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?

[Slopeshoulder]

I am truly saddened that you had to even create this thread. Because it means that 1. you have been hurt, and 2. you have taken your tormenters seriously.

It's late and I'm too tired to go into detail, but I have two seminary degrees in ethics and let me assure you that there are a zillion serious ethical theories that form a basis for morality without God. There are other reasons to be christian, this isn't one of them. The so called christians who tell you that are not good people, they are also ignorant, and probably stupid. They are certainly arrogant. Pity them. Ignore them. Do not let yourself be bullied by circular, specious, laughable arguments. Secular people are as good as anybody else, and if there is a God, he or she knows that. Good luck on your journey.

[FinalEnigma]

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.

That's not an appeal to ignorance:

Exposition:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
Exposure:

There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:

1. Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent. Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that I claim that I was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged I can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that I visited another planet, therefore I probably didn't do so.

McCulloch is doing precisely what is in example 1 of things which resemble an appeal to ignorance, but are not one.

edit to cite my source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[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.

No it is not. If I were to claim that morality must come from xxxx because there is no evidence that it came from God, then that would have been an appeal to ignorance. What I am doing is simply challenging the claim that God has given humanity morality. If the claim is being made sans evidence, then it can be ignored in debate. It has not been proven false, but without any supporting evidence, it is not worthy of being debated.

[Cathar1950]

God giving us morality is every bit a myth like the gods giving us fire.

The reality is that fire is natural and who knows how long it took us to master it or understand fire. Morality is an abstraction grounded in the question as to how we should act and treat each other and by its nature is social.
It is grounded in our roots as social beings or animals and our relationships and bonds. Other Social Animals learn how to act towards each other in complex ways. Did God given them their morals?
Or is it like fire?

[HollywoodBasher]

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



Why shouldn't we? What are you basing your "real morals" on?

[Cathar1950]

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



Why shouldn't we? What are you basing your "real morals" on?

Is some command or belief from God the only reason not to do so?
That the person being raped could be my mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, daughter or yourself seems enough reason.

[ChaosBorders]

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



Why shouldn't we? What are you basing your "real morals" on?

Is some command or belief from God the only reason not to do so?
That the person being raped could be my mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, daughter or yourself seems enough reason.

Why is that enough reason? If I have no objective standard to base my actions on, just because I would not like someone to rape me is hardly sufficient reason for me not to do it to someone else if I felt like it.

Please note: I find rape and sexual molestation quite possibly the most distasteful acts conceivable. But I also see no reason, in absence of an objective morality (which I have never heard a logical argument for in absence of using God as a premise) why either of those acts are 'wrong' because the notion of wrong is meaningless.

[ChaosBorders]

Personally I’d say you’re doing pretty well on morals given my belief in God. But I’d also say that if your disbelief in God is accurate, then morality is a meaningless concept. I’d ask the same questions of why as theAtheistofnoIllusions.
Not killing, raping, etc. are all useful for building societies, but if I have no personal interest in society and can get away with it, I have no logical reason not to if I felt like doing so. Further, most of your ‘morals’ are psychologically healthy for most of the population. But a high-mach sadist necrophiliac is likely to disagree, and derive much greater fulfillment slowly killing the person who beat them out for a promotion and raping their dead body. Objectively you can’t say such behavior is wrong, because there is no objective morality. And they have no obligation to accept your feelings about what is moral, even if most of society agrees with you.
And regarding 5. (having done excessive amounts of research on this topic in my younger years) I can promise you that if you really believe that sex is of no importance to your relationship, you are deluding yourself. Try not having it six months, maybe a year. If things are still good, then the relationship likely is marriage worthy. But odds are ten to one things would quickly deteriorate (all each other’s little flaws start becoming so much more noticeable when the oxytocin isn’t flowin’).

[FinalEnigma]

The argument that there cannot be morals without God also results in meaninglessness.

Because in that case, there cannot be morals due to God either.

Euthyphro anyone?

are moral actions moral because God said they are moral? or are they moral anyway and he just told us?

[ChaosBorders]

The argument that there cannot be morals without God also results in meaninglessness.

Because in that case, there cannot be morals due to God either.

Euthyphro anyone?

are moral actions moral because God said they are moral? or are they moral anyway and he just told us?

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&gs_rfai=
Right: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

The Christian God is generally defined as Just and Good. Thus it follows that actions God finds in accordance with justice and goodness are by definition Just and Good, which makes them Right by definition, and thus Moral by definition.