Honest Question for Atheists

[----STAR----]

Nope, and can't view tuber videos at work.

I hope you can get access to it else where, it is an excellent clip, i think you will like it. Amazing film! Its an oldie about that famous evolution vs creationism court battle with the teacher in the 1920's? or 30's? (dont know exact date)

Edited November 28, 2010 by ----STAR----

[ShadowSot]

I hope you can get access to it else where, it is an excellent clip, i think you will like it. Amazing film! Its an oldie about that famous evolution vs creationism court battle with the teacher in the 1920's? or 30's? (dont know exact date)

I know it's about the Scope's Trial from the mid '20's, back when evolution was not allowed to be taught in schools.

[Dr. D]

I know it's about the Scope's Trial from the mid '20's, back when evolution was not allowed to be taught in schools.

The title was "Inherit the Wind" and it was a Broadway stage play and later a movie with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. The movie was made in 1960.

[ShadowSot]

The title was "Inherit the Wind" and it was a Broadway stage play and later a movie with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. The movie was made in 1960.

I know that, but not much about how the film's presented.

[----STAR----]

The title was "Inherit the Wind" and it was a Broadway stage play and later a movie with Spencer Tracy and Frederic March. The movie was made in 1960.

Yes, we are talking about a clip that i posted of it on the previous page of this discussion, my date query was merely regarding the date that the real story that the film was based upon took place.

I know that, but not much about how the film's presented.

I think you will like it, very dramatic and funny, it is pro evolution, or rather, anti religious pomposity and the clip i posted a link to is one of the most moving parts of the trial within the film.

Edited November 28, 2010 by ----STAR----

[Emma_Acid]

Sorry, been away for a while, just catching up. My 2 pence for what its worth...

My question is, what is your reason for wanting to believe that there is nothing more to this life? No creator, no afterlife, etc?

Atheism is my base-level, fundamental stance on life. Its isn't the subtraction of god/s, its looking at the root of a lot of things in life and realising that;

A. The idea of god/s makes no sense, on a biological, evolutionary or logical level;

B. I, and 99% of people I know, don't need god/s to be happy, caring, fulfilled, creative people. The 1% I have known that do, are generally deeply unhappy;

C. You don't need to look very far to see that a faith-based, superstitious society is in direct opposition to a progressive, humanitarian one, and as such does civilisation no good at all.

I have never heard an argument for god/s or for a faith based society that has swayed me from these 3 points.

One theory that I have heard is that atheists choose to believe in nothing, because they are then not subject to any moral code and can do whatever they want without consequence

I could turn this argument right round and say that people believe in god/s because it allows them to shift the blame for their actions onto a higher, unreachable, unquestionable being.

Both arguments are rubbish though. Morals are the last refuge of the believer, claiming they can only come from god/s or faith. This isn't true. Animals have been shown on many occasions to show moralistic behaviour. In fact it makes sense, as moral behaviour protects a species.

[Raptor]

In some ways, it does impact upon the point. The point is only valid if the things that deny the possibility that consciousness might exist externally as well as internally can be proven to be fact, then there would be no reason to question otherwise.

You have a point there, and I agree with you on it. The difference for me, though, is that I believe it can and has been empirically demonstrated that consciousness is solely an internal process, so in my opinion there already is no reason to question otherwise. Now, while I won't say that it's absolutely impossible for consciousness to have an external component (in the same way that I won't dare to say it's absolutely impossible for there to be a giant invisible bunny sitting next to me as I type this), my current belief that it doesn't is one that I've arrived at through evidence and reason, so if we define "faith" as being "the belief in something without reason" then I don't believe there's any form of faith involved in my position.

Of course, though, if your comment was directed at those who might also say that's absolutely impossible for there to be an invisible bunny sitting next to them, then I agree with you that such a position can only be ascertained with a leap of faith; I just don't think you're going to find many people out there who say such a thing. Most are simply going by the rule that "there's no reason to believe otherwise", like I do.

[ShadowSot]

Sorry, been away for a while, just catching up. My 2 pence for what its worth...

Hey, welcome back.

[Raptor]

C. You don't need to look very far to see that a faith-based, superstitious society is in direct opposition to a progressive, humanitarian one, and as such does civilisation no good at all.

Do you think this is necessarily true for all societies, or could religion perhaps be a beneficial force in societies lacking law and order, at least until these two things are established?

[Lion6969]

How can the atheist formulate an argument against the existence of God when God is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?

[Dr. D]

How can the atheist formulate an argument against the existence of God when God is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?

Not quite true. An atheist can formulate an argument against the theory of God's existence.

Remember, God is only an opinion and atheists express a difference of opinion.

[ShadowSot]

How can the atheist formulate an argument against the existence of God when God is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?

Huh?

How can you formulate an argument against the existence of Santa Clause when Santa Clause is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?

[Lion6969]

I knew that would catch your attention.

So back to my initial question which no one has picked up on yet nor addressed it. It's an honest question.

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from, from an ontological perspective (it's ontological foundations)?

[shadowhive]

I knew that would catch your attention.

So back to my initial question which no one has picked up on yet nor addressed it. It's an honest question.

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from, from an ontological perspective (it's ontological foundations)?

People have already answered that.

Morals are decided by the society the person is in, not necessarily by religion.

I'll give two examples. If in the culture of a society women are inferior then everyone, even the women themselves, will go along with it. Even if religions say that women should be treated fairly, that part of the religion will be ignored by the people living there.

Second, now having sex with or dating someone under 10 years old is morally wrong. However, thousands of years ago it was ok to do so since people didn't have a long life span. At the time all people of all religions did it.

Morality is a flexible thing. Over time morals change due to various reasons. Over, though, religions are the opponents of such change. For no good reason.

Morally, religious people aren't much better then atheists (and vise versa). Both types of people are just capable of doing good and bad things.

Edited November 28, 2010 by shadowhive

[Lion6969]

People have already answered that.

Morals are decided by the society the person is in, not necessarily by religion.

I'll give two examples. If in the culture of a society women are inferior then everyone, even the women themselves, will go along with it. Even if religions say that women should be treated fairly, that part of the religion will be ignored by the people living there.

Second, now having sex with or dating someone under 10 years old is morally wrong. However, thousands of years ago it was ok to do so since people didn't have a long life span. At the time all people of all religions did it.

Morality is a flexible thing. Over time morals change due to various reasons. Over, though, religions are the opponents of such change. For no good reason.

Morally, religious people aren't much better then atheists (and vise versa). Both types of people are just capable of doing good and bad things.

Ok. Although you have not given an ontological foundation but rather given an epistamological basis.

So based on your above view on a subjective basis for morality, hitlers Germany, socially it was accepted that Jews did not deserve to live. Based on your logic, society determines the morals and values, so what is that it made it wrong (the holocaust) if socially it was accepted? Since you said society is what determines the morals and values and since this changes with time. What if society decided over time that disabled people are a burden on society thus should be culled (survival of the fittest), would this then be morally right. Euthanasia is slowly becoming morally correct.

P.S I did not question who does more good or does not, or whether atheists are incapable of doing good or not? This is irrelevant to my question.

I was looking at ontological foundations for morality from an atheist perspective.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Lion6969

[ShadowSot]

I knew that would catch your attention.

So back to my initial question which no one has picked up on yet nor addressed it. It's an honest question.

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from, from an ontological perspective (it's ontological foundations)?

What exactly do you mean?

As noted previously, morals, both among theists and atheists, are determined by the culture they were raised in.

Outside of there, it tends to be dependent on the atheist.

For myself, a statement by a fellow who I hold in high regard is immensely impacting, that we are star stuff, that we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. Further, that we have an obligation to work together in order to return out to the cosmos, learning and exploring, while preserving life on this planet, which for all we know, for all that it may be unlikely, is the only spot of life in the cosmos.

Not in a religious sense, just that we are literally made from the cosmos, the atoms of our bodies produced in the furnaces of stars.

The idea that we must learn to work together, that in a very fundamental way, we are all connected, is a deeply profound and satisfying to me, if that's what your asking.

[Lion6969]

What exactly do you mean?

As noted previously, morals, both among theists and atheists, are determined by the culture they were raised in.

Outside of there, it tends to be dependent on the atheist.

For myself, a statement by a fellow who I hold in high regard is immensely impacting, that we are star stuff, that we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. Further, that we have an obligation to work together in order to return out to the cosmos, learning and exploring, while preserving life on this planet, which for all we know, for all that it may be unlikely, is the only spot of life in the cosmos.

Not in a religious sense, just that we are literally made from the cosmos, the atoms of our bodies produced in the furnaces of stars.

The idea that we must learn to work together, that in a very fundamental way, we are all connected, is a deeply profound and satisfying to me, if that's what your asking.

Look the above is not answering my question. You also say it's society that determines the values and morals. But then go on to say that you have some cosmic obligation to work together, why? This not the foundations of humanism or liberalism, the basis is the individual. Read my post in reply to shadowhive, he made a point about society determining values and morals so I posed some further questions which apply to you too.

Your explanation almost has a religious tone to it, with elements of faith, similar to some panentheistic or pantheistic religion.

[shadowhive]

Ok. Although you have not given an ontological foundation but rather given an espitamological basis.

So based on your above view on a subjective basis for morality, hitlers Germany, socially it was accepted that Jews did not deserve to live. Based on your logic, society determines the morals and values, so what is that it made it wrong (the holocaust) if socially it was accepted? Since you said society is what determines the morals and values and since this changes with time. What if society decided over time that disabled people are a burden on society thus should be culled (survival of the fittest), would this then be morally right. Euthanasia is slowly becoming morally correct.

P.S I did not question who does more good or does not, or whether atheists are incapable of doing good or not? This is irrelevant to my question.

Since I don't know what either of those words mean, I can't very well answer in the way you desire.

Sadly the people in Hitler's Germany did think it was, or at least the majority did. Even though the various religious groups that were there all say, in black and white, that murder is wrong they still sat back and let it happen.

Euthanasia is a subject I'd prefer not to tackle for personal reasons. I'll let someone else answer that.

Society does determine certain moral values and thusly those are made into law. Murder and pedophilia are crimes because everyone, religious or not thinks those things are morally wrong.

Other then those there's a lot of things that are dependant on individuals. Smoking, drinking, sex etc. Different people have different views on those things and more. Also they have different reasonings for having those morals.

Surely you should remember how you came to your morality before you became a Muslim. So where did your morals come from then?

Edited November 28, 2010 by shadowhive

[The Silver Thong]

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from, from an ontological perspective (it's ontological foundations)?

That's the simplest of all questions to answer. With out morals of the common good for the common people evolution would not have happened and both you and I would not be here. In a society morals are a must to cohesion of a group, religion takes that and puts a label on it and calls it religion. Religion would not exist today if morals did not exist first.

[Lion6969]

Since I don't know what either of those words mean, I can't very well answer in the way you desire.

Sadly the people in Hitler's Germany did think it was, or at least the majority did. Even though the various religious groups that were there all say, in black and white, that murder is wrong they still sat back and let it happen.

Euthanasia is a subject I'd prefer not to tackle for personal reasons. I'll let someone else answer that.

Society does determine certain moral values and thusly those are made into law. Murder and pedophilia are crimes because everyone, religious or not thinks those things are morally wrong.

Other then those there's a lot of things that are dependant on individuals. Smoking, drinking, sex etc. Different people have different views on those things and more. Also they have different reasonings for having those morals.

Fair enough I though most atheists would have known where I am coming from.

You still dodged what I asked. Since society determines what is right or wrong and the individual (making morality very subjective), then how can you objectively say that they were wrong, or murder is wrong or pedophelia is wrong? Since society determines your values then you have no objective basis for morality. What if society is brainwashed like Germany was, inti believing pedophelia is morally correct? How can you then objectively refute it to be morally wrong?

[The Silver Thong]

Fair enough I though most atheists would have known where I am coming from.

You still dodged what I asked. Since society determines what is right or wrong and the individual (making morality very subjective), then how can you objectively say that they were wrong, or murder is wrong or pedophelia is wrong? Since society determines your values then you have no objective basis for morality. What if society is brainwashed like Germany was, inti believing pedophelia is morally correct? How can you then objectively refute it to be morally wrong?

So where did morals come from before Jesus or god was created?

[shadowhive]

Fair enough I though most atheists would have known where I am coming from.

You still dodged what I asked. Since society determines what is right or wrong and the individual (making morality very subjective), then how can you objectively say that they were wrong, or murder is wrong or pedophelia is wrong? Since society determines your values then you have no objective basis for morality. What if society is brainwashed like Germany was, inti believing pedophelia is morally correct? How can you then objectively refute it to be morally wrong?

How do you know the Quran (or Bible or any other religious thing) is not doing the same thing? Brainwashing people into accepting it's version of morality.

I guess if such a thing happened, which would be a tragedy, then there's be nothing that could be done if it was readily accepted. I'm certain there would be people that would fight it. However, I don't think such a thing would be so easiy achieved, at least in the West.

[Lion6969]

That's the simplest of all questions to answer. With out morals of the common good for the common people evolution would not have happened and both you and I would not be here. In a society morals are a must to cohesion of a group, religion takes that and puts a label on it and calls it religion. Religion would not exist today if morals did not exist first.

Your not answering the question, your posing a epistemological perspective on how morality impacts in society and it's effects.

I asked how or where do you derive morality and values from. What makes something right or wrong?

For example, imagine a perfect atheist world, where no religion exists or concept of god, just humanism (primitive IMO), how will they derive their morals, from society, the individual, experiences and evolution or maybe all, yes?

How do you logically make the statement that religion would not exist if morality did not cone first. How do you substantiate this logically, baring in mind the morality you adhere to is subjective and ephemeral.

[Lion6969]

How do you know the Quran (or Bible or any other religious thing) is not doing the same thing? Brainwashing people into accepting it's version of morality.

I guess if such a thing happened, which would be a tragedy, then there's be nothing that could be done if it was readily accepted. I'm certain there would be people that would fight it. However, I don't think such a thing would be so easiy achieved, at least in the West.

Hold on this is not a thread about religion Islam Christianity, but honest questions for atheists. If you are hitting a brick wall, there is no need to bring the others things in to it.

By the way the holocaust happened in the west where socially it became acceptable to eliminate Jews, blacks and other ethnic groups. Serbia ethinically cleansed Bosnian Muslims, socially it was acceptable (the west). Ofcourse east west has nothing to do with it.

How can you objectively say that something is wrong when morality for you is subjective and almost plucked from thin air?

Oh and I did not suggest irreligious people or religious are brainwashed. I gave an example, if a society was brainwashed like Germany, then how can you oppose such immorality, from you subjective moral perspective, where rights and wrongs are simply determined by society and to a lesser extent the individual.

[Lion6969]

So where did morals come from before Jesus or god was created?

Thats irrelevant. This thread is about honest questions for atheists not Christians.