What moral right does an atheist have?

[Mind Over Matter]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value. If this is true, then it is wrong for example to rape a child. It is wrong because this would be destructive to the physical and psychological value of the living child. In this respect a child has a moral right not to be raped, because the value of a living person is intrinsic and objective rather than subjective and dynamic according to the ideology or opinion of somebodies whim, taste, or fancy.

If rights are merely subjective and conjured up according to taste and aversion to pain, then moral rights are coercive delusions. In this case, it is not wrong to rape women children or men. Every time that you think that it is objectively true that you have the moral high ground you are in fact walking unconsciously in to a fallacy caused by chemical illusions in your brain. The preservation of life is meaningless. That you perceive yourself or anybody as having value is a fantasy. Empathy is the irrational expression of mans desire to be more than a meaningless physical object. Moral truth becomes irrational and thus no virtue truly exists.

 

[wynn]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value. If this is true, then it is wrong for example to rape a child. It is wrong because this would be destructive to the physical and psychological value of the living child. In this respect a child has a moral right not to be raped, because the value of a living person is intrinsic and objective rather than subjective and dynamic according to the ideology or opinion of somebodies whim, taste, or fancy.

If rights are merely subjective and conjured up according to taste and aversion to pain, then moral rights are coercive delusions. In this case, it is not wrong to rape women children or men. Every time that you think that it is objectively true that you have the moral high ground you are in fact walking unconsciously in to a fallacy caused by chemical illusions in your brain. The preservation of life is meaningless. That you perceive yourself or anybody as having value is a fantasy. Empathy is the irrational expression of mans desire to be more than a meaningless physical object. Moral truth becomes irrational and thus no virtue truly exists.

Such criticism of atheistic moral relativism eventually implies that the critic deems his own powers of discernment to be superior, if not even omniscient - and most of all, independent from God.

Namely, that you, MindOverMatter, have, all on your own accord, discerned which religion is the right one and then, again, all on your own accord, without God's intervention, subscribed to it.


While several of the conclusions you make are indeed corollaries of some streams of atheistic thought, it does not follow from them that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the one and only right one.

Seeing the abysses of particular lines of reasoning does not guarantee that one will know for sure what can provide liberation from them.

 

[gmilam]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value. If this is true, then it is wrong for example to rape a child. It is wrong because this would be destructive to the physical and psychological value of the living child. In this respect a child has a moral right not to be raped, because the value of a living person is intrinsic and objective rather than subjective and dynamic according to the ideology or opinion of somebodies whim, taste, or fancy.

If rights are merely subjective and conjured up according to taste and aversion to pain, then moral rights are coercive delusions. In this case, it is not wrong to rape women children or men. Every time that you think that it is objectively true that you have the moral high ground you are in fact walking unconsciously in to a fallacy caused by chemical illusions in your brain. The preservation of life is meaningless. That you perceive yourself or anybody as having value is a fantasy. Empathy is the irrational expression of mans desire to be more than a meaningless physical object. Moral truth becomes irrational and thus no virtue truly exists.

So I can only assume that if you were to discover proof that your god does not exist, you would suddenly become a child raper. I guess it's a good thing that you believe in hell.

 

[Trooper]

John Locke felt the same way. He promoted religious toleration, but with atheism being the one notable exception.

“I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.” –John Locke

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God.” - John Locke

Morals are simply cooperation, promises that we as individuals adhere to in relation to his or her community. Generally, people are capable of judging the past, present, and possible future situations, in order to make a commitment and act accordingly. Reason and logical is fully capable of promoting and preserving social cooperation. You might find Michael Sandel’s lectures on justice interesting.

http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/

 

[wynn]

So I can only assume that if you were to discover proof that your god does not exist, you would suddenly become a child rapist.

Indeed, one has to wonder about the natural default state of people who post arguments like the OP.

 

[scheherazade]

What precisely is 'morality' anyway beyond a subjective evaluation which has some variation between cultures?

Altruism would seem to be more the word for much of which we define as 'morality' and I would suggest that altruism has a genetic component that is either nurtured or suppressed depending on it's value at that time.

It is the genetic capacity, not theism or atheism which determines our 'morality', IMO.

I was raised into religion and have witnessed and experienced more hypocrisy and immoral behavior by theists than ever I have known among those of no fixed faith. :bugeye:

Originally posted by wynn
“
Originally Posted by scheherazade
What precisely is 'morality' anyway beyond a subjective evaluation which has some variation between cultures?

/.../

It is the genetic capacity
”
If morality is genetic, then morality is not subjective, and you contradict yourself.

Perhaps if you would cite my whole quote and not just take parts out of context and sequence, it would make more sense?

I suggest that 'altruism' is genetic and that we use another term, 'morality' to describe it's effects within a society.

Whether this trait is nurtured or repressed makes a difference in it's expression and therefore I see 'morality' as a subjective value.

I also consider 'altruism' to be a misleading term, for all actions serve a purpose and none are 'selfless' when the greater picture is examined although they may appear so at first glance.

The 'selfless act of another' that costs them their own life, yet ensures the survival of others, grants sufficient psychological reward to others that the behavior continues to be laudable. Not logical for the individual, hence regarded as altruism, yet perfectly logical for the species (human sacrifice by any other name.)

My 'word salad' offering of this morning, lol....

There is much in the interpretation of life that seems contradictory. I just accept that this may be due to my narrow and myopic view of such a vast horizon.

 

[wynn]

What precisely is 'morality' anyway beyond a subjective evaluation which has some variation between cultures?

/.../

It is the genetic capacity

If morality is genetic, then morality is not subjective, and you contradict yourself.

 

[gmilam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E

 

[cosmictraveler]

There are laws that morality is based upon or visa versa. With laws we understand there are things that will happen to us if we break them and then suffer the consequences. Those laws are written for everyone to understand and follow or they become, at times, jailed for their misgivings which makes them have a criminal record which again follows them until they are no longer here. With laws that everyone can understand and that does not have religious overtones we can imply that then most everyone will abide by them unlike religious morals which can be broken and punishment comes in the way of a bad afterlife.

 

[scheherazade]

If morality is genetic, then morality is not subjective, and you contradict yourself.

The computer is playing tricks on me, LOL....

I have somehow included my answer to you in my original post.

Sorry for the confusion, yet in another way, it makes an interesting diversion.

 

[Nasor]

So I can only assume that if you were to discover proof that your god does not exist, you would suddenly become a child raper. I guess it's a good thing that you believe in hell.

You see this sort of "argument" about atheists not having an objective basis for their morality all the time from theists. The theists always seem to think it makes them look clever, but usually it just makes them look like psychopaths.

 

[scheherazade]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E

A very interesting little clip, gmilam, yet I would suggest that we are ascribing 'compassion' to a behavior which is actually 'group mentality' and early conditioning to these monkeys.

Herd mammals have considerably more communication techniques than most of us may be aware of. If the Macaques were able to correlate the shock with the audible response from other group members, then I expect the message that 'this is undesirable' was relayed in response.

Not pushing the button is then viewed in a different light by me.

In my observation of horses, dogs, cats and birds, I observe that there are ever individuals who are willing to defy the conventional 'norms' of their immediate group.

 

[Nasor]

It seems to me that atheists have no true moral rights if we assume the legitimacy of their world view.

When I say "moral right," I mean that a living person has an intrinsic objective moral value.

I think that it is the theist moral system, rather than the atheist, that devalues the inherent worth of a person.

An atheist would likely tell you that he thinks people should be considered to have an inherent worth, even if he can't objectively prove it. A theist, on the other hand, is likely to tell you that people have a worth not because that worth is inherent, but rather because their god told them that people have a worth. In other words, for the theist the "worth" of the person is predicated on the arbitrary pronouncements of their god, rather than any inherent property of the person.

Of course, a theist might say something fallacious like "I think people have an inherent worth because god says so," but this misses the point that if people only have that worth because god says so, it's not really inherent, but rather ordained to them from god. Note how the theist morality implicitly assumes that their god could theoretically say something like "That particular person has no worth, and everyone else should treat him however you wish," and the unfortunate person would be instantly deprived of all moral entitlement to fair treatment.

 

[spidergoat]

The theist cannot prove that their morality came from anyone other than people who wrote a book that happened to become popular.

 

[Nasor]

So does Mind Over Matter ever actually discuss things in his own threads, or does he just post sophomoric theist troll questions and then leave?

 

[gmilam]

A very interesting little clip, gmilam, yet I would suggest that we are ascribing 'compassion' to a behavior which is actually 'group mentality' and early conditioning to these monkeys.

Herd mammals have considerably more communication techniques than most of us may be aware of. If the Macaques were able to correlate the shock with the audible response from other group members, then I expect the message that 'this is undesirable' was relayed in response.

Which I see as supporting your claim that "morality" has a genetic component.

In my observation of horses, dogs, cats and birds, I observe that there are ever individuals who are willing to defy the conventional 'norms' of their immediate group.

Very true, life need diversity in the gene pool to adapt to changes in the environment.

 

[scheherazade]

Which I see as supporting your claim that "morality" has a genetic component.


Very true, life need diversity in the gene pool to adapt to changes in the environment.

I'm of the opinion that 'altruism' or 'morality' by extension, are just more expressions of natural coping mechanisms that assist any species in being more successful.

Humans may prefer to claim the 'moral high ground' for ourselves, yet we observe similar behaviors in other species which do not depend upon a theist or an atheist position, to my knowledge at least.

 

[Trooper]

I don’t think that you can apply a genetic factor to compassion. That would presume too great a role for the human genome in determining behavior. Perhaps, if they were able to show that motor mimicry is mediated by the mirror neuron system, which would promote social cooperation. Animals that are better at mimicking would obviously have a better survival rate. Maybe this too, is what drives humans away from barbaric behavior, when we’re forced to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Our ability to communicate sentiments would then move us to change.

 

[gmilam]

I'm of the opinion that 'altruism' or 'morality' by extension, are just more expressions of natural coping mechanisms that assist any species in being more successful.

Humans may prefer to claim the 'moral high ground' for ourselves, yet we observe similar behaviors in other species which do not depend upon a theist or an atheist position, to my knowledge at least.

I think we are on the same page, the problem is that words are getting in the way.

 

[spidergoat]

OK, here is a moral challenge for theists in the USA, which presidential candidate is the most moral choice?