Morality without God?

[ThinkingSapien]

Well, that’s very true. But the laws of any society do require some authority as opposed to “a goal-seeking model.”

I mentioned earlier how society enforces rules. Often times through threats, punishments, and shedding blood. Some decisions in society are decided according to who has bigger and more “guns” (either metaphorically or literally).

Goal seeking *per se *says nothing about whether an act is moral or immoral

Nope, by itself it doesn’t.

That’s why I included references to the “objects of concern.” Also keep in mind my intention here was to explain what may shape one’s moral behaviour without using references to God/gods/religion in my explanation. And I think that once you have people who have concern for others those people may be motivated to behave in a manner to not injure the objects of concern , reduce their suffering, and/or increase their happiness.

lawful or unlawful.

Figuring out whether or not something is lawful is a different topic. One that at times may required a qualified legal professional. Actions that are considered lawful or unlawful can many times not have alignment with what one considers moral or immoral (ex: it was unlawful for people of different ethnicity to be married in many regions of the USA prior to 1956).

One can seek an abortion, but the seeking itself is not a justification of the act.

I’m not trying to justify, I am trying to explain. It’s not my intention to convince any one that another’s behaviour is “acceptable.” I’m trying to explain the mental processes that may motivate the behaviour.

As I understand it when one get’s an abortion it’s an indirection to seeking resolution for some other “conflict” such as hiding that one was ever pregnant, feeling that one is not prepared to raise a child, not wanting to deal with the life style changes of having a child, or avoiding medical risk, such as from an ectopic pregnancy. Some times and for some of these situations a person may be persuaded to not have an abortion if there is reassurance provided that the child will be taken care of after birth such as friends and family pledging support.

For the situation of health risk from ectopic pregnancies I understand that the Catholic approved procedure i(by the principal of “double effect”)s to have the Fallopian tube with the zygote removed as opposed to the less invasive procedure of killing the zygote with an injection. In either case the zygote will die. Despite explanation it’s something I’ve not been able to understand. But that may be a topic for another thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**As I understand it when one get’s an abortion it’s an indirection to seeking resolution for some other “conflict” such as hiding that one was ever pregnant, feeling that one is not prepared to raise a child, not wanting to deal with the life style changes of having a child, or avoiding medical risk, such as from an ectopic pregnancy. Some times and for some of these situations a person may be persuaded to not have an abortion if there is reassurance provided that the child will be taken care of after birth such as friends and family pledging support. **

It appears from this that you have adopted a pragmatic approach to morality. If a certain goal must be reached, any means is justified (for example abortion to hide an unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy). Nothing can deter the achievement of this wanted goal … not even the right of another human being to fulfill its destiny in this world. I don’t know how we distinguish this pragmatic goal of morality from the pragmatic goal announced by Hitler of exterminating the Jews because they were an unwanted, despised, and inferior race.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It appears from this that you have adopted a pragmatic approach to morality. If a certain goal must be reached, any means is justified

I’ve not said or implied this at all. I think you may be conflating “motivation” with “justification.” Motivation is about inducing an action. Justification is about defending the action. I can speak about the motivation of some one that robs a bank without feeling that it is justified (in other words, motivation does not imply justification).

 

[mymamamary]

I still cannot see the logic between having a fixed morality (That wasn’t taken from any theistic approach) and the non existence of GOD. GOD=A) Morality=B) A is nessescary for B. B is also sufficient for A.

 

[wittgenstein]

To claim that atheists lack morality and decency is uninformed and bigoted. Actually, atheists have a lower crime rate then believers. To say that one can only be moral because of a promise of reward (heaven) and/or a threat of punishment (hell) is to reduce morality to simple self interest, that even a gangster can understand.
An atheist can appeal to evolution as an explanation for morality. Those species that lack altruism do not survive to pass on their genes.
Anyway, my point is that if one wants to steer people away from atheism, one should be rational,know one’s facts and refrain from name calling (that atheists lack morality etc) I know many altruistic atheists. The first rule of civilized debate is to respect your enemy. You will not convert an atheist or someone watching the debate from the sidelines with groundless accusations.
To use Stalin (or any other person) as an example of atheist values is as unfair as giving the Salem witchcraft trials or Spanish inquisition as examples of Christian values. Both are absurd and unworthy of rational discourse.
The minute an atheist accuses a Christian of hypocrisy and immorality because of cherry picked examples from history his “argument” becomes extremely suspect. The same applies to a Christian when he also cherry picks his examples from history. There are many moral Christians and many immoral Christians. There are many moral atheists and many immoral atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

An atheist can appeal to evolution as an explanation for morality. Those species that lack altruism do not survive to pass on their genes.

This is illogical.

Those species that have sacrificial love (great morality) would die out if this morality were due to evolution.

 

[wittgenstein]

Just one example,if all the mothers and fathers (of any particular species)* are never willing to give their lives to save their children, that species will go extinct.

• Since in the animal kingdom self sacrifice (just one example,most animal mothers will defend to the death their children) is very common,one (if one wishes to maintain that only belief in God can explain altruism ) must say that bears,raccoons etc are Christians! Obviously, that would be an absurd position to hold.

 

[mymamamary]

To claim that atheists lack morality and decency is uninformed and bigoted. Actually, atheists have a lower crime rate then believers. To say that one can only be moral because of a promise of reward (heaven) and/or a threat of punishment (hell) is to reduce morality to simple self interest, that even a gangster can understand.
An atheist can appeal to evolution as an explanation for morality. Those species that lack altruism do not survive to pass on their genes.
Anyway, my point is that if one wants to steer people away from atheism, one should be rational,know one’s facts and refrain from name calling (that atheists lack morality etc) I know many altruistic atheists. The first rule of civilized debate is to respect your enemy. You will not convert an atheist or someone watching the debate from the sidelines with groundless accusations.
To use Stalin (or any other person) as an example of atheist values is as unfair as giving the Salem witchcraft trials or Spanish inquisition as examples of Christian values. Both are absurd and unworthy of rational discourse.
The minute an atheist accuses a Christian of hypocrisy and immorality because of cherry picked examples from history his “argument” becomes extremely suspect. The same applies to a Christian when he also cherry picks his examples from history. There are many moral Christians and many immoral Christians. There are many moral atheists and many immoral atheists.

Atheistic morality HAS the greater tendency to become immoral SOONER than the belief system of Christians. Sure there are moral atheists (Well, not completley but for the most part), and sure there are immoral Christians, although I think the immoral atheists outnumber immoral Christians. This isn’t supposed to be offensive. It is what it is. I also didn’t see the citation for the claim you made in the first couple sentences… thus rendering your point invalid…

 

[PRmerger]

Just one example,if all the mothers and fathers (of any particular species)* are never willing to give their lives to save their children, that species will go extinct.

• Since in the animal kingdom self sacrifice (just one example,most animal mothers will defend to the death their children) is very common,one (if one wishes to maintain that only belief in God can explain altruism ) must say that bears,raccoons etc are Christians! Obviously, that would be an absurd position to hold.

You’ll have to explain how evolution developed this moral code: no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for a friend.

That, my friend, is counter-evolutionary. It’s anti-evolution.

How do you explain that?

 

[Eleve]

An atheist can appeal to evolution as an explanation for morality. Those species that lack altruism do not survive to pass on their genes.

That’s a plausible explanation for why humans act altruistically. But it doesn’t go anywhere in terms of explaining why altruism and other virtuous behaviors are right.

 

[wittgenstein]

Animals do not have our sophisticated language ability,so they would not have a sentence to explain what they feel. However,trust me. My wife and I were back packing and came between a mother bear and her cubs (obviously by accident). Bears have a fear of humans (because of hunters etc).* I have no doubt that that mother bear would never have backed down (or ran to safety ). Luckily, I knew what to do. Slowly get out of the way.

• The first thing to do when coming accross a bear is to talk loudly and move one’s arms. This makes the bear know that you are a human,the most deadly species on the planet.

 

[PRmerger]

Animals do not have our sophisticated language ability,so they would not have a sentence to explain what they feel. However,trust me. My wife and I were back packing and came between a mother bear and her cubs (obviously by accident). Bears have a fear of humans (because of hunters etc).* I have no doubt that that mother bear would never have backed down (or ran to safety ). Luckily, I knew what to do. Slowly get out of the way.

• The first thing to do when coming accross a bear is to talk loudly and move one’s arms. This makes the bear know that you are a human,the most deadly species on the planet.

Not sure to whom you are addressing this…but this is an interesting anecdote. It appears to be a non-sequitur to my post, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[mymamamary]

Just one example,if all the mothers and fathers (of any particular species)* are never willing to give their lives to save their children, that species will go extinct.

• Since in the animal kingdom self sacrifice (just one example,most animal mothers will defend to the death their children) is very common,one (if one wishes to maintain that only belief in God can explain altruism ) must say that bears,raccoons etc are Christians! Obviously, that would be an absurd position to hold.

Im sorry but preserving the genes of the child are not what drive a human mother to self sacrifice. It is because the child is of and from her. There then forms a bond between the Mother and Child.

 

[mymamamary]

Animals do not have our sophisticated language ability,so they would not have a sentence to explain what they feel. However,trust me. My wife and I were back packing and came between a mother bear and her cubs (obviously by accident). Bears have a fear of humans (because of hunters etc).* I have no doubt that that mother bear would never have backed down (or ran to safety ). Luckily, I knew what to do. Slowly get out of the way.

• The first thing to do when coming accross a bear is to talk loudly and move one’s arms. This makes the bear know that you are a human,the most deadly species on the planet.

That still doesn’t explain why a man would die for his friend. Someone to whom he owes no relationship by blood. Mothers sure, but why friends? Perserving the human race? I don’t think so.

 

[wittgenstein]

For an AMAZING (I seldom capitalize but this video more then deserves it) video that illustrates animals willing to sacrifice themselves for unrelated (not part of the immediate family) individuals of their species google,“youtube battle at kruger”.
My computer has a virus and I am reduced to using a tablet (that explains my poor grammar, my big fat fingers and lack of spell check) and cannot post a link.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein

*Just one example,if all the mothers and fathers (of any particular species) are never willing to give their lives to save their children, that species will go extinct.

• Since in the animal kingdom self sacrifice (just one example,most animal mothers will defend to the death their children) is very common,one (if one wishes to maintain that only belief in God can explain altruism ) must say that bears,raccoons etc are Christians! Obviously, that would be an absurd position to hold. **

Among humans altruism and Christianity are intimately connected, as the founder of Christianity demonstrated. There is nothing in atheism that either encourages or commands altruism. Atheism is simply the view that there is no God (and therefore morality cannot be predicated on God).

**To claim that atheists lack morality and decency is uninformed and bigoted. **

I know atheists who are both moral and decent. What is questionable is whether there is anything in atheism that makes them so. The Marquis de Sade liked to brag that he was an atheist, and that atheism frees you up to be just as wicked as you like.

Actually, atheists have a lower crime rate then believers.

This is a common and bigoted fallacy that atheists like yourself like to throw around as if a fact. Nor does it take into account the fact that most acts of charity are sponsored by Christians, rather than atheists. How many atheists volunteered to work with Mother Teresa?

Possibly the most famous atheist in the world, Christopher Hitchens, could say nothing good about Mother Teresa.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 135 Atheists like myself? You see everying in black and white. Just because I can see my opponents argument does not mean that I accept his position in its entirety.
PS: Continuation of post 134 that “Battle at Kruger” youtube video is amazing. In particular (for the purpose of our debate) note that the water buffaloe is willing to risk his life against the lions to save a water buffaloe calf that is unrelated to it. Just as a man might sacrifice his life to save another man that is not a family member.
If water buffales lacked that altruistic sense they would have vanished as a species long ago. Lions etc would have had no problem eating all of them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein

Atheists like myself? You see everying in black and white.

Having been a member of the Unitarian church, I know a great many of them are self-professed atheists. It’s one reason why I left.

When I see someone defending atheists and attacking Christians as more likely criminal than atheists, I know who I am dealing with.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am simply stating a fact. Simply google “atheists crime rate.”*
Also your uninformed and inaccurate ad hominum is not only rude but also a logical fallacy.
The person making a statement has nothing to do with the validity of that statement. It is a logical fallacy.
For example, here is an ad hominum fallacy.

1. Manson is a liar.
2. Manson said that 1+1=2
3. Therefore 1+1 does not =2
   Manson’s character has nothing to do with the truth value of 1+1=2.

• Perhaps it is because atheists (in general) are more highly educated then theists. They are influenced by the atheistic academic culture. Because they are highly educated,they earn more and do not have to resort to crime. In other words, I am not saying that atheists are better people then theists. Or that atheists have a greater grasp of the truth.

 

[mymamamary]

Response to post 135 Atheists like myself? You see everying in black and white. Just because I can see my opponents argument does not mean that I accept his position in its entirety.
PS: Continuation of post 134 that “Battle at Kruger” youtube video is amazing. In particular (for the purpose of our debate) note that the water buffaloe is willing to risk his life against the lions to save a water buffaloe calf that is unrelated to it. Just as a man might sacrifice his life to save another man that is not a family member.
If water buffales lacked that altruistic sense they would have vanished as a species long ago. Lions etc would have had no problem eating all of them.

I still don’t see the connection between an animal sacrifice and a human. The animal is doing it out of instinct. When a human does it, they are pretty conscious of the deciscion and why they are making it…

However, if we are evolving, (By the idiocy of the current culture I think we are devolving anyway I digress), then without GOD, why and to what are we evolving to? It doesn’t add up. What do we evolve to?