What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it means “What moral right does an atheist have according to his Godless view of life?”
Isn’t that a bit like asking, “What makes humans valuable in the first place, if it’s not being made in the image of a divine being?” That, to me, does not speak of any belief in intrinsic worth, but rather a deep conviction - often too deep to even be acknowledged by the believer - that what we are not enough, that we are not worthwhile if we’re not somehow a part of a cosmic plan. And as I said earlier, the OP is really just a rehashing of the idea that human morality comes from God, not from humans.
 
I think it means “What moral right does an atheist have according to his Godless view of life?”
As I keep repeating, moral rights in regard to the God-created, objectively existent human person do not depend on anyone’s beliefs. God, Himself, does not depend on the views of humans.

I do concede that the thread’s idea is some kind of a philosophical situation which cannot exist in real life. However, the tone of posted questions and comments are – can’t think of an appropriate description for sending the wrong message in a less than charitable way.

I would think that the better approach would ask – What objective moral rights do all humans have?

Since this is not my thread, I apologize for expressing my concerns.
 
Isn’t that a bit like asking, “What makes humans valuable in the first place, if it’s not being made in the image of a divine being?” That, to me, does not speak of any belief in intrinsic worth, but rather a deep conviction - often too deep to even be acknowledged by the believer - that what we are not enough, that we are not worthwhile if we’re not somehow a part of a cosmic plan. And as I said earlier, the OP is really just a rehashing of the idea that human morality comes from God, not from humans.
I am with you in some respects.

A human person does have intrinsic worth which can be determined in a natural way. A human person does have intrinsic worth which can be determined in a supernatural way.

Morality is based on a human person’s intrinsic worth period. Ultimately, a person’s intrinsic worth is because of the way God determined human nature. A theist should recognize this. An atheist is able to recognize intrinsic worth from observing human nature.

Sair, I believe that where we differ in terminology is how humans determine morality. I also differ from most CAF posters because I believe that morality is based on an universal, objective truth which in theory can be known by all people regardless of their individual beliefs. Perhaps this concept is because I see life in a positive light while at the same time recognizing the evil in the world.
 
Isn’t that a bit like asking, “What makes humans valuable in the first place, if it’s not being made in the image of a divine being?” That, to me, does not speak of any belief in intrinsic worth, but rather a deep conviction - often too deep to even be acknowledged by the believer - that what we are not enough, that we are not worthwhile if we’re not somehow a part of a cosmic plan. And as I said earlier, the OP is really just a rehashing of the idea that human morality comes from God, not from humans.
From the context of metaphysical naturalism, we do not simply lose rational belief in God, but we should also lose rational belief in those moral significances which we imply when speaking of having “humanity” or “civilization”; words with meanings that we often use in-order to morally distinguish ourselves from mere animals that act on impulse as opposed to moral discernment. As an atheist you cannot rationally claim to have a “humanity” or “civility”, in the moral sense of those terms, since such things do not meaningfully exist in an objective sense; for there is no morality to discern.

When you behave as if you do have civility and humanity and dignity and all those special words we enjoy glamorizing ourselves with, we are acting irrationally in that we are not acting according to our true objective nature or in respect of how things truly are. Its make-belief. A rational person acts and thinks consistently with the objective nature of things. For example, a rational person does not cry when a tree gets chopped down in-order to build a house, because they can see that a tree has no value accept in reference to its utility. If you are an atheist, then you should have no problem seeing people and treating people as tools or even weapons, for there is no rational way to view objects except in reference to their utility. They are objects like any other objects. An honest atheist who wants to be consistent with the objective consequences of his or her belief system is a nihilist in practice and thought. But i have never met an atheist that isn’t a hypocrite, and I am glad, for I will weep the day i meet a true nihilist. I could have become one myself, but i refuse to lose my humanity and my dignity. The things is, I believed in humanity and dignity even when i was an atheist. And when i came to realize that i would lose the reality of those things in the absence of God, this is when i realized that my personal nature was not intrinsically compatible with atheism. So now i believe and place my hope in God because i value moral truth.

The point is, whether you think objective moral value comes from God or not, the fact remains that it does not come from humans, and to speak of any being as having value is either to speak of their usefulness as a tool(utility), or it is to knowingly participate in a fantasy in-order to comfort ones being in the face of a brutal truth.

Which is it that you do Sair? Or are you willing to put your faith in God?

My brother and sisters, say it with me…

My belief in God is quite literally a revolt, a personal and moral revolution against any ideology hopeless enough to assert that the objective meaning of my existence amounts to nothing more than a secretion of chemicals.
 
As I keep repeating, moral rights in regard to the God-created, objectively existent human person do not depend on anyone’s beliefs. God, Himself, does not depend on the views of humans.

I do concede that the thread’s idea is some kind of a philosophical situation which cannot exist in real life. However, the tone of posted questions and comments are – can’t think of an appropriate description for sending the wrong message in a less than charitable way.

I would think that the better approach would ask – What objective moral rights do all humans have?

Since this is not my thread, I apologize for expressing my concerns.
It seems to me that you are complaining about the fact that we are doing philosophy and not theology. Philosophy does not assume that beliefs are true, except when we are trying to discern the rational conclusion of a belief. I am sorry if it is not to your taste, but i am well within my rights to draw the nihilistic conclusions that i have posted on this forum.

Why don’t you rationally demonstrate to us that human nature has objective moral value?

If you have a problem, you should petition to have the philosophy forum shut down.
 
It seems to me that you are complaining about the fact that we are doing philosophy and not theology. Philosophy does not assume that beliefs are true, except when we are trying to discern the rational conclusion of a belief. I am sorry if it is not to your taste, but i am well within my rights to draw the nihilistic conclusions that i have posted on this forum.

Why don’t you rationally demonstrate to us that human nature has objective moral value?

If you have a problem, you should petition to have the philosophy forum shut down.
The only thing I have consistently said is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. I believe that this statement is an universal, objective truth. I believe that moral actions can be based on this universal, objective truth. These beliefs do not deny the existence of God in any way. These statements do encourage morality among all people regardless of individual beliefs.
 
I haven’t seen any Catholics posters disagree with objective moral truth?:confused:
I am referring to the nature of the said truth and how it can be determined. We are talking about two different things. This does not automatically imply a disbelief in God or a disbelief in His commandments.
 
The only thing I have consistently said is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. I believe that this statement is an universal, objective truth. I believe that moral actions can be based on this universal, objective truth. These beliefs do not deny the existence of God in any way. These statements do encourage morality among all people regardless of individual beliefs.
But you have not shown why you beliefs are truth. Why do you think that stating your beliefs are relevant to this discussion?
 
But you have not shown why you beliefs are truth. Why do you think that stating your beliefs are relevant to this discussion?
My apology. I thought obvious Catholic teaching regarding human nature was relevant to this discussion. Even though I realize that I have not been able to get beyond the starting point. However, I am content to end my part of the discussion. With the exception that I will reply to Sair if he so chooses.
 
My apology. I thought obvious Catholic teaching regarding human nature was relevant to this discussion.
You seem to be under the impression that i am challenging Catholic teaching. Quite the contrary. I am well aware that atheists have moral value. However, that doesn’t change the fact that belief in objective moral values is inconsistent with the naturalist world view.
However, I am content to end my part of the discussion. With the exception that I will reply to Sair if he so chooses.
You can do as you please granny. I am not here to tell you what to do. I was merely pointing out what this thread is about.

What moral right does an atheist have? Zero rights.
 
You seem to be under the impression that i am challenging Catholic teaching. Quite the contrary. I am well aware that atheists have moral value. However, that doesn’t change the fact that belief in objective moral values is inconsistent with the naturalist world view.

You can do as you please granny. I am not here to tell you what to do. I was merely pointing out what this thread is about.

What moral right does an atheist have? Zero rights.
However, since their world view that there is no God isn’t true, this is not a very meaningful answer.
 
However, since their world view that there is no God isn’t true, this is not a very meaningful answer.
Ontologically speaking, if there is a God, you are right. However, Philosophy, and the subject at hand, does not assume that God exists. I am not making an ontological argument. They believe that their world view is true, and i am saying that given that truth (hypothetically speaking) it does follow from their world-view that they have no moral value. The moral distinction between a person and an object ceases to exist.

Why you and granny are refusing to see this thread in its proper context is not meaningful to me.
 
However, since their world view that there is no God isn’t true, this is not a very meaningful answer.
This may come about from difference in definitions and semantics, but some see the statement as not true, others see it as a possibility but not something held as provisionally true.
 
An honest atheist who wants to be consistent with the objective consequences of his or her belief system is a nihilist in practice and thought. But i have never met an atheist that isn’t a hypocrite, and I am glad, for I will weep the day i meet a true nihilist. I could have become one myself, but i refuse to lose my humanity and my dignity. The things is, I believed in humanity and dignity even when i was an atheist. And when i came to realize that i would lose the reality of those things in the absence of God, this is when i realized that my personal nature was not intrinsically compatible with atheism. So now i believe and place my hope in God because i value moral truth.

The point is, whether you think objective moral value comes from God or not, the fact remains that it does not come from humans, and to speak of any being as having value is either to speak of their usefulness as a tool(utility), or it is to knowingly participate in a fantasy in-order to comfort ones being in the face of a brutal truth.

My brother and sisters, say it with me…

My belief in God is quite literally a revolt, a personal and moral revolution against any ideology hopeless enough to assert that the objective meaning of my existence amounts to nothing more than a secretion of chemicals.
This is very strong stuff, but I think there is an alternative to the options of nihilism or objective morality. My ideas have been elucidated much more coherently by others in ways I’m not aware of, but here is my view anyway.

How about a social anthropological take on morality? One where morality is sought in specific social contexts and understood as a composite phenomenon, rather than as a separate theoretical system needing defending. It would be observed to be naturalistic and subjective, yet inevitable; it would be found to be composed of all it means to be human - power, affinity, empathy, fear, desire, reason and dozens of other things as they are negotiated in real life. Wherever and however we are, as long as we are human and as long as we live together, morality exists - satisfactorily and compellingly.

If we are simply made from chemicals, that does not impel the conclusion that the basis to all the wonders of life defines its subjective meaning. In practice, we feel so much more than a bunch of atoms, but what if it turns out we are just materialistic robots? The answer is to think “Gee, look at all the things we can do!”

Here are a few influences:

Dawkins- how altruism is self-regarding (in our own interests) and spurred on partly by a ‘lust for good’
Dennett- how cooperation and anti-selfish norms are adaptive
Julian Jaynes- for everything, he is a genius
 
Ontologically speaking, if there is a God, you are right. However, Philosophy, and the subject at hand, does not assume that God exists. I am not making an ontological argument. They believe that their world view is true, and i am saying that given that truth (hypothetically speaking) it does follow from their world-view that they have no moral value. The moral distinction between a person and an object ceases to exist.

Why you and granny are refusing to see this thread in its proper context is not meaningful to me.
Why? Decause I find the the question, as posed, as taunting rather the the search for truth.
 
How about a social anthropological take on morality? One where morality is sought in specific social contexts and understood as a composite phenomenon, rather than as a separate theoretical system needing defending. It would be observed to be naturalistic and subjective, yet inevitable; it would be found to be composed of all it means to be human - power, affinity, empathy, fear, desire, reason and dozens of other things as they are negotiated in real life. Wherever and however we are, as long as we are human and as long as we live together, morality exists - satisfactorily and compellingly.
 
Ontologically speaking, if there is a God, you are right. However, Philosophy, and the subject at hand, does not assume that God exists. I am not making an ontological argument. They believe that their world view is true, and i am saying that given that truth (hypothetically speaking) it does follow from their world-view that they have no moral value. The moral distinction between a person and an object ceases to exist.

Why you and granny are refusing to see this thread in its proper context is not meaningful to me.
There would be less confusion if the question were "** ** What Moral Right Does An Atheist have according to** his scheme of things? **🙂
 
You seem to be under the impression that i am challenging Catholic teaching. Quite the contrary. I am well aware that atheists have moral value. However, that doesn’t change the fact that belief in objective moral values is inconsistent with the naturalist world view.

You can do as you please granny. I am not here to tell you what to do. I was merely pointing out what this thread is about.

What moral right does an atheist have? Zero rights.
While my part (defending human worth) in the discussion is ended, I will continue to believe that atheists are human beings loved by God. I will continue to believe that Christ hung bleeding on a cross in order to bring salvation to all persons. No matter what kind of a philosophical situation is devised, atheists still have the moral right to seek God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top