How do *some* atheists define their morality

Debate Room
86

The school cultists once exploded into extreme anger just because I talked about other countries they believe South Africa is the “land of milk and honey” and nobody should ever leave South Africa or talk about other countries . Sunet Coetzee laughs when Angus Buchan followers are in a road accident but she whines when her fellow cult members are in a road accident .She usually said “Angus Buchan is a devil with a hat” and this "people doesn’t read the right bible " and she ask questions like this “What would you do if blacks are coming for you ?”.Here is more from their website.

Capture

1 Like
87

No.

To say I don’t believe is simply to state an absence of belief.

To say “I believe there are no god’s” is an affirming statement, a claim.

1 Like
89

Of course you’re entitled to your own opinion. In this case your opinion is wrong. Non belief is a non argument where there is nothing said to be proved.

Hence to state a non belief is not a claim.

2 Likes
90

I’m afraid you’re wrong there.

Do you believe invisible mermaids exist.

Can you fulfill your burden of truth if it’s a claim? If you’re going to insist withholding belief is a claim, then that would make every unfalsifiable claim a 50/50 premise.

That’s just absurd sorry.

1 Like
91

Okay, let’s take a look at it.
To the question: “Do you believe a god exists.” An atheist will respond, “No.” I do not believe in God or gods.

“No” Is a response to the question at hand.
“I do not believe in God or gods is an claim about my beliefs.” Not about the existence or non-existence of this God thing you are speaking of.

I have searched my belief system and found “no belief in God or gods.” Are you trying to make the assertion that belief is actually there? How would you demonstrate it?

There is a world of difference between the phrase. “I believe Gods do not exist.” and “I don’t believe in God or gods.” The first sentence is a statement about what I believe to be real in the external world. The second is about my internal system of belief.

A belief in God just isn’t there. Is there any reason at all why a belief in God should be there? I would love to hear it. I can think of no good reason to assume, without facts or evidence that magic, miracles, spirits, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, gods, or things that go bump in the night are in any way, shape. or form “real.”

I have not called any of these things unreal and I have not asserted that they do not exist. My assertion is, “I have no good reason to believe in any of them.” As such, “They are not within my belief system.” My assertion is about my own belief. Not about your supernatural mumbo jumbo about which you can provide no reasonable evidence.

2 Likes
93

So the lack of belief is a belief?

Sorry, but your thinking is at odds with the dictionary here. That is seldom a good sign in my experience.

1 Like
94

Correct. And the next question is… Why? What evidence do you have to support such a belief. And then when you give us shit evidence we point it out. When you say there is no evidence, we ask, "Why the fuck believe.: When you call it a “faith” thing, we know you are full of shit and can’t think of anything else to say. In fact, each time you open your mouth you do more to support the Atheist position than you do to support your own. If you are unwilling to discuss why you believe… what the fuck are you doing here?

I would say “No one gives a shit what you believe.” but that isn’t exactly true. Belief in the Christian god harms millions of people through the spread of ignorance and superstition. So there are those of us that would like to see religion get a rectal exam from the throat down.

95

Indeed, and obviously not just the Christian deity. I would also say that a rationale devoid of critical thinking is itself an inherently dangerous thing.

How much critical thinking does one imagine supporters of conspiracy theories like qanon, or those who believe Trump’s lie about a stolen election, submit those claims to?

We’ve seen at least one atheist on here who couldn’t offer anything beyond a bare repetition of the claims Trump has falsely made, and angry rhetoric about how bad things will be now Trump has lost.

96

I do belive morals to be subjective, influenced by the times in which we are alive and the societies we live in.
Religious folk would like to believe that their morals comes from their religion, the contrary would cause cognative dissonance.

You do what is morally acceptable. If it means sacrificing your child in Aztec, Inca, Maya or Moche culture, lets not forget Abrahams willingness to sacrifice Isak, then so be it.

You will try and act in such a way that you do not disrupt the society in which you operate, that is how your morals are defined.

Basically you try not to be an A-hole.

1 Like
97

Indeed, this is axiomatic, unless someone can demonstrate objective evidence for any moral absolute?

1 Like
98

Wrong question, the correct question is why is something immoral? And this question need not single out those who don’t believe in any deity or deities, as it applies equally to those who do.

Morality is defined as the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

99

Define morality? Unlike the “Theists” my moral behavior is not based on “Good” or “Bad” and “Right” and “Wrong” are about as useless as are good and bad. These are all value judgments.

I tend to look at, am I harming myself or doing harm to another. If I am, is the harm necessary? How much harm is necessary? I like the idea that morality is based on “Well Being.” I define it as my desire to do no harm, but my willingness to do harm when needed.

1 Like
100

Sure, morality is subjective. It’s that simple.
And I mean that for everyone. Even if a religion prescribes for you your morality, at some point you are making judgment calls where the directives are not clearly expressed or the subject matter is not covered in the religious text. Or you interpret something differently than your fellow religion mate.

Additionally, every religion and every culture call have their own Morality ‘s. They sometimes overlap and agree, but in some places they are pretty different.

If morality is not objective, then somehow we all disagree on what that objective morality is. Until someone is able to settle that one question, Morality remains subjective.

2 Likes
101

I define morality as what is helpful and what is harmful……what helps people and what hurts them, based on my own experience, what I was taught, as well as my observation of the world and other people around me.

102

One example … for example in today’s Paris, senicide (the abanding of the very old to die) is frowned on. But in primitive tribes that lived in the far north where the aged suddenly became a harsh burden on the tribe, and continuing to support them jeapordizes the survival of the entire tribe, senicide becomes a positive moral action.

103

Me too.

I also refine it a smidge to "what is helpful and what is harmful tome. This is a relatively recent moral position called ethical egoism. I hold this view because I concluded long ago that human beings are innately self interested . I think this stance has an evolutionary advantage because for me at least, it extends to my group, but not necessarily to anonymous others.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Reference: Egoism and Altruism Ronald D Milo. (I have not read Sidgwick’s “Method’s Of Ethics”, 1874)

" Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical.[2]

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism,[3] which holds that a moral agent should treat one’s self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one’s own interests (as altruism does) to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own interests (i.e. one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others’ interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject’s (i.e. the self’s, i.e. the moral “agent’s”) own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.

Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent’s self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others’ interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, “Ethical egoism … endorses selfishness, but it doesn’t endorse foolishness.”

Ethical egoism - Wikipedia.

104

@boomer47 At this point, you are going to be writing Ph.D. dissertation papers on this stuff. As for me, I do not need God or religion, as stated above, for my morals, and that has worked well, so far.

105

Nice compliment, thanjs I think. Most unlikely though. I’m a poor philosopher. That post was just me being pedantic. Nor is that wall of text mine, it’s from wiki.

106

@boomer47 I know…these theists are trying so hard to make follow the morals of an immoral God.

107

Interestingly, the Greeks had a system of taxation in place where it was ethical and a symbol of status. Contributing to the welfare of society and others AND being well off enough to do so, was the goal of the citizens.

Now-a-days… I’d say taxation is not viewed the same way. However, centuries in between have brought forward the most unethical greedy, dishonest behavior from citizens and governments.