In Atheism can objective morality exist through evolution?

[kesa82]

I doubt if the father would be able to convince any disinterested person that his honour was worth more than his daughter’s life.

If the supposedly disinterested person was a Disneyland - Dwelling Westerner who didn’t know jack about the subject — like that it is NOT about his honor , and IS about the lives of more than just his daughter —

well, of course.

You do rather funny things with the word , " religious" .

Like I get the impression you are very religious, but avoid applying the word to yourself because your religion sucks , even for you.

Now, for things to be morally good and bad there has to be something…be it God or whatever…that has set a standard against which things can be judged to be good and bad.

" Whatever " is correct. .

In the case of a theist, it’s God that supposedly sets the standard by which things can be judged to be good and bad.

Not in this particular case.

Let us say that, hypothetically, atheists are correct, and dead means dead.

If I rape you , torture you, and then kill you , for fun , that isn’t going to be wrong for you. That isn’t even going to hurt your feelings. Because you won’t exist.

Likewise it doesn’t matter much whether I gloat over it , or come to regret it to a profound degree, because, soon enough , I likewise will cease to exist.

By extension , barring anything but the most extreme wishful thinking, in due course anyone who knew you, anyone who knew me, will likewise pass into nothingness.

It is perhaps giving to much credit to say that in a mere 100 years, none will be any the wiser whether I was Mother Theresa or Jack the Ripper. None will know that you were wronged , or even that you existed for that matter , and that is among people who are still breathing.

By extension , barring anything but the most extreme wishful thinking, in due course , not a single human will exist to say that killing you for fun was good or bad.

It seems to me that things like good and bad are unavoidably predicated on my existence and yours .
If you and I don’t exist, then the point itself doesn’t exist.
God this or God that not withstanding.

I frankly don’t trust theists who obviously have distinct motives when it comes to food, drink, fashion , and cronies, but claim to love God without motive.

I certainly have no regard at all for atheists who play very funny games with time.

 

[IWantGod]

I like your post. Complete moral nihilism seems to be the only reasonable position when it come to the question of Morals without God. Of course there is always pragmatic and utility considerations if one thinks there is any value in holding on to that fleeting moment we call life.

Kind of reminds me of Macbeth…

"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

 

[STT]

I like your post. Complete moral nihilism seems to be the only reasonable position when it come to the question of Morals without God. Of course there is always pragmatic and utility considerations if one thinks there is any value in holding on to that fleeting moment we call life.

How do you get ride of nihilism when you strive on God?

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t understand your question

 

[STT]

I don’t understand your question

Are you as a Christian nihilist? No. Why? Because you believe in God. I am just wondering how the belief in God could help us to get ride of nihilism.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

I would answer with this question?

During the history of the planet, has a Self Proclaimed Atheist got an Army up and ever went to war and killed members of another Religious Entity?

Note: I used the Adjective Phrase: “Self Proclaimed”. Believing a person to be an Atheist is very much different then the Person claiming to being an Atheist. Because some would try to cite notable persons such as Hitler and Stalin…

 

[IWantGod]

Because the nature and act of that which created all creatures is eternal Perfection and Love, and we have our existence in the act of eternal Perfection and Love. Eternal Perfection and Love is Gods objective nature and our existence is dependent on that nature and we have our existence inside that nature. Thus our actions are defined and judged by an objective moral standard - Perfect Love.

 

[STT]

Because the nature and act of that which created all creatures is eternal Perfection and Love, and we have our existence in the act of eternal Perfection and Love. Eternal Perfection and Love is Gods objective nature and our existence is dependent on that nature and we have our existence inside that nature. Thus our actions are defined and judged by an objective moral standard - Perfect Love.

How Perfect Love could resolve nihilism? I think you are not addressing my question.

 

[IWantGod]

How Perfect Love could resolve nihilism? I think you are not addressing my question.

I am addressing your question. You are having difficulty understanding.

I’ll try again…

God’s nature is ultimate reality. God is the only nature that necessarily exists. This is because God’s act of existence is absolute perfection. God is the absolute antithesis of nothing, and nothing can exist without God and nothing exists outside of God’s nature. God is absolute reality and it is this reality in which physical natures exists and in which human-beings find themselves and depend upon for their actuality… Some would say that we exist in the act of God’s eternal intellect or Mind;

God’s nature is love. He doesn’t just will love, God is Perfect Love. Love is his nature. God is ultimate and absolute reality and therefore Love is ultimate and absolute reality. We, including the whole universe and the multiverse, exist inside that reality. Therefore ultimate and absolute reality is the objective standard through which we exist and is the objective standard our actions are measured against which is ultimate truth itself

God is love, therefore Love is the objective standard through which we exist and is the objective standard our actions are measured against… Therefore Objective Moral Truth exists because if we act against love we are acting against the very standard our actions are measured against. We are acting against ultimate truth. We are acting against Love itself. Therefore we fall into error. This act is called “sin”. It is to sin against God, and that sin harms our souls because it is a rejection of the very thing that gives us life and also because Love is ultimately the only nature that will fulfill our existence…

If God does not exist then there is no objective standard of Moral truth.

Of course this is difficult to explain. It took me a long time and a lot of meditation on the subject to fully comprehend it much less explain it to someone else. I doubt you will understand it right away.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I doubt if the father would be able to convince any disinterested person that his honour was worth more than his daughter’s life.

If the supposedly disinterested person was a Disneyland - Dwelling Westerner who didn’t know jack about the subject — like that it is NOT about his honor , and IS about the lives of more than just his daughter —

Like I get the impression you are very religious, but avoid applying the word to yourself because your religion sucks , even for you.

But it is about his honour. That very fact needs to be addressed or any arguments are going to fail. You need to accept that he has his reasons but you need to show that they don’t allow him taking anyone’s life, least of all his own daughter.

And I have no religion. I am an atheist. And life doesn’t suck at the moment. It’s pretty good in fact.

 

[kesa82]

But it is about his honour.

No, it isn’t.

I am not obliged to write 300 + pages of history , sociology, and anthropology ( I am not getting paid for this ) in order to show that you are ignorant of the culture and pretending otherwise , or deliberately mis-stating things.

— And I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. If they can read what I have wrote here , then presumably THEY CAN GOOGLE IT themselves.

And I have no religion. I am an atheist.

Pfft , the old , " Atheism is not a something, but the lack of a something. "

There sure is a great deal of verbosity and contention in this lack of a something.

And life doesn’t suck at the moment. It’s pretty good in fact.

Granted, there is an exception to every rule, but I’m sure you are taking precious time out of your busy schedule of courting super models and sailing your yacht around the Gulf of Mexico , to make important points about the lack of a something.

 

[kesa82]

Complete moral nihilism seems to be the only reasonable position when it come to the question of Morals without God.

What I said was , I think , Complete moral nihilism seems to be the only reasonable position when it come to the question of Morals without an afterlife.

Except, of course, without a loving God there would seem to be scant prospect of an afterlife.

So you are right after all , but I think it is important to point out, cynically, pragmatically, dryly, why you are right.

"Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

One of my favorite quotes , when atheists, or milquetoast theists, trot out this , " Live for, and in , the moment ( like a dog ) " crap.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But it is about his honour.

No, it isn’t.

I am not obliged to write 300 + pages of history , sociology, and anthropology ( I am not getting paid for this ) in order to show that you are ignorant of the culture and pretending otherwise , or deliberately mis-stating things.

— And I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. If they can read what I have wrote here , then presumably THEY CAN GOOGLE IT themselves.

And I have no religion. I am an atheist.

Pfft , the old , " Atheism is not a something, but the lack of a something. "

There sure is a great deal of verbosity and contention in this lack of a something.

And life doesn’t suck at the moment. It’s pretty good in fact.

Granted, there is an exception to every rule, but I’m sure you are taking precious time out of your busy schedule of courting super models and sailing your yacht around the Gulf of Mexico , to make important points about the lack of a something.

I think you are missing the point about what are actually called honour killings. Whether we agree with them or not (and we obviously don’t), a man intending to carry out an honour killing is doing so because he feels his honour has been compromised. He does not intend killing his daughter because he had a bad day at the office.

So it is the FACT that he feels his honour has been compromised is what we would need to deal with. And please note that I am saying that that it is how he feels, not that what he feels is valid. If we had the opportunity we would need to take that into account. We would ignore it at her peril.

And I am not discussing this as an atheist. It doesn’t concern God or gods so my atheism is irrelevant. But you are correct in saying that it is a lack. Of a belief in gods.

And my wife is something of a looker and I’m happily married, so I’ll pass on the supermodel thing. But I will be sailing my yacht around Sydney harbour on the weekend. I’m not sure the prevailing winds are suitable for a trip to Mexico. I don’t think there’s enough beer on board anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

Let us say that, hypothetically, atheists are correct, and dead means dead.

If I rape you , torture you, and then kill you , for fun , that isn’t going to be wrong for you. That isn’t even going to hurt your feelings.

So it would only be wrong for you to be tortured and killed because there’s an afterlife?

I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

 

[kesa82]

I think you are missing the point about what are actually called honour killings.

I don’t think you think that.

i think that’s a way of trying to force me to discuss it in your western , secular humanist, atheist, materialist context.

That is not going to happen.

And I am not discussing this as an atheist. It doesn’t concern God or gods so my atheism is irrelevant.

So you keep saying, was saying, before I showed up. but all we really have for that so far is your assertion of that , and that is all.

So it would only be wrong for you to be tortured and killed because there’s an afterlife?

I’m not going to hold my breathe waiting for you to posit an actual alternative.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

You’re pretty darned vague about what “this” is.

I’m a ditch-digger and a Catholic, whose best friend is a rich lawyer and Shintoist pagan.

that is to say, if your intent is to try and make me feel small, or somehow lacking , pal, you have dialed the wrong number.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So it would only be wrong for you to be tortured and killed because there’s an afterlife?

I’m not going to hold my breathe waiting for you to posit an actual alternative.

Uh? An alternative to what? You said that it would only be wrong for me (or you) to be tortured and killed if there was no afterlife. In fact, you said that it wouldn’t even hurt my feelings. The only conclusion I can draw from that is if there is an afterlife, then it WOULD be wrong for you to be tortured and killed. And that then your feelings would be hurt.

I can imagine that it would be wrong for you to do the torturing. Maybe that’s what you meant. But not what you wrote.

 

[niceatheist]

Why or why not? Thanks.

In my view there’s no such thing as objective morality. There may be a few archetypal codes; in general most societies have rules against incest (but even this isn’t universal, as demonstrated by the incest among late Egyptian royalty, and by the way the Habsburgs used marriage to first cousins to attempt to maintain dynastic unity).

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I think you are missing the point about what are actually called honour killings.

I don’t think you think that.

i think that’s a way of trying to force me to discuss it in your western , secular humanist, atheist, materialist context.

My what? I really don’t feel the need for you to discuss it in an eastern, Shintoist, Catholic or ditch-digging context or any other context. Honestly.

I’m pretty sure we both could come up with valid arguments to use against the father to try to convince him that he shouldn’t kill his daughter. But the reasons we give have to take into account that he would feel, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in our view) that he had been dishonoured.

That’s his argument. We would need to counter that. That his daughter’s life is more important than his perceived dishonour.

 

[kesa82]

I really don’t feel the need for you to discuss it in an eastern, Shintoist, Catholic or ditch-digging context or any other context.

Language without context ?

Try again . This is rather entertaining.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Language without context ?

As an aside, “Context free language” is a thing. It’s associated with context free grammars.

That said he does raise a good point. A lot of the rules that we come up with in societies are not dependent on whether or not there is an afterlife making the concept of an afterlife irrelevant to them. Right now the only such a thing that I can bring to mind is the concept of the ghost/spirit marriage (冥婚) . Similarly when some one does follow through on an honour killing the response from the law doesn’t usually depend on an afterlife.

I write this thinking of a local honor killing (Jonesboro, outside of Atlanta, GA, USA) some years back (2008). A guy that owned a pizza place strangled his daughter to death because she wanted a divorce from the arranged marriage with her cousin. After he killed her he called the police to tell them he killed her and then went outside to smoke.

Not that there were philosophical arguments from the county about whether or not what he did was justified. Rather, they argued that he did what he said he did and that he is to be serve life in prison. He argued against the punishment and the GA Supreme Court heard his arguments but disagreed.