Morality and atheism....

[S.A.M.]

Why would they be?
Political correctness is an unneccessary wishy-washy fad.
Morality has nothing to do with using the "correct" or "incorrect" (i.e. currently fashionable) terminology.

For theists maybe, atheists who proclaim morality follow the generally pc trend. e.g. Shaw was very much in favor of Stalin's efforts to eliminate undesirables.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think it's a reasonable deduction. Animals arising from a previous form do not require the intercession of a diety. Indeed, the more science is understood, the less there is for a diety to do.

I call such structures deformed, since they obviously evolved for a different function and were adapted for a new function, for which they serve imperfectly.

You haven't watched the Matrix have you?

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism isn't perfect, but at least by it's very nature, it's adaptable to new ideas. Religion has an awful track record of preventing atrocities and is often the cause of them.

You haven't watched the Matrix have you?

Unfortunately, I have. I don't get your point.

 

[2inquisitive]

I did; I said all moral atheists are politically correct.

No, that is an unsupported statement, not evidence. This is where we began, remember?

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheism isn't perfect, but at least by it's very nature, it's adaptable to new ideas. Religion has an awful track record of preventing atrocities and is often the cause of them.

That can only mean that atheism would be worse, since the planet is already over populated.

Unfortunately, I have. I don't get your point.

Why would you think that something is right or wrong, or perfect or imperfect?

Those are just abstract concepts, based on your perception of what you believe it ought to be.:shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

No, that is an unsupported statement, not evidence. This is where we began, remember?

You're a complete bore.

 

[2inquisitive]

You're a complete bore.

And I think you need to get your tongue re-sharpened. Toots.

 

[Oli]

For theists maybe, atheists who proclaim morality follow the generally pc trend.

All of them? Or are you generalising?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. .

My italics.

 

[S.A.M.]

All of them? Or are you generalising?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

My italics.

Are you saying philosophers are politically incorrect?

Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence.

 

[S.A.M.]

And I think you need to get your tongue re-sharpened. Toots.

:spank:

 

[Oli]

Are you saying philosophers are politically incorrect?

Moi?
Very probably if I gave it any thought. In fact more than probably.

The point I was (trying) making was, since morality is based on judgement then one can claim to be moral if one's judgement decides being PC isn't a worthwhile proposition. No?

And:

Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence.

"May" doesn't mean "does".

IMRHO morality does not mean, or include, PC.

 

[S.A.M.]

Moi?
Very probably if I gave it any thought. In fact more than probably.

The point I was (trying) making was, since morality is based on judgement then one can claim to be moral if one's judgement decides being PC isn't a worthwhile proposition. No?

And:

"May" doesn't mean "does".

IMRHO morality does not mean, or include, PC.

You mean your morality is better than someone else's (ie if you think something is right/wrong, it MUST be?). Ah.

 

[Oli]

Did I say that? Nope I just pointed out the definition of morality I found said that morality is based upon judgement.
Presumably one's own otherwise it wouldn't be judgement so much as acquiescence.
FWIW my morality is better than anyone else's for me, IMO.

 

[S.A.M.]

Did I say that? Nope I just pointed out the definition of morality I found said that morality is based upon judgement.
Presumably one's own otherwise it wouldn't be judgement so much as acquiescence.
FWIW my morality is better than anyone else's for me, IMO.

what is judgement, pray?

 

[Oli]

Using definitions from the web: (I hate it when you do this . Thanks. Clank, whirr. AGAIN!)

a position or opinion reached after consideration
the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions

Both of which express it well it enough for me.

 

[spidergoat]

Back pain, disease, all the medical problems we can get, I don't think these measures of imperfection are that abstract.

 

[Jeff 152]

Survival of the fittest.:shrug:

That doesn't mean you should kill everyone. In fact, logical thought says that if you kill someone, then others will follow, and people will try to kill you. Thus, assuming a person or creature is interested in its own self preservation, it will not kill.

Similarly, cooperation and sharing arise even when everyone is completely selfish. Its like egoism that holds that every action is selfishly motivated. Even donating to charity is done for a persons own benefit, the joy they feel at helping someone else.

for example, 2 guys are on a plot of land and neither cares at all about the other. Each is only interested in his own gain and has absolutely no sympathy compassion or respect for the other. Now you would say that they would both kill each other out of greed for the land. Actually though, they will share it, for each knows that if he doesnt share it will start a conflict which jeopardizes his safety.

All morals can be deduced through logic, egoism, and instinct. No sky fairy needed.

 

[phlogistician]

You're proving his point you know.

Far from it, read on;

God has no punishment to fear, so he does whatever he wants, and if he has an whim to kill, there's noting to stop him.

Except God is surely not an atheist, he must know he exists.

Allegedly the same as the atheist.

Except atheists are not the sole perpertrators of such crimes as murder.

So where can a causal link to morality be found? Was there total immorality before religion? Or, is religious morality merely common sense and co-operative ideology with a twist of divine retribution?

 

[Michael]

I think you forget that allegedly god killed millions with his flood, everyone bar Noah, his wife, sons and their wives.

But it's OK when God does it? Even though the people he created were using their God given free will, and he could have waited until they died a natural death and punished them with Hell, but he was impatient.

Sorry, what is your issue exactly? Nothing stopped God from being murderous.

Before God delivered the Ten Commandments, did everyone go around killing each other? If so, why wasn't everyone dead? Did Moses have to waste some MoFo on the way up Mount Sinai, who got in his way?

Great point.

 

[S.A.M.]

That doesn't mean you should kill everyone. In fact, logical thought says that if you kill someone, then others will follow, and people will try to kill you. Thus, assuming a person or creature is interested in its own self preservation, it will not kill.

Similarly, cooperation and sharing arise even when everyone is completely selfish. Its like egoism that holds that every action is selfishly motivated. Even donating to charity is done for a persons own benefit, the joy they feel at helping someone else.

for example, 2 guys are on a plot of land and neither cares at all about the other. Each is only interested in his own gain and has absolutely no sympathy compassion or respect for the other. Now you would say that they would both kill each other out of greed for the land. Actually though, they will share it, for each knows that if he doesnt share it will start a conflict which jeopardizes his safety.

All morals can be deduced through logic, egoism, and instinct. No sky fairy needed.

Like I said, if humans are a social animal, a cooperatove society is a given; so why any concept of right and wrong?