superior1:


The former

We attempt to reconcile our differences and reach a consensus, failing which we either withhold judgment or use each of our standards to judge.

superior1:


You see, I have always suspect the problem atheists have with God has to do with moral. Following your logic, those vices that has been empirically proven to be harmful to the society should be morally acceptable, now can you see the harm of atheism to human society?

Everyone with his own problem. Abuse is the only thing you should be worried about. And what is god's problem with atheists? Let god answer the last question himself. Abuse of the pleasures of life is the only thing everyone should worry about, the rest is intangible.

What harm as atheism done that your religion has not surpassed in ten folds? The motto of religions: sin, and come and beg for forgiveness. How would this help the society?

finofaya:


We attempt to reconcile our differences and reach a consensus, failing which we either withhold judgment or use each of our standards to judge.

Everyone decides what is right or wrong and each can refer to his own measurement standard, so it ok even if i decided to apply my religion as a moral compass?

theAtheist101:


Everyone with his own problem. Abuse is the only thing you be worried about. And what is god's problem with atheists? Let god the last question himself. Abuse of the pleasures of life is the only thing everyone should worry about, the rest is intangible.

What harm as atheism done that your religion has not surpassed in ten folds? The motto of religions: sin, and come and beg for forgiveness. How would this help the society?

So, atheism is just a lesser evil according to your personal measuring scale, right?

superior1:


Everyone decides what is right or wrong and each can refer to his own measurement standard, so it ok even if i decided to apply my religion as a moral compass?

Sometimes, yes. It is not likely that applying your religion will have a justifiable outcome in every situation though. We keep trying to find a meeting point because so far there is a limit to how correct any particular approach is. There are often situations where we are not sure how to act, using whatever ethical approach we have chosen. Recognising these shortcomings leads us to search for an ethical theory that works in hand with our moral compass in every situation to enable us arrive at the best decision.

superior1:


So, atheism is just a lesser evil according to your personal measuring scale, right?

Is anything holy?

The society clime on nexus of plumbing sophistry radiating from individuality and circumstantiality.
The modern society is the overgrafting of all sundries of thoughts for the enablement of communal habitation.Moralism is the guiding principle within the concept of principality and thoughts therewith for which no special perculiarity is denounciated.This duty is plain and collinear and unswerving,such as for the purpose of existence the dues of overriding the banes and banner of moralism should be the duty on one and another.

If this is for duty above the conjuring of utility and expense,then moralism should in no amount reckon to any of the vices of theism or atheism or any of such as thinking.For the society shall in the ransome of it loss judge the least of it kind.

superior1:


What do you mean by societal morality, how is measured and how can we judge it?

The things that are deemed beneficial to the society.
And since society is superdynamic, laws and traditions seem to follow the growth, maturity and complexity of society.

plaetton:


The things that are [b]deemed beneficial [/b]to the society.
And since society is superdynamic, laws and traditions seem to follow the growth, maturity and complexity of society.

who/what is the arbiter of these societal benefits?

superior1:


who/what is the arbiter of these societal benefits?

Often what promotes, wellbeing, social harmony, social equity and social justice,.. , depending on such factors as the history, culture, religion and political make up of the particular society.

plaetton:


Often what promotes, wellbeing, social harmony, social equity and social justice,.. , depending on such factors as the history, culture, religion and political make up of the particular society.

And this lovely definition is proposed by who and gained universal acceptance when?

superior1:


And this lovely definition is proposed by who and gained universal acceptance when?

Individuals within a society aggregate their collective dos and don'ts to a head, leader or select group to hold, guard and execute on their behalf and in Trust.
In return for protection and other benefits that come from membership of a collective, individual passions and prejudices may be sacrificed for the overall consensus of the collective.
This is how societal groups evolved.

For example, rather You and your neighbors hunting each other for food, You decide to Join with your neighbors to hunt the people on the side of the hill.
Here, You have now formed a social taboo against hunting your neighbors for food.

plaetton:


Individuals within a society aggregate their collective dos and don'ts to a head, leader or select group to hold, guard and execute on their behalf and in Trust.
In return for protection and other benefits that come from membership of a collective, individual passions and prejudices may be sacrificed for the overall consensus of the collective.
This is how societal groups evolved.

For example, rather You and your neighbors hunting each other for food, You decide to Join with your neighbors to hunt the people on the side of the hill.
Here, You have now formed a social taboo against hunting your neighbors for food.

If in your example, me and my neighbor will be responding to our basal darwinian instinct, contesting for the limited amount of food (which is always the case anyway) by trying to eliminate one another will be our natural inclination.

Your point if taken refers to the evolution of customary laws which contemporarily is enshrined in the constitution of the State, are you inferring (like others on this thread) that the state constitutions is the arbiter of morality and the compass for what is good or bad?

I would say the state is definitely the arbiter to decide on what a particular society accepts as moral or not but I don't think the state is necessarily the moral compass if you believe in a universal moral standard. Just look a the various states and their opposite stances on certain issues. They cant all be equally moral. The fact that the state is constantly shifting its stance on some topical issues shows that moral standards are constantly evolving and are determined by the people then adopted by the state.

How do people then come up with these moral standards? With every moral evolution I believe we are getting closer to respecting the golden rule: do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. All major religions express some version of this rule. All other laws are merely commentary.

Redlyn:
I would say the state is definitely the arbiter to decide on what a particular society accepts as moral or not but I don't think the state is necessarily the moral compass if you believe in a universal moral standard. Just look a the various states and their opposite stances on certain issues. They cant all be equally moral. The fact that the state is constantly shifting its stance on some topical issues shows that more standards are constantly evolving and are determined by the people then adopted by the state.

How do people then come up with these moral standards? With every moral evolution I believe we are getting closer to respecting the golden rule: do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. All major religions express some version of this rule. All other laws are merely commentary.

The issue is empirically speaking; there is nothing like universal moral standard. If we are to follow atheism, all moral issues are relative and there is no commonly adopted moral compass, therefore moral can only be an abstract philosophy as all I need do is follow the law of the land which unfortunately cant handle the complexity of the human society eg, there is no law against me telling lies, sleeping with every consenting women etc. The overall implication is, all these vices cannot be judged good nor bad or do you know any law against lying?

superior1:

The overall implication is, all these vices cannot be judged good nor bad or[b] do you know any law against lying[/b]?

Fraud is a crime, if I lie and claim to be who I am not and wrongfully get something from people I will be caught and punished accordingly.

dalaman:


Fraud is a crime, if I lie and claim to be who I am not and wrongfully get something from people I will be caught and punished accordingly.

Perhaps you should look for the dictionary meaning of the two words (lies and fraud)

superior1:


The issue is empirically speaking; there is nothing like universal moral standard. If we are to follow atheism, all moral issues are relative and there is no commonly adopted moral compass, therefore moral can only be an abstract philosophy as all I need do is follow the law of the land which unfortunately cant handle the complexity of the human society eg, there is no law against me telling lies, sleeping with every consenting women etc. The overall implication is, all these vices cannot be judged good nor bad or do you know any law against lying?

With religion morality has shown to be relative. With religion all you need is to follow the laws stipulated in your religious book which is different from the laws stated in another religious book. So what exactly are you trying to prove?

superior1:


Perhaps you should look for the dictionary meaning of the two words (lies and fraud)

Fraud involves lies. If I lie and claim to be what I am not and get caught I will be punished. Fraud involves various degrees of lies, but it is nothing but lies in its entirety.

dalaman:


Fraud involves lies. If I lie and claim to be what I am not and get caught I will be punished. Fraud involves various degrees of lies, but it is nothing but lies in its entirety.

Every lie is a fraud and punishable, if that is what your dictionary tells you, good enough.

superior1:


Every lie is a fraud and punishable, if that is what your dictionary tells you, good enough.

Not every lie, why are you jumping the gun, deceit is punishable under some laws, its very clear.

dalaman:


With religion morality has shown to be relative. With religion all you need is to follow the laws stipulated in your religious book which is different from the laws stated in another religious book. So what exactly are you trying to prove?

You can open another thread to discuss religious morality. If you have any objective arguments to show atheism isn't anti-society as far as moral good and bad is concern, I will love to hear it. Atheists pride themselves in intellectual objectivity, so your posts shouldn't be an exception.

superior1:


You can open another thread to discuss religious morality. If you have any objective arguments to show atheism isn't anti-society as far as moral good and bad is concern, I will love to hear it. Atheists pride themselves in intellectual objectivity, so your posts shouldn't be an exception.

I don't have to open another thread to discuss that. Religion has shown to be anti society itself. What ever good or evil you ascribe to atheism, religion also does the same. With religion all kinds of evil have been pushed and promoted, so what exactly are you trying to prove?

When you people whine to one who points out the nature of morality one wonders wtf?

Is it our fault? Is it also our fault that 1+1=2?

superior1:


The issue is empirically speaking; there is nothing like universal moral standard. If we are to follow atheism, all moral issues are relative and there is no commonly adopted moral compass, therefore moral can only be an abstract philosophy as all I need do is follow the law of the land which unfortunately cant handle the complexity of the human society eg, there is no law against me telling lies, sleeping with every consenting women etc. The overall implication is, all these vices cannot be judged good nor bad or do you know any law against lying?

The diversity you see in a secular society on moral issues is the same diversity you see within any religious group. There are no 2 religious people of the same denomination who will have the same point of view on all moral questions or interpret Absolutes in holy books in the same manner. So the dilemma of what is moral and what is not is not an atheist problem, its a human one. Your holy book of choice has addressed certain moral questions and made them law but the truth is that the moral dilemmas we face every day are far more complex and we evaluate them on other criteria than any hard and fast law.

Take this situation. You have a gun with 1 bullet. Your mother some distance away is being eaten alive slowly by a pack of lions. You cannot save her. So you take your gun and shoot her to end her suffering. Was that a moral act or not?

Some might say it was wrong because it was your hand that took away her life and there is an absolute law that says killing is wrong.
Others will disagree and look at the intention behind your action which was to remove her suffering.

Most of us share some basic human values (eg do not harm others) and on this basis we can adhere to some universal ethical codes that promotes the well being of society and individuals. It is this attempt at universal morality that forms the basis of secular documents like the universal declaration of human rights. This is by no means perfect, nor free from disagreement or controversy but its the best we have to objectively evaluate right from wrong.

Redlyn

The diversity you see in a secular society on moral issues is the same diversity you see within any religious group.

You and I know this cannot be substantiated and much as I dont want to discuss religious morality on this thread, I need to add that members of a religious group subscribe to tenets of that religion from which they draw their moral facts, that is what them a denomination to start with, their religious tenets becomes their common measuring standard, so any deviant is judged good or bad based on this.

There are no 2 religious people of the same denomination who will have the same point of view on all moral questions or interpret Absolutes in holy books in the same manner. So the dilemma of what is moral and what is not is not an atheist problem, its a human one. Your holy book of choice has addressed certain moral questions and made them law but the truth is that the moral dilemmas we face every day are far more complex.

Just like I commented earlier, your assertions are wrong, you do not have any empirical backing for that claim. E.g Sunni Muslims draw their moral good or bad from the quran and hadith, there is a common standard for measure, while there maybe areas of opinions, those opinions are still subjected to the directive of their religious tenets.

and we evaluate them on other criteria than any hard and fast law.

For the sake of this topic, note there is a shade of difference between moral facts and the law of a state.

Take this situation. You have a gun with 1 bullet. Your mother some distance away is being eaten alive slowly by a pack of lions. You cannot save her. So you take your gun and shoot her to end her suffering. Was that a moral act or not?

That will be a delimma when you do not subscribe to a faith, mainstream religions have teachings that can be inferred on in that peculiar case and by the way, if you have a gun, why not shoot to atleast to scare the lions instead of killing your mother, how come your mother ended up among lions, how come you exhausted your bullets without adequate contingency plans

Most of us share some basic human values (eg do not harm others) and on this basis we can adhere to some universal ethical codes that promotes the well being of society and individuals. It is this attempt at universal morality that forms the basis of secular documents like the universal declaration of human rights. This is by no means perfect, nor free from disagreement or controversy but its the best we have to objectively evaluate right from wrong.

If I ask you to define what you meant by basic human values, you will give a subjective definition (unless of cause, you refer to the state constitution we have both agreed is inadequate), some culture treat their neighbors, others eat their neighbors and to say one is better compare to the other is a baseline for ethnocentrism.

Redlyn

BTW by saying things like human values, you are trying to tell me human lives have intrinsic value and worth, may I ask, how come, If we are all a product of randomness and evolution?

By saying human lives have intrinsic value, you must by logic agree human lives have a purpose, what is that purpose?

superior1:


BTW by saying things like human values, you are trying to tell me human lives have intrinsic value and worth, may I ask, how come, If we are all a product of randomness and evolution?

By saying human lives have intrinsic value, you must by logic agree human lives have a purpose, what is that purpose?

Purpose is what you make of it. As a Buddisht the purpose of life is to achieve Nirvana. For a muslim the purpose of of life is to submit to the will of Allah as a loyal slave. To the Hindu the purpose of live is achieve dharma, moksha and artha. To the christian it is to achieve salvation to some it's hedonism and on and on. Life's purpose is what ever you make of it. It has no universal purpose. We as humans add what ever value or purpose we as humans chose to ascribe to our lives. You just seem to be chasing shadows on this thread.

superior1:

That will be a delimma when you do not subscribe to a faith, mainstream religions have teachings that can be inferred on in that peculiar case and by the way, if you have a gun, why not shoot to atleast to scare the lions instead of killing your mother, how come your mother ended up among lions, how come you exhausted your bullets without adequate contingency plans

For the purpose of this discussion lets not over analyse this, its a case study. You could not save her. So you shot her. I am interested to see if from your point of view the "intent" for the action has any bearing on the morality of it.
Euthanasia by the way is a hotly contested topic within various religious groups. If it was clear in the religious text there would no debate and diversity of opinion.

If I ask you to define what you meant by basic human values, you will give a subjective definition (unless of cause, you refer to the state constitution we have both agreed is inadequate), some culture treat their neighbors, others eat their neighbors and to say one is better compare to the other is a baseline for ethnocentrism.

I will not give you a definition as I will have to look it up. But I have given you an example: Do no harm. I doubt there is a society today that does not share this value in principle. The practical implementation of this is another thing (ie what constitutes harm). It is a shared value because as humans we have a shared vulnerability to suffering.

Rape and slavery. As a theist do you find these 2 acts wrong? If so on what basis.

For the purpose of this discussion lets not over analyse this, its a case study. You could not save her. So you shot her. I am interested to see if from your point of view the "intent" for the action has any bearing on the morality of it.
Euthanasia by the way is a hotly contested topic within various religious groups. If it was clear in the religious text there would no debate and diversity of opinion.

Euthanasia is a political issue which has over the time involved various religious groups, it is not an intra but inter religious disagreement based on each groups sacred text. The point of my over analysis is to return the favor since you mentioned 'your mother', i dont like to think of mine in the mouth of lions, ok?

I will not give you a definition as I will have to look it up. But I have given you an example: Do no harm. I doubt there is a society today that does not share this value in principle. The practical implementation of this is another thing (ie what constitutes harm). It is a shared value because as humans we have a shared vulnerability to suffering.

Look it up and also answer why you think humans should be given value when it was a creation of nothing and serves no purpose. Those who eat their neighbor meant no harm, they only wanted to ameliorate their hunger, what is wrong with that?

Rape and slavery. As a theist do you find these 2 acts wrong? If so on what basis.

Assuming I were a Theist, my answer will be 'on the basis of my religious affiliation which denounces both' it is not necessarily because they are both now a crime against the state

You have not been able to show that atheism has a common definition or measuring standard for what is morally good and bad, hence you cant as a atheist tell me lying is wrong.

superior1:

Euthanasia is a political issue which has over the time involved various religious groups, it is not an intra but inter religious disagreement based on each groups sacred text. The point of my over analysis is to return the favor since you mentioned 'your mother', i dont like to think of mine in the mouth of lions, ok?

It is not only inter but also intra. You seem to want to claim that religious groups agree on ALL moral questions. Which is simply not true. Morality is far more complex than that. You still haven't answered: I shot my mother to save her from slow and painful death. Moral or not?

Look it up and also answer why you think humans should be given value when it was a creation of nothing and serves no purpose. Those who eat their neighbor meant no harm, they only wanted to ameliorate their hunger, what is wrong with that?

I have already explained WHY most humans share the value to do no harm. Take it or leave it.

Assuming I were a Theist, my answer will be 'on the basis of my religious affiliation which denounces both' it is not necessarily because they are both now a crime against the state

I don't agree that it is denounced. Feel free to be more explicit.
In fact religious text was actually used to DEFEND the practice. So why are they now considered bad?

You have not been able to show that atheism has a common definition or measuring standard for what is morally good and bad, hence you cant as a atheist tell me lying is wrong.

Only one thing unites atheists, and that is their lack of belief in God. So there will never be a common anything amongst atheist specifically. However if you talk about humanity then we can look to the golden rule as a guide. Its that simple. And I have mentioned why this is valued. We identify the harmful behaviors and as a society start to consider them immoral. Its an evolving process. Indoctrinated absolutes (like do not wear mixed fabrics) are not needed.

[quote author=Redlyn post=36164846]

It is not only inter but also intra. You seem to want to claim that religious groups agree on ALL moral questions. Which is simply not true. Morality is far more complex than that. You still haven't answered: I shot my mother to save her from slow and painful death. Moral or not?

I have already explained WHY most humans share the value to do no harm. Take it or leave it.

I don't agree that it is denounced. Feel free to be more explicit.
In fact religious text was actually used to DEFEND the practice. So why are they now considered bad?

Like the law, it doesnt matter your personal opinion and preference, it doesnt change and so is religious morality to adherents of a particular religion, it doesnt change with your agreement. To answer your question, you being atheist with no moral reference, I dont know what you will or should do in this particular situation to your mother.

Only one thing unites atheists, and that is their lack of belief in God. So there will never be a common anything amongst atheist specifically. However if you talk about humanity then we can look to the golden rule as a guide. Its that simple. And I have mentioned why this is valued. We identify the harmful behaviors and as a society start to consider them immoral. Its an evolving process. Indoctrinated absolutes (like do not wear mixed fabrics) are not needed.

How can you consider something immoral, when you do not have a standard of measuring what is moral?