Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[bernee51]

Bernee,

I think I have stated my position. I disagree with the label of bigotry for it

bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You decide!

Atheist "sprituality?"

No, I'm sorry that is absurd to me.

You know nothing of it yet have decided it is absurd. See above.

I believe the good feeling that a person gets from doing good for goodness' sake, is because they are truly good people with the spark of God in them.

On this we agree - all we disagree on is what is 'god'.

The higher monkey cannot do anything "good."

Yet another one from 'left field'. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

But then again, you may be right about my being bigoted because I feel that if a person basis his/her "Atheism" on Evolution, then morality cannot exist.

Atheism is not based on evolution and vica versa. Why do you conflate these issues?

And even if they did, why does the relationship prevent the existence of morality?

If that is the case for the basis of a non-god stance, then I feel they cannot be moral or do moral things because nature knows nothing of caring.

Humans are part of nature, humans know of morality.

Though it is far more an assumption based on empiricism than bigotry, I believe.

Actually it appears to be based on avidya

Atheist goodness could only be based on symbiotic relationship plain and simple. "Nothing" more "nothing" less.

And you have a problem with this?

[AlAyeti]

Remember that I am believing you when you say you are a good person that "cares" about the well-being of others and that you live within a "community" that shares those actions and beliefs. Bravo

Bernee,

Does that statement show that I am intolerant of your position or right to hold it?

The word "Bigot" is an epithet when frustration deems it so. You use it as an epithet for sure. I have come to a "conclusion" based on much experience, that Atheists by their own definition cannot have "morality" within them. Just cause and effect action.

Does the barber shrimp clean the teeth of other fish as an act of philanthropy or food? Does the fish that "somehow" learned not to eat the little cleaner not eat it out of caring or for its own better survival?

You are a higher monkey no or yes?

No insult intended just a pure definition of "what" you "are" as an organism.

Humans "know" of morality, yet animals have no clue. I believe that humans are not part of nature again by the observable anti-nature you see them continually embracing. Animals cannot violate natural law, except to choke to death for eating a rock or stick or fall to their deaths. Then natural law is still the guiding force. No animal knows to strike another on the back to clear choking to death and animals do not post danger signs anywhere.

Morality is not "natural," to animals, yet seems to be congenital in our species. That is why children know right from wrong before even the ability to read.

Why would you think I have a problem with atheists symbiosis as the basis for good-doing? I have no problem with atheist symbiosis because it will keep me alive and well. Unlike many horrible things done to mankind by atheists who cared nothing for others rights and value.

People like you put my mind far more at ease then religious terorists that is for sure. A secualr society is OK by me.

Iran is about to execute a Christian convert from Islam.

It would be far better for this Christian to have people like you in power who just snidely laugh off the whole God-belief thing, than to murder Christians. This Iranian Christian has never harmed anyone. A typical thing you see in Christians worldwide. I'll bet with your powers of reasoning that you will see my point.

Again, I am complimenting you.

[bernee51]

I have come to a "conclusion" based on much experience, that Atheists by their own definition cannot have "morality" within them. Just cause and effect action.

And I have shown this to be false, both specifically and generally.

Does the barber shrimp clean the teeth of other fish as an act of philanthropy or food?

And is my "hovercraft full of eels"?

You are a higher monkey no or yes?

I am, like you, a primate of species homo sapiens. Depending of which 'monkey' you speak that will be of a different species. Though I do note that some biologists wish to re-define the Bonobo to the species homo

Humans "know" of morality, yet animals have no clue.

Humans 'know' of many things that are unknown to 'monkeys' and many more things that are unknown to an eel.

I believe that humans are not part of nature again by the observable anti-nature you see them continually embracing. Animals cannot violate natural law, except to choke to death for eating a rock or stick or fall to their deaths. Then natural law is still the guiding force. No animal knows to strike another on the back to clear choking to death and animals do not post danger signs anywhere.

What you describe is not 'anti-nature' but rather working with nature. Humans, like it or not, are part of the natural world

Morality is not "natural," to animals, yet seems to be congenital in our species.

Many animals show altruistic behabiour. If 'altruism' is 'moral' then animals can show morality.

Iran is about to execute a Christian convert from Islam.
.

Intolerance, no matter what the flavour, is intolerable.

[AlAyeti]

Bernee: "What you describe is not 'anti-nature' but rather working with nature. Humans, like it or not, are part of the natural world."
/ / /

Automobiles are not natural. Clothing is not natural. And my list could be hours long to read on other unnatural things that humans have developed. Unless we live they way animals do then we are truly not within nature. You and I are proving that at, by and with our keyboards.

We exist within an environment that facilitates the need for a physical design that fits the environment. That is why so many life forms are similar in "design." Even fish need oxygen. Like I said I believe that the spirit you claim to have for others is congenital and from the Creator of man and passed down through the DNA to you and I.

Please don't get too evolutionary on me because I think evolution is just a cute way of little children of any age to see the world around them. I don't really want to insult the adherents of the religion so effectively put forward by Charles Darwin and his band of brothers.

You have not shown my opinion about atheist morality wrong in any way. You simply have disagreed with my conclusion "specifically as it relates to your opinion of your self, and only from "your perspective," about your feelings towards your "community." A fair place to hold a free belief and opinion but certainly not evidence that my position is false, just your personal feeling based on emotions.

You admit you are a higher ape. I certainly deny that. We are on opposite sides and my opinion about atheists and animals is strong to support my assertion, only to show the absurdity of people thinking they are "just" a new edition of an animal.

Altruism in animals?

A dog saving its master does not do it out of altruism, it just fears starving to death or having to fend for itself. No different than a Beta male wolf defending an Alpha wolf from an attacking Buck. Now I have heard of Dolphins saving a person but I figure it this way, it is a bogus story, or, they probably have experience of what humans do in retribution towards animals that kill people. They certainly see what happens to sharks. As we can see from Sea World, Dolphins are response oriented no different than Pavlov's pup.

Or maybe we give off an odor or "probably" our screams and thrashing while drowning is murder on a Dolphin's hearing and they are just ridding the sea of nuisance. Like the way we get rid of noisy Raccoons in the attic.

We are not part of the natural world but only existing in an earth suit, so to speak. My opinion is empirically based by observing people all over the world embracing inventions that kill as well as help and that our environment is being so badly affected by our anti-natural products. That a force beyond our control is causing the effects of our choices, to me is obvious. Then again I believe the Bible because I can see it on the Five O'Clock news.

The knowledge we gained at the tree of "good" and "evil?" I may go with a metaphor of that story as much as fact. But empiricism guides me to believe that there is more to this world thing than meets the eye.

How did the Apostle Paul and so many others in the Bible know that too?

I'm hoping you are calling your Iranian ambassador.

All the martyrs in Christianity die with their hands empty. Please try to stop their deaths if you can.

[bernee51]

Bernee: "What you describe is not 'anti-nature' but rather working with nature. Humans, like it or not, are part of the natural world."
/ / /

Automobiles are not natural. Clothing is not natural. And my list could be hours long to read on other unnatural things that humans have developed

What humans have developed...yes.

But what humans 'are' is part of the natural world. I presume, like most if not all humans, you eat, defecate, sleep etc. Humans are part of the geosphere, the biosphere and the noosphere - as are other animals.

We have much in common with other of the 'higher' mammals - like the limbic system.

Unless we live they way animals do then we are truly not within nature. You and I are proving that at, by and with our keyboards.

Try not defecating for a few weeks.

We exist within an environment that facilitates the need for a physical design that fits the environment. That is why so many life forms are similar in "design." Even fish need oxygen.

Say what?

Like I said I believe that the spirit you claim to have for others is congenital and from the Creator of man and passed down through the DNA to you and I.

Congenital perhaps - but not 'given' to us. Initiated by, accessed by and added to by us.

Please don't get too evolutionary on me because I think evolution is just a cute way of little children of any age to see the world around them.

You have already agreed with me that your religion is translative...i.e. it gives meaning and legitimacy to the believers in the face of the trials of worldly existence. So what is the problem with evolution - at least that is based on facts rather than fantasy.

You have not shown my opinion about atheist morality wrong in any way.

That is because you have not given any arguments as to why it could be right. You have merely stated an opinion - unsupported and unsupportable.

You admit you are a higher ape. I certainly deny that.

Even though we have approx. 99% of DNA in common with our closest relatives.

We are on opposite sides and my opinion about atheists and animals is strong to support my assertion, only to show the absurdity of people thinking they are "just" a new edition of an animal.

On what basis do you claim to be anything other than a biological entity in the natural world

Altruism in animals?

A dog saving its master does not do it out of altruism, it just fears starving to death or having to fend for itself. ...it is a bogus story, or, they probably have experience of what humans do in retribution towards animals that kill people.

Why don't you do some actual research on the subject before spouting of with yet another ill-informed opinion.

It is well researched and well documented. You could start by looking here

The knowledge we gained at the tree of "good" and "evil?" I may go with a metaphor of that story as much as fact. But empiricism guides me to believe that there is more to this world thing than meets the eye.

That depends on the wisdom behind the eye.

Wisdom=applied knowledge.

Before wisdom comes knowledge.

Opinion does not necessarily equal knowledge.

[AlAyeti]

"Before" wisdom comes knowledge.

Before wisdom?

Now kneel.

[bigmrpig]

I have a question...


So you're saying, that the other day when an aquaintance I have was crying, and I went over to comfort her, even though I hate when she gives me attention, I had no morals? I was acting without morals, because I'm atheist? I made the same action a religious person would have, and my reason was the same: to comfort them because everyone deserves to be comforted.

How can you say I lack morals based on my beliefs and not my actions?

[FreddieFreeloader]

But empiricism guides me to believe that there is more to this world thing than meets the eye.

Empiricism, by it's very definition, cannot tell you of things that do not meet the eye.

[bernee51]

"Before" wisdom comes knowledge.

Before wisdom?

Now kneel.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Do you?

[bernee51]

But empiricism guides me to believe that there is more to this world thing than meets the eye.

Empiricism, by it's very definition, cannot tell you of things that do not meet the eye.

Thanks for pointing this our Freddie...

it is yet another example of the abject lack of understanding of logic and the meaning of the word empiricism.

As if more were needed.