What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alder said:
Why ought I be rational? :D. I don’t know about you but I am only rational to the extent that reason serves my preferred ends.
Click to expand...
Ah. The inevitable and pitiable end of atheism: anti-reason.
 
Alder said:
All actions are means to a preferred end. You have to have the desire to be rational before you can engage in reason no? Is the desire to engage in reason reasonable? I don’t think it is.
Click to expand...
First of all it is the atheist who claims that all beliefs which stem purely from an emotional desire for value is irrational. I am merely showing you the irrational consequences of that claim. In other words Its not reasonable to say that emotions play no rational part in our knowledge of truth, because the result of rejecting our emotional experiences as having no objective rational significance, is to reject personal life itself, reducing man to a purely rational object with no where to escape but death. This is why i said that skepticism in regards to the existence of objective moral values is simply an unreasonable position. The unreasonableness of this position is evident when we apply skepticism towards other facts about our emotional existence.

Secondly a rational desire to know truth is distinct from a purely subjective desire to exist. The reason being is because the very desire to want to know truth is product of rationality since it is rooted first and foremost in an acknowledgement of rational truth. it is a “rational person” that desires to be consistent with objective reality, not a “non-rational” animal who only acts according to emotional impulse.

Before you can have a desire to apply rational thought, you must first be rational and also recognize the existence of rationality. Our discovery of rationality is not a direct expression of desire, but rather it is indirect, since we must first discover it and know it before we can rationally have a desire to apply it. Which brings me to another point; that there is such a thing as “rational desires”; like the desire for life, and we experience the rationality of it in so far as we directly experience the intrinsic meaning of life. Its up to the individual person to admit that the meaning they experience is something discovered, something that is rooted in the objective nature of reality. Our choosing to live is rational in so far as our personal existence is objectively and morally valuable. If it isn’t objectively and morally valuable, then it follows necessarily that desiring life is irrational. Thus if we are to remain rational, we must reject the desire for life. This is the consequence of the atheist world view.
Alder said:
Actually my unbelief is largely because God seems to lack a positive coherent ontology. Why do I care about ontology or truth? Because I had to pass a course. Disregarding my beliefs simply because I had no reasonable reason to engage in reason (LOL:D) commits an appeal to motive.
Click to expand...
All you keep telling me here is that you are dishonest; that you don’t care about the truth accept when it fulfills you.
 
Alder said:
If you mean that the desire not to be screwed over overrides reason. Yes.
Click to expand...
How do you “know” you are being screwed-over if your desire overrides reason?:rolleyes:

It doesn’t get much more irrational than that.😃
 
Windfish said:
You hold to natural law ethics, correct? Isn’t it the case that natural law ethics per se does not depend on the existence of God? An atheist can still hold to objective morality through natural law.

That being said, atheism does tend toward an ontology that makes natural law not an option.
Click to expand...
Our knowledge of right and wrong doesn’t depend on our “belief” in Gods existence. We can be aware of divine moral law without realizing the connection of those laws to Gods existence. Thats different from saying that Objective moral truth can exist without God.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Our knowledge of right and wrong doesn’t depend on “belief” in Gods existence. Thats different from saying that Objective moral truth can exist without God.
Click to expand...
Your distinction is noted, but I think you miss the point. All that is needed for objective morality are teleological ends, no?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Let me ask a question. Can teleology exist without God.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I want to say NO but also YES. It does seem to me that a thing can ends without God. Think of the idea of a triangle. Insofar as the triangles we draw conform to that ideal, those triangles would be good. And vice versa. A thing is good insofar as it fulfills and maximizes its nature. At least, that is how I understand natural law. It doesn’t seem to me that God is absolutely necessary for that.
 
Windfish said:
Hmm. I want to say NO but also YES. It does seem to me that a thing can ends without God. Think of the idea of a triangle. Insofar as the triangles we draw conform to that ideal, those triangles would be good. And vice versa. A thing is good insofar as it fulfills and maximizes its nature. At least, that is how I understand natural law. It doesn’t seem to me that God is absolutely necessary for that.
Click to expand...
Gods being is absolutely necessary for that, since when you speak of objective moral truth, you are not just speaking about something fulfilling its nature, you are also talking about a potential thing fulfilling its existence, and there can be no existence without that which transcends potentiality. The truth that is a “triangle” cannot exist without an existential foundation through which it can express that truth. Thus the reality of “good” is not caused by that which is in potential, but rather the good is intrinsic to the nature of ultimate reality; or should i say, ultimate reality is as such that we can speak of good.

I’m sure you didn’t need me to tell you that old pal.😉
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
There is no “Christian Nation”.***<—REALLY?! ***But it is true that atheists and non-theists, in taken things granted, unconsciously express Christian concepts, or a sense of metaphysical value. It only stands to reason that when they see no threat in accepting the intrinsic meaning that permeates our existential experiences, they tend to be motivated by those same concepts. But when asked to metaphysically justify their position, they come to realize the implication of God which is more than enough for them to conclude that they were in error about that which they took for granted. To save face they pretend as if in the first place they were not really compelled by a sense of objective moral-rights/moral-realism. Todays society has its roots in Christianity; but we no-longer truly live in a Christian society.
Click to expand...
The majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively.[4] Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population.[4][5][6] Another 15% of the adult population identifies as having no religious belief or no religious affiliation.[4] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply.[4] According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably across the country: 59% of Americans living in Western states (the “Unchurched Belt”) report a belief in God, yet in the South (the “Bible Belt”) the figure is as high as 86%.[4][7]
Click to expand...
 
Alder said:
Oh ok. Sometimes people use the term objective as synonymous with absolute.

If you don’t mind me asking how does your moral theory play out in real life? What happens when moral absolutes come into conflict?

If your choice is between committing a mortal sin and committing a mortal sin what should you do?
Click to expand...
From theFreeDictionary.com:
2. Absolute Philosophy
a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

From theFreeDictionary.com:
  1. Objective (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions are there objective moral values?
Objective truth is a reality based outside a person’s own thinking and is recognizable by anyone. By definition God is the absolute reality and the standard of truth.

The reality of atheists, on the other hand, is subjective. They believe that morals spring from the minds of each individual and that whatever is true for the atheist is the truth, even though it may not be the moral truth for someone else. And they believe that no one has the right to compel another person to abide by another person’s subjective moral truth - a “to each his own” kind of attitude. If a murderer is doing his own thing and murdering people, then those individuals who think like atheists logically have no “moral right” to pass judgment on the murderer, since the atheists’ subjective morals, which come from their subjective minds, are simply their personal opinions, something even murderers have. However, if atheists should say that murdering is wrong, then, by their very assertion of right and wrong, they are upholding an absolute moral standard, which come from God.
 
40.png
babylonsfalling:
You fail to grasp the context in which i make the claim. Politically speaking, America, of which i am not apart, is not a Christian kingdom or nation, as in, it is not a country ruled according to the Christian revelation. There is a split between church and state, thus it is meaningless to say that America, or any country where the split exists, is a Christian nation. Also, on a cultural level, your statement only works if you say that the other percentage of beliefs in your country don’t matter and add no defining aspect to the American nation. In other words you are simply ignoring the other percentage of people who have different beliefs than you. In reality, on a cultural level, America is a plurality of different beliefs. The fact that Christianity happens to make up the higher percentage is irrelevant. Even if everyone was some-kind of registered Christian, this would only mean that America is culturally Christian so long as there is a split between state and religion. You could say that America is largely made up of Christians, but that is irrelevant to the context of this thread.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
You fail to grasp the context in which i make the claim. Politically speaking, America, of which i am not apart, is not a Christian kingdom or nation, as in, it is not a country ruled according to the Christian revelation. There is a split between church and state, thus it is meaningless to say that America, or any country where the split exists, is a Christian nation. Also, on a cultural level, your statement only works if you say that the other percentage of beliefs in your country don’t matter and add no defining aspect to the American nation. In other words you are simply ignoring the other percentage of people who have different beliefs than you. In reality, on a cultural level, America is a plurality of different beliefs. The fact that Christianity happens to make up the higher percentage is irrelevant. Even if everyone was some-kind of registered Christian, this would only mean that America is culturally Christian so long as there is a split between state and religion. You could say that America is largely made up of Christians, but that is irrelevant to the context of this thread.
Click to expand...
America is a Christian nation because the overwhelming percentage of voters are Christian. And you don’t have to ignore the percentage who aren’t in order to say that.
 
babylonsfalling said:
America is a Christian nation because the overwhelming percentage of voters are Christian. And you don’t have to ignore the percentage who aren’t in order to say that.
Click to expand...
Again you fail to grasp the context of what i said. It does not matter whose voting. We do not live in a Catholic theocracy.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.
Click to expand...
“Right” ? I question, but moral obligation - they only have one - be true to themselves otherwise the sin against their god.
 
babylonsfalling said:
I didn’t say it’s a Catholic Theocracy, it’s a Christian nation.
Click to expand...
Again you are refusing to accept that i wasn’t taking about a “Christian nation” in a cultural sense, but rather i was talking about a Christian nation in a political context. The motivating root of todays politics is not Christian theology. The fact that Christians take part in the voting process is irrelevant.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Again you are refusing to accept that i wasn’t taking about a “Christian nation” in a cultural sense, but rather i was talking about a Christian nation in a political context. The motivating root of todays politics is not Christian theology. The fact that Christians take part in the voting process is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Christian culture controls (through votes) the politics…sorry it’s still a Christian nation.🙂
 
babylonsfalling said:
Christian culture controls (through votes) the politics…sorry it’s still a Christian nation.🙂
Click to expand...
Is that why abortion is legal?

If your so called nation was politically driven by Christian theology, abortion would not be possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top