What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[Sair]

But they don’t constitute morality!

They don’t need to completely constitute morality in order to be related to it. Morality is, at least in large part, our subjective response to particular situations in which pain and suffering might be at stake. Unless, of course, you invent another layer of abstraction and choose to think that moral decisions have effects beyond the physical world.

A physical defence mechanism is amoral.

Sure it is. Morality, as such, is entirely subjective. What we believe to be right and wrong is a product of our inbuilt instincts and desires, and the shaping of those instincts and desires by culture and environment. I suspect you will claim that there is no basis for morality if all that exists is nature, or physical entities, but as this article makes clear, there’s no reason to think that morality is something fundamentally separate from our existence and experience as physical beings in a physical world.

The **effects **of mental anguish can be viewed.

Actually, naturalism holds that mental states simply are physical states of the brain and body, that there isn’t any fundamental separation between the conditions in the brain itself and the experience of mental anguish on the part of the organism, as the above-cited article explains.

The brain is still not rational!

On what basis do you claim this? It is the functioning of the brain, in drawing connections between causes and effects, between states of the physical world, that manifests as what we call rationality. There is no separate, immaterial substance in the world called rationality, that operates independently of physical mechanisms. If there is, I would challenge you to demonstrate its existence as such.

 

[guestseeking]

The scariest thing about this statement is that it appears you actually believe it - that religious faith is the only thing that makes people treat each other decently; that we have no other sense of restraint, that all our inclinations are naturally violent.

Maybe you should take a long, hard look at yourself and question what you would do in the event that your faith failed you…

Faith cant fail us, our Faith isnt just in Jesus it IS Jesus. we could fail him but he is forgiving and Merciful. we do take hard long looks at ourselves that’s why we have repented our sins, and appreciate the things we can say we overcome in this world because of Jesus. Jesus Christ Lives. He is the LIFE the life in the saved. come repent with us and take a risk on Jesus he’s the only one you can gamble on, think you lost everything, but then gives you all you need and more, and then for eternity keeps your heart from bieng hopeless and in despair. you cant overcome despair and hopelessness if you dont repent and be baptised cause you wont know who to turn to that says why so down cast oh my soul put your hope in God. give him a chance you wont regret it if you do. as far as where to go to find a church dont ask me that i’m still figuring this out.

 

[tonyrey]

**No one **

It is tragic that in our society there are people who cannot even want to know the difference because they cannot even distinguish what is right or wrong - like the young girls who have an abortion because it is the most** convenient** option. This is the result of growing up in an amoral environment…

 

[tonyrey]

Well-being and suffering are related to morality. But they don’t constitute morality!

What is the other part?

Unless, of course, you invent another layer of abstraction and choose to think that moral decisions have effects beyond the physical world.

They certainly have effects beyond the world of biological robots…

A physical defence mechanism is amoral.

Sure it is. Morality, as such, is entirely subjective.

Therefore it must vary from one person to another…

What we believe to be right and wrong is a product of our inbuilt instincts and desires, and the shaping of those instincts and desires by culture and environment.

In other words you know that morality is merely a physical mechanism that can be safely ignored by those who are clever enough to realise it is merely a physical mechanism!

I suspect you will claim that there is no basis for morality if all that exists is nature, or physical entities, but as this article makes clear, there’s no reason to think that morality is something fundamentally separate from our existence and experience as physical beings in a physical world.

There is certainly no reason to think morality is merely a product of physical instincts and physical desires which have an entirely bestial origin and significance…

The effects of mental anguish can be viewed.

Actually, naturalism holds that mental states simply are physical states of the brain and body, that there isn’t any fundamental separation between the conditions in the brain itself and the experience of mental anguish on the part of the organism, as the above-cited article explains.

So all human activity is due to the effects of the environment over which we have no control whatsoever?

The brain is still not rational!

On what basis do you claim this? It is the functioning of the brain, in drawing connections between causes and effects, between states of the physical world, that manifests as what we call rationality. There is no separate, immaterial substance in the world called rationality, that operates independently of physical mechanisms.

Rationality is not a substance but an intangible power which enables us to be aware of ourselves, have insight into the nature of reality, formulate abstract ideas and principles, understand universal concepts, establish logical priorities, control ourselves and transcend our environment in ways which are entirely beyond the scope of a lump of tissue inside the skull which blindly functions according to the mechanistic rules of a counting machine, is more fallible and less efficient than a computer and isn’t aware of anything, not even what it is doing!

If there is, I would challenge you to demonstrate its existence as such.

I challenge you to demonstrate that **everything **whatsoever - including persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love are produced by atomic energy…

 

[grannymh]

They don’t need to completely constitute morality in order to be related to it. Morality is, at least in large part, our subjective response to particular situations in which pain and suffering might be at stake.

First, I have yet to see a reasonable objective [universal] definition of morality.
The statement “Morality, as such, is entirely subjective.” is empty because if the wind blows, morality could disappear. Yet, you still exist.

“situations in which pain and suffering might be at state” I am very glad that the paramedics who picked me up off the street last spring had some objective [real] guidelines in regard to my situation.

Morality, as such, is entirely subjective. What we believe to be right and wrong is a product of our inbuilt instincts and desires, and the shaping of those instincts and desires by culture and environment.

My wild guess is that what our inbuilt instincts and desires are telling us is that we, as the human being we are, are worthy of profound respect.

I suspect you will claim that there is no basis for morality if all that exists is nature, or physical entities, but as this article makes clear, there’s no reason to think that morality is something fundamentally separate from our existence and experience as physical beings in a physical world.

Personally, I believe that I am an unique entity in nature because my personal nature unites both the material and non-material. However, I realize that a lot of people either don’t subjectively sense their non-material or they dismiss it. My personal observation is that even if a person subjectively (inbuilt instincts and desires) thinks he or she is only a natural physical entity, objectively he or she is still a human being.

I opened the link and saved it because eventually I will deal objectively with human nature itself. However, in order to deal with human nature itself, one has to have a grip on objective observation so that one can subjectively process the information.

Actually, naturalism holds that mental states simply are physical states of the brain and body, that there isn’t any fundamental separation between the conditions in the brain itself and the experience of mental anguish on the part of the organism, as the above-cited article explains.

Without reading the context in the cited article, I hesitate to comment. However, Catholicism does not teach a “fundamental separation” between the material and spiritual in human nature. Spirit and matter, in a human being, are not two fundamentally separated natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[grannymh]

Faith cant fail us, our Faith isnt just in Jesus it IS Jesus. we could fail him but he is forgiving and Merciful. we do take hard long looks at ourselves that’s why we have repented our sins, and appreciate the things we can say we overcome in this world because of Jesus. Jesus Christ Lives. He is the LIFE the life in the saved. come repent with us and take a risk on Jesus he’s the only one you can gamble on, think you lost everything, but then gives you all you need and more, and then for eternity keeps your heart from bieng hopeless and in despair. you cant overcome despair and hopelessness if you dont repent and be baptised cause you wont know who to turn to that says why so down cast oh my soul put your hope in God. give him a chance you wont regret it if you do. as far as where to go to find a church dont ask me that i’m still figuring this out.

May I sincerely invite you to Catholicism.

 

[DefendingFaith]

To the Atheist I ask What is morality? Atheist cry for equal rights yet morality is subjective in their worldview so why worry do as thou will as the old saying goes.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To the Atheist I ask What is morality?

In this context I think a fitting definition is behaviour motivated by concern for the well being or happiness for others within a society within the constrains of ones understanding for the impact that their actions have on others. The interpretation of “society” is a bit loose here in that it could be other members within a small group and extend out as far to other fellow human beings. For some it may only extend to people that meet some criteria such as other people that are members of some club. This definition is independent of whether some one’s behaviour is agreeable or not.

Also note that under this definition since knowledge plays a role it is possible for identical behaviours to be evaluated differently if those performing the actions have different levels of knowledge on the outcome of their actions. Such as a person giving some one medication to make them well or a person giving some one medication with knowledge that the receiver is allergic to it and will have a discomforting response. While discomfort could result because of the actions of either person only one of those two seems to be acting against the happiness or well being of the sick person.

Atheist cry for equal rights yet morality is subjective in their worldview so why worry do as thou will as the old saying goes.

You may be encountering differences of semantics here. Granting the existence of a god or gods they may still be regarded as subjective beings. I think what needs to be done here is either agreement on the meanings of terms or at least some way to translate between terms from one person to the terms of another. Otherwise those involved in the conversation are having two different conversations.

 

[grannymh]

A simple way to define morality is to evaluate actions in regard to this universal truth.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A simple way to define morality is to evaluate actions in regard to this universal truth.
The human person is worthy of profound respect.

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

 

[tonyrey]

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Because you are a human being!

More seriously, human beings are worthy of profound respect because they are immensely valuable. An atheist, Thomas Nagel, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities…

 

[grannymh]

Question from post 227.

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Answer from post 228

Because you are a human being!

More seriously, human beings are worthy of profound respect because they are immensely valuable. An atheist, Thomas Nagel, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities…

Great answer.:yeah_me:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

**Why is a human being worthy of profound respect? **

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!”

 

[grannymh]

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Because she and he are made in the image of God.

 

[tonyrey]

Question from post 227.

Why is a human being worthy of profound respect?

Answer from post 228

…Let’s celebrate :yeah_me: And thank God of course.

 

[grannymh]

Because she and he are made in the image of God.

The fact that all humans are made in the image of God is why moral rights (whatever they are) belong to both theists and atheists.

Tonyrey posted that human beings are worthy of profound respect because they are immensely valuable. Christ gave up His life on the cross for all people because all people are immensely valuable in God’s eyes .What atheists believe or do not believe does not change the fact that Christ died for them. This is why all people, atheists included, are worthy of profound respect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because you are a human being!

Why is the fact of my being a human being a reason for thinking that my life is worthy of profound respect?

More seriously, human beings are worthy of profound respect because they are immensely valuable.

Why are they immensely valuable?

An atheist, Thomas Nagel, pointed out that life is a source of opportunities…

Life is a source of possibilities. Thomas Nagel is irrational, since his statement implies that there is something objectively positive about reality, that life is an objective opportunity that we ought to embrace. This cannot be objectively true if his atheism reflects the truth. Thats just humanistic mysticism; another form of denial in a nihilistic reality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Christ gave up His life on the cross for all people because all people are immensely valuable in God’s eyes.

Why is this any different to the “subjective value” that a mother bestows on her child? That a mother cares for her child does not necessitate that we truly have objective moral value. You have not explained why it is true that we have objective moral value. Effectively, all you have said is that God has a subjective value for us, which does not necessarily reflect our true value.

Come on guys, this is the philosophy forum, not the assertion forum. You are going to have to think harder than that.

 

[grannymh]

Why is the fact of my being a human being a reason for thinking that my life is worthy of profound respect?

You are free to do any old thing with your life for better or worse. It is the human being, herself or himself, who is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Why is this any different to the “subjective value” that a mother bestows on her child? That a mother cares for her child does not necessitate that we truly have objective moral value. You have not explained why it is true that we have objective moral value. Effectively, all you have said is that God has a subjective value for us, which does not necessarily reflect our true value.

Come on guys, this is the philosophy forum, not the assertion forum. You are going to have to think harder than that.

Then people will need to understand how subjective and objective work.