Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just posing it as an alternative to the war strewn nature of religion with its thousands of separate moral codes. Which one is the true one? I'm sure you will answer in such and such a way, and Hindu's another, and Rastafarians will just grab a big joint, but you are all as full of shyte as a christmas turkey.

There was nothing in anything I said that implied "which was the true one" I
was only pointing out that God ends the debate on truth and morals. We can
start talking about the million different religions there are, but that is another
question all together from the one being asked in this thread.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The same thing I've been saying since the opening thread. The atheist who claims that existence is a result of itself--- materialism--- has no way of categorizing or in any other meaningful and consistent way describing what a moral value is.

Is that what you have been saying? I'm afraid I honestly do not even really know what you mean. I hav ...[text shortened]... tailed views on morality and such. Are these people just hopelessly confused or something?[/b]

The crux of the "Freaky Dissertation on the Invalidity of Materialism in Relation to Morality" can, I think, be summarized as follows:

Evil atheists cannot assign physical attributes such as mass or energy to moral values like "Thou shalt not bugger thy neighbor's wife," and therefore there must be a God. QED.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe you may be thinking that I hold the view that Atheist and Theist are
quiet different types of people, I do not. People are people the Atheist only
has them to look at nothing more, Theist can twist the words of God,
gods, or god to suit them. Bottom line with God there is a static moral
judge that is not going to be swayed by popular opinions ...[text shortened]...
have them, some people's opinions you get to hear even if you didn't ask for
them.
Kelly

Belief in a god who is a static moral judge unswayed by popular human opinions is the reason why people enshrine their moral code in religion. It gives those moral codes added weight and keeps them from being easily changed.

Originally posted by JS357
Belief in a god who is a static moral judge unswayed by popular human opinions is the reason why people enshrine their moral code in religion. It gives those moral codes added weight and keeps them from being easily changed.

Very true, I like Abraham Lincoln's way of putting it, at least how I think it
should be put.
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
I like arguments a lot and I tend to take them seriously; but I'm afraid I do not understand what your actual argument is. In fact, I'm not even convinced thus far that you actually have one.

Hey, LJ. Nice to see you're still around. Of course, I hope you're happy and doing well. Since we both like arguments and take them seriously, how about we try our best to reconstruct, in pretty rigorous form, an argument that gets at Freaky's concerns? Could be fun!

Originally posted by bbarr
Hey, LJ. Nice to see you're still around. Of course, I hope you're happy and doing well. Since we both like arguments and take them seriously, how about we try our best to reconstruct, in pretty rigorous form, an argument that gets at Freaky's concerns? Could be fun!

It would be like trying to corner a fart cloud, but I look forward to seeing you two make the endeavor. 😉

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]...what is a moral value...

Following the right and proper course of action or inaction. This is determined as that which causes the least psychological stress, both long and short term, in the mind of the subject. If one causes suffering to another, then ultimately the awareness of that suffering may disturb one's peace of mind, even when ...[text shortened]... it is not ignored, however, it leads to happier, more content and less disturbed individuals.[/b]

Can you list out 10 ethics / moral values that (are not originally from the Bible or any other religion) have emerged from Atheist thinkers?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Very true, I like Abraham Lincoln's way of putting it, at least how I think it
should be put.
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
Kelly

Let us hope yours is peaceable toward the unbelievers.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Can you list out 10 ethics / moral values that (are not originally from the Bible or any other religion) have emerged from Atheist thinkers?

Morality is enshrined in religion and its scriptures, for good reason.

Originally posted by bbarr
Hey, LJ. Nice to see you're still around. Of course, I hope you're happy and doing well. Since we both like arguments and take them seriously, how about we try our best to reconstruct, in pretty rigorous form, an argument that gets at Freaky's concerns? Could be fun!

bbarr, great to see you again. Likewise, I hope you are well. I am sure that watching Freaky wax philosophical brings back cherished memories for you.

As for your proposal, I'm game!

Originally posted by Soothfast
I bring up the Klingons because they're a widely recognized alien culture -- fictional, yes, but we know of no real ones yet. And my point is that an alien culture (such as the Klingons) may not cleave to the "love thy enemy" moral imperative that you find in your bible (and which, I might add, you hardly practice yourself as evidenced by your behavior on ...[text shortened]... mfy little preconceptions scrambling for cover like chickens with their heads cut off.

I bring up the Klingons because they're a widely recognized alien culture...
No, you bring up Klingons because you recognize that only in fantasy does your thinking find justification. The funny thing, the ironic thing, is that you didn't need to go to deep space in order to find war-mongering societies.

And my point is that an alien culture (such as the Klingons) may not cleave to the "love thy enemy" moral imperative that you find in your bible (and which, I might add, you hardly practice yourself as evidenced by your behavior on this forum!)
And your point is moot, either way. There have been plenty of malevolent societies on this planet who regard violence toward the 'other' as an acceptable policy--- but, again, unimportant to the conversation. Loving one's enemies is not a moral imperative, nor is the concept found only in the Bible. It is a way of thinking, an altruistic way of thinking, that runs counter to a legalistic approach to life. It is a higher plane of behavior than morality demands.

And, as you are wont to do, you have misapplied it toward me. I do not consider you (or anyone else herein) my enemy, therefore my sharply worded rejoinders and jabs do not get thrown as a culmination of my hatred toward you, since no hatred exists. We are merely two dumb-clucks hammering away at the same mystery from opposite ends of the spectrum. If you find such honesty on my part too brutish for your delicate sensibilities, tough feces. You'll get over it, I'm sure.

As for "cowardice," well, the problem here is that different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes cowardice.
This is your argument? Forget the word "cowardice" and insert the word "red." It really, really doesn't matter how distinctively different one group of people colors the term, the term carries its own transcendent meaning. For the Quakers, to not have the courage to stand for one's convictions is cowardice! Do they praise the person who compromises what they as a group hold dear? Or course not!

And again, even if we found some kind of moral value that seems consistent among all human societies, what would we do if we encountered an extraterrestrial civilization tomorrow that does not share those same values?
So now we get to the crux of your silliness. Can a society survive without a commitment to a core of moral imperatives? Absolutely, positively, without question: not.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The crux of the "Freaky Dissertation on the Invalidity of Materialism in Relation to Morality" can, I think, be summarized as follows:

Evil atheists cannot assign physical attributes such as mass or energy to moral values like "Thou shalt not bugger thy neighbor's wife," and therefore there must be a God. QED.

Um, wrong.

Let's not read into the argument what has not been written. No one has said a word about the Bible (save you, and me in response), no one has said a word about God (save you, and me in response) and no one has articulated specific biblical morals (save you).

Return to the OP. It asks the person who insists that nature is all there is (and is the cause of what is now) what a moral value is (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength).

Originally posted by LemonJello
The same thing I've been saying since the opening thread. The atheist who claims that existence is a result of itself--- materialism--- has no way of categorizing or in any other meaningful and consistent way describing what a moral value is.

Is that what you have been saying? I'm afraid I honestly do not even really know what you mean. I have a ...[text shortened]... tailed views on morality and such. Are these people just hopelessly confused or something?[/b]

Is that what you have been saying?
Since the OP, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid I honestly do not even really know what you mean. I have asked for clarification more than once in this thread, and you just do not seem to accommodate.
You continue to answer what you don't understand? Rich. You know exactly what I mean, and in between your occasional responses, you've continued to side-step the main point.

I think it's just painfully bizarre how you appear to think that the atheist needs to furnish some detailed view on cosmological origins in order to describe what he thinks a moral value is.
I'm not asking for a working model, or for detail-specific formulas that would describe the process by which everything came to be. I am insisting that you have some idea, some vague-general-fuzzy opinion on how this all came to be. Hell, even to shrug the whole thing off and say 'it has just always been' is at least conceding you have an opinion on the nature of existence. Based upon that--- whether or not you think such a view of origins/eternal existence can be supported--- how do you explain moral values, and further, how are they to be categorized?

Are these people just hopelessly confused or something?
No. As I have stated repeatedly, they are simply jumping into an already-developed play and are intoning their opinions on the ball where it lies... they refuse to do the heavy lifting of considering how the play got to the stage in the first place. Such disassociation with the former/previous things allows them (what I believe to be) unwarranted access to the conversation.

I like arguments a lot and I tend to take them seriously...
I know that, and acknowledge yours and bbarr's superiority in the exercise. I realize I don't even qualify as a rank amateur in the discipline (more argumentative than anything else), so I appreciate your indulgence.

Originally posted by JS357
Let us hope yours is peaceable toward the unbelievers.

Why wouldn't it be?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Hey, LJ. Nice to see you're still around. Of course, I hope you're happy and doing well. Since we both like arguments and take them seriously, how about we try our best to reconstruct, in pretty rigorous form, an argument that gets at Freaky's concerns? Could be fun!

Nice seeing you bbarr!
Kelly