 'discovering' objective morals, when you voiced the fact that it doesn't always get it right. So when you broke the speed limit, although it was only the law which said you were 'wrong', you accepted it as such, and have thereby contradicted your earlier statement.

It is impossible for the law to find the exact moral truth in any and all cases, so we will strive to err on the side of safety. Since the law is all that we have for the time being, we will have to settle for that.[/quote]

If it is impossible for us to find the exact moral truth, how on earth can one claim that it exists?

Do you settle for the law's judgements in all cases? If not, how do you decide which to settle for and which to disagree with? Do you only settle when not settling would mean a stay at Her Majesty's (MR Dubyah's) pleasure?

Hang on a second. I'm not talking about other people. You stated that I have a 'good moral compass'. You also stated that therefore, if I were to do something which was 'wrong', I would 'feel bad about it' and try to never do it again. I pointed out that I have indeed done things which are considered 'wrong', have done them again, and have not had the experience which you seem so certain that I would have. What is your answer to this?

Let me add "if you did something that you believe to be wrong".

Have you now abandoned your argument in favour of objective moral values?

This is getting quite confusing. You claimed that one would know that something was wrong when they did that thing and then felt bad about it. Ones moral eyes would be opened. You implied that drug-taking is wrong because of all the people it hurts, and you also said about me personally that if I were to do something wrong, I would feel bad about it and not want to do it again. You put this forward as a means of finding out what is wrong. I told you that I had done something which is 'wrong', and did not experience the things which you said I would. I don't need to do something which I believe is wrong in order to find out that it is wrong. I already think it. I would feel bad going into it and bad coming out.

Please explain why I did not feel as you said I would.

Okay, my assumptions about your moral innocence were a bit of wishful thinking. You are obviously blind to the 'badness' of taking drugs for recreational purposes, this may change if you continue taking them and one day find yourself living on skid row.[/quote]

Ah. I did not feel how you said I would because you thought more highly of me than was actually deserved. Contrary to your previous belief, I am not morally innocent - I am flawed. My moral compass has 'gone wrong'. I am obviously blind to something which 'morally innocent' people and those with good moral compasses can see. Basically, anyone who disagrees with your ideas of what is good and bad is flawed. Does this not seem just a little arrogant to you? Where is your sliding scale of morality now? Apparently we sometimes can't find out what is really right and wrong, because it is so complicated - like a maths equation. But somehow you know - perhaps by osmosis, I don't know - that taking drugs is wrong.

Think about this, olavisjo. It is possible that your judgements of what is right and wrong are flawed. Why do I say this? Well, because 'taking drugs is wrong' is not an objective moral value. I'll explain how. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is what you call the basic principle against which behaviour can be judged. In basic parlance, 'treat others how you would wish to be treated' or 'be nice to each other'. This doesn't really apply at all to me partaking of a bong in the company of good friends of a Friday evening. And since behaviours which do not contradict your fundamental principle are fine - in your words 'go for it'- my drug taking was fine. So now not only did I not feel bad about taking drugs, but also, doing so does not contradict the supposed fundamental principle of objective morals. Do you want to think some more about whether drug taking is morally wrong? Perhaps there is a boxing-match style get-out clause here too.

This is going off at a tangent in order to incorporate an appeal to emotion, another fallacy. All I require is your response to my point that I and my 'good moral compass' contradict your bold statement that if I were to do something 'wrong', I would know and try not to do it again.

Correct, I am appealing to your objective emotions.

Thank you for admitting that you are employing a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.

Emotions are objective too now? This gets weirder and weirder. How can one continue to acknowledge such a thing when one has had it pointed out that on doing something 'wrong', people can experience different feelings?

Trust your emotions.[/quote]

I did, olavisjo. They told me that taking drugs is not objectively wrong. Therefore I am blind, morally. Why on earth would you tell such a wretch as me to trust my emotions when they have led me so badly astray?

Just try to imagine a world where there is no 'right or wrong', you would not want to live in it.

It is not me who says I don't live in it right now. It is you. And you need to back that assumption up with evidence.

And yet, the use of the drugs alcohol and caffeine in moderation is still okay and possibly other drugs as well.

That's your clear statement of fact, is it? That 'drugs are bad, m'kay?', But the use of alcohol and caffeine and 'possibly other drugs' is still 'okay'? How did you manage to work out this extremely complicated set of principles? By whose authority are you right? You don't seem to want to answer the questions I put to you. Why not?

I don't know what authority and I don't know if I am right, but I do know that for any given situation there is a right and wrong. Most of the time common sense will give the answer, sometimes the answer can be elusive.

You don't know if you are right, but you are right?

I don't know what authority and I don't know if I am right (about drugs in specific), but I do know that for any given situation (in general) there is a right and wrong.[/quote]

I thought that when you claimed that I am obviously blind to the ''badness' of taking drugs for recreational purposes', you must know what you are talking about. That you had received some knowledge from some irrefutable source. But now you say that you don't know by whose authority you are right, or even if you are. Could it be that you were in fact making judgements when not in possession of the facts, as you claim to be? Were you acting like you know things which you do not know?

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

Who says, apart from you? Because although you are just as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, I am also entitled to point out that there is nothing special about your opinion which elevates it to the lofty heights of 'fact'. In light of this, you need to provide evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

True enough, my opinion is not any better than yours, but I think that I have given more reason to support my position than you have given for your position.

So you admit, then, that you have no evidence? As I said previously, your judgement of your performance alone is not the gauge. Your opinion has been frequently expressed as fact in this thread. Is your position only an opinion? Mine is. Before you answer, let me remind you that you stated very early on that you could not be wrong:

If I am wrong, the world makes no sense. [/quote]
The world does make sense.
Therefore I must be right.[/quote]

Actually, it is your reply which makes no sense. You are assuming that if you are wrong, you would be aware of it. Clearly this is not the case. Because one of us is definitely wrong, but neither is aware of it.

I put it to you that the reason that you claim the world makes sense is that you are seeing it through your belief in objective morality. So rather than you looking at the world and discovering objective morality in it, therefore making it make sense, you are actually looking at the world with a belief in objective morality, and creating sense which ties in with that belief. How else can a world in which children starve, people die of hideous diseases and injustices go unpunished make any sense?

The world is not fair. 'Bad' things happen and no one is punished. But if one can draw a clear line in the sand indicating 'good' and 'bad' behaviour, and if one can salve their unease by believing that although justice does not come in this world it will in the next, well then death and cruelty is more bearable. More than that. It becomes 'right', a 'test' by some unseen, all-powerful being.

And that all-powerful being is at the centre, isn't it. Because although we are doing it in a long-winded and roundabout fashion, what we are talking about is the existence of God. To be wrong about objective morals would be disastrous to your belief in God, since the evidence for your God is all about the existence of objective morality. Your argument goes 'without God there can be no objective morality. But since there is objective morality, there is God'. You cannot be wrong about objective morals, because if they don't exist, nor does your god. And we both know that's not an option for you.

The fact that you need a belief in objective morality in order for this world to make sense to you does not prove the correctness of your belief. Your beliefs are yours and you have a right to them. But no one else is under any obligation to humour you by accepting what you believe when you attempt to have it acknowledged as fact.

I can't be wrong, the consequences of me being wrong on this are so dire that it is just unthinkable.
Imagine the chaos of a world with no objective moral values, no god, it just makes me cringe.

Have you changed your mind?

No.[/quote]

This is odd, because you were agreeing with my comment about your opinion being no better than mine. I can accept what you say if it is only an opinion, as my comments have been. But now you are saying that you possess facts again. So yet again I ask you to PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. If they are fact, you should be able to do so. So please do!

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

In theory? How can objective morals be theory?

How can objective physics be theory?

As far as I am aware, we are having a discussion about objective morals, which you claim exist. You claim objective morals are real, not theoretical. What is your answer to my question?

The 'theory of objective morals' can be real the same way as the theory of evolution or any other objective science can be.[/quote]

Gah. You have not been talking, throughout this whole thread, of objective morals as theory. You have been making statements of fact. How can objective morals, which you claim are REAL, be THEORY?

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

This statement appears to be saying that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

The statement is trying to say that there is a difference between what we think we believe and what our actions say we believe.

The statement actually says that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

Yes, on one level they are aware but at another level they are unaware.[/quote]

On which level are they aware, and on which level are they unaware? Is it possible to be both aware and unaware at the same time? HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

It is not something that I know from life's experience. I have not formed the opinion that 'a person' does not become depraved overnight. I have not found that 'all the world's worst people (a subjective description) spent a lifetime ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are'. Your unqualified use of the term 'decent people' cannot be agreed with unless you make clear what you mean. Are they people who are morally spotless, or people who do a few slightly naughty things? If it is the latter, do they feel bad afterwards, or are they not bothered? To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? I would see myself as a decent person, but I have taken illegal drugs, had sex out of wedlock and cohabited, and those are only the things considered by various people to be immoral that come to mind immediately. Give me some time, and I can probably dig up several more. Were you wrong about me?

Wrong about you? Have you ever known me to be wrong about anything?

Were you wrong about me?

Not really, if I had been wrong about you, you would be writing to me from a penitentiary somewhere out there.[/quote]

But you already admitted that you had been wrong about me. Remember? You claimed (without evidence) that I had a good moral compass. Now we find that I am not 'morally innocent', but 'blind'. You see what difficulties we can run into when we make bold statements based on scant evidence? If you can be wrong about that, what else can you be wrong about? And once more, you are equating legal decisions with what is right or wrong, when you have already said that the law gets it wrong.

Before, I had only to do something wrong to find that I feel bad about it - this would show me what is objectively wrong. Now you have been mistaken in that, the law now becomes the gauge by which someone has done something right or wrong, even though you have previously in this thread said that the law gets it wrong. Remember? 'you're a big girl, you should know the law doesn't always get it right'?

To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? If you adhere to your own moral values, you will be decent. The harder you try to abide by your own moral standards the clearer and better will be your perception of moral standards. In theory you would become perfect.

Adhering to my subjective morals will make me objectively decent? How can that work when people have different morals?

We may start at different places, but if we keep going up we will eventually reach the same peak.[/quote]

HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Eventually when? Before we die? After? Because I know that I'm not exactly elderly, but I have quite a strong inkling that I could live out my God-given 120(ish) year span adhering to my subjective morals and still not agree with yours.

So, help me out, where do we disagree with each other about moral values?

Nowhere much. Just everywhere.

'Nowhere much.' That gives us hope for agreement.

I should take my own advice and not resort to sarcasm. As far as I can see, in the arena of morals and their objectivity, we agree on nothing.

We agree that it is wrong to kill people to eliminate defective genes,[/quote]

I don't recall you having asked for my opinion.

we believe that it is wrong to be cruel to children, people and animals.

I don't recall you having asked for my opinion.

We agree that it is wrong to rob stores, tourists and armoured couriers.

I don't recall you having asked for my opinion.

We agree that promiscuous multi partner sex without protection and never getting tested for AIDS is wrong.

I don't recal you having asked for my opinion.

We agree it is wrong to be rude to people for no good reason,

I don't recall you having asked for my opinion.

we agree that we should help people who have suffered a misfortune.

I don't recall you having asked for my opinion.

For two people that agree on 'nothing' we sure agree on a lot.

We've already seen what happens when one makes judgements about others prematurely. First ascertain that we agree, then make this claim. That should take several more pages though so don't hold your breath.

But since you seem so keen for us to agree, perhaps you will agree that all that either of us has offered so far is just opinion. Perhaps you will agree, therefore, to drop your unsupported claims.

[catalyst]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

Hi Skyler,

I believe in the tangible. I believe that people should trust their gut and not someone elses and I believe what is deemed "right" by some is not "right" by all. I believe in individuality and the concept of free thought and I believe one should question EVERYTHING.

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

So what is the subject? Belief, non belief or God? To save time, if it IS god, then I reckon it is pretty obvious that the atheist position is non belief.

[Enemy Anemone]

Regarding morals, it is blatantly obvious that there is no such thing as some sort of objective moral system. To put it in the simplest terms, consider a masochist. If someone enjoys being tortured, then, according to the golden rule, they should have no moral problem with torturing others, because they would not mind if others tortured them. However, the majority of anti-torture society would still condemn them for their actions. "Morality" also evolves over time, and differs from civilization to civilization. In Incan society, arbitrary murder was unacceptable, but human sacrifice was not. In ancient Greek society, sexual relationships between a man and a boy were acceptable, but today that is known as pedophilia and strongly discouraged. You only "feel bad" if you do something "wrong" because of a combination of nature and nurturing. If the part of your brain that determines sexual pleasure is not linked with the part that receives pain signals, then you would probably feel bad about getting someone to whip you and then have rectal intercourse with you. If you were raised in a society that fervently believed that to become a man, you must take the life of an rival tribesman in battle, it is extremely likely that you would have no problem with this. These "would probably" claims are evidenced by many trends in contemporary society. Today, we are taught that women are our equals. Two hundred years ago, the vast majority of men did not have a moral problem with forbidding women to vote or hold office, and if they did in fact constantly feel bad about this, then they kept very quiet about it. Judeo-Christians still account for the majority of believers in America, but the morals have changed. The "compass" metaphor for morality is apt, because the needle is always wavering, and the pole itself is amorphously shifting.

[BwhoUR]

The great thing about being an athiest is that you can decide for youself about everything, you are free to learn from your mistakes and alter your opinion as you grow older and wiser, bla bla bla, you have heard this before.

MOST of us athiests, were religious once, because of this, we truly believe:

That we can RELATE to religious people, we were you, we came to a different conclusion because we thoughtfully and critically looked at what we were told was gods word, most of us struggled with the evidence for years before finally admitting (in the face of everlasting torture, scorn, imprisonment, death threats, and mortality!!) that we can't believe in the god we learned about. Simple.

In researching further, usually to see if our conclusions hold water in other religions and beliefs, some of us have concluded that religion is the CAUSE of a lot of suffering, an EXCUSE for immorality, prejudicial thinking, intolerance, that it STIFLES growth (both personal and economical). That is why we are outspoken, that is what we want to ask religious people to consider, that is the bravery of being an outspoken athiest.