What do Atheists Believe?

[Skyler]

If there's one thing I've heard about atheists, it's that they do not believe in the existence of a God.

So then, what do you believe?

It's been my experience that there is little or no value in engaging in a debate with someone who has no position on the subject. So, please, share your positions.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 397 Page 40

This is a violation of the principles of free will. There is nothing wrong with people using drugs as long as they are not hurting others. The fact alcohol is legal is further proof of the subjectiveness of this value.

Wouldn't telling people not to hurt others also violate those principles of free will?

It could. If they were so concerned they didn't want to hurt someone that they would allow another to shoot them.

The reason this 'fine line' can't be found is because it is as broad as society itself.

Or, perhaps, it's because every individual is looking at that fine line from a different perspective?

Thus we see that moral values are subjective.

Back to drugs, I smoke pot daily. I reject any law that tries to force anothers' morality on my own. An unfair law does not an objective moral make.

Neither does an unfair law a subjective moral make.

Huh? Where I show two different moral interpretations you still insist on an objective moral? Why is it so common among theists to just reverse a point and think they've made one?

Your example cites how an action which is considered abusive in one instance isn't necessarily abusive in another...

Exactly, a moral position for one can't be shown to be a moral position for all. Your point here contradicts objectiveness.

That doesn't mean the wavelength being reflected is subjective.

The wavelength can be measured. A physical body can be measured in objective terms. Moral constructs can't.

I think that I've demonstrated that OMVs are a logically coherent explanation for morality as we observe it.

"I think..." That ain't proof, that's opinion.

for I=1 to infinity
I=I+1
print "SHOW ME AN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE OR RETRACT YOUR CLAIM."
return
end

This whole objective moral value thing is not on topic.. make another thread.

I agree goat, I said the same thing early on in this thread. Unfortunately I couldn't get anyone to accept the challenge. It's been so long now I don't even remember where the thread I set up is. It died a lonely death.

[Fallibleone]

Tacking additional words on turns the argument into one that I did not present, but one that you find easier to knock down. That is a straw man argument.

I am not trying to knock down your argument, I am trying to understand what your position is.

My position is that objective moral values do not exist.

So things are not as black and white as you seem to suggest. This is a very good example of how objective morals don't exist. What you consider wrong, I might not. Or what I consider wrong at one point in time, I might not in the future.

This may be where we are having a problem, I am not suggesting that things are black and white,

Oh? You're not saying that for everything there is a right or wrong answer, 'like a math problem'?

in fact moral values become very complicated because they are objective rather than subjective.

Again, I'm afraid that I have to say that this does not make sense. What could be more simple than an objective moral? The fact that the issue is very complicated gives weight to my position, not yours.

For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.

You keep making assertions without backing them up. It is only your unsupported opinon that the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two. But since you seem to know this, please describe what these principles are.

Driving over the speed limit is wrong,

Really? What's the speed limit? This is like the 'having sex with a minor is wrong' argument you brought forth several pages ago. What possible use is it if the actual limit is elusive? The only measure you have is the law, which you have already made clear is not greatly successful at 'discovering' what is moral.

unfortunately I did not realize that until I lost control of my car while I was going too fast.

Why not? Surely you were aware that there is a speed limit. This implies that it is not OK for you to go over it.

Society was protecting me from myself by paying police officers to give me tickets for driving too fast.

They're also protecting other people from you. How does what society is doing show that objective morals exist?

In the same way society is protecting us from ourselves by making recreational drug use against the law, there are countless number of people out there, who felt like you that it was not wrong, that are now suffering from dependency, mental illness issues, broken relationships with family and friends, AIDS from shared needles etc.

Hang on a second. I'm not talking about other people. You stated that I have a 'good moral compass'. You also stated that therefore, if I were to do something which was 'wrong', I would 'feel bad about it' and try to never do it again. I pointed out that I have indeed done things which are considered 'wrong', have done them again, and have not had the experience which you seem so certain that I would have. What is your answer to this?

If you were to visit these people in their affliction you may change your feeling about the practice. The drug user is not the only person who is hurt, drug abuse hurts all of us.

This is going off at a tangent in order to incorporate an appeal to emotion, another fallacy. All I require is your response to my point that I and my 'good moral compass' contradict your bold statement that if I were to do something 'wrong', I would know and try not to do it again.

And yet, the use of the drugs alcohol and caffeine in moderation is still okay and possibly other drugs as well.

That's your clear statement of fact, is it? That 'drugs are bad, m'kay?', But the use of alcohol and caffeine and 'possibly other drugs' is still 'okay'? How did you manage to work out this exrtremely complicated set of principles? By whose authority are you right? You don't seem to want to answer the questions I put to you. Why not?

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

Who says, apart from you? Because although you are just as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, I am also entitled to point out that there is nothing special about your opinion which elevates it to the lofty heights of 'fact'. In light of this, you need to provide evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

In theory? How can objective morals be theory?

I am the wrong person to talk about morality in sexuality but, as for BDSM, it is fun as long as it remains playful and all parties respect each others thresholds, but when it becomes excessively violent all the fun goes out the window.

But many people would see it as wrong. Immoral. And yet people do it without feeling 'bad', as you claim that people will, if they do something 'wrong'. Again, what you have stated above appears to be only your unsupported opinion.

Stoning an adulteress is a bit extreme but letting her of the hook altogether is too lax, she does cause a lot of pain and suffering to innocent family members as does a womanizer.

As above, so below. Plenty of subjectivity, zero evidence.

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

This statement appears to be saying that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

As for the moral compass stuff, let me just rephrase it and see if it is not something that you already know from life's experience.
A person does not become depraved overnight, all the worlds worst people spent a lifetime of ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are. There are times when a decent person is given the negative opportunity to commit a serious violation, like a murder due to a great deal of passion, or embezzle an obscene amount of money. But when a person commits such a serious act, most decent people will be overcome by guilt and will fail emotionally and have a hard time even functioning normally.

It is not something that I know from life's experience. I have not formed the opinion that 'a person' does not become depraved overnight. I have not found that 'all the world's worst people (a subjective description) spent a lifetime ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are'. Your unqualified use of the term 'decent people' cannot be agreed with unless you make clear what you mean. Are they people who are morally spotless, or people who do a few slightly naughty things? If it is the latter, do they feel bad afterwards, or are they not bothered? To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? I would see myself as a decent person, but I have taken illegal drugs, had sex out of wedlock and cohabited, and those are only the things considered by various people to be immoral that come to mind immediately. Give me some time, and I can probably dig up several more. Were you wrong about me?

So, help me out, where do we disagree with each other about moral values?

Nowhere much. Just everywhere.

I feel that we agree in principal, and our disagreement is merely semantic.

I am astounded that you have managed to reach such a conclusion after the past several pages.

To recap: you believe in objective moral values and I don't.

[Goat]

I agree goat, I said the same thing early on in this thread. Unfortunately I couldn't get anyone to accept the challenge. It's been so long now I don't even remember where the thread I set up is. It died a lonely death.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=199120

[olavisjo]

I am not trying to tell you what you believe but,
This was written by someone who obviously believes in objective moral values.

It is not the governments job to legislate god into government. Placing this wording in the pledge is a stupid attempt by xians to legislate their beliefs into government. It is a divisive move, clearly meant to single out those who do not believe in a sky daddy. The same is true for the placement of god on our money.

If god was so powerful, and the bible so true, then why do xians feel the need to place these references anyway? Xians always claim they are being persecuted, but they have no qualms at all with persecuting others through the courts.

It is time xians realize their fairy tale does not belong in government.

One of the funniest laws here in Georgia is you can't buy beer on Sunday in many/most places. This is clearly an attempt to get government to block the free will of the people. When confronted with this fact all the governor could say is that it teaches time management. How stupid is it that something is legal 6 out of 7 days, and oh by the way, that 7th day happens to be Sunday?

Get xians out of government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was written as if one does not believe in objective moral values.

In my opinion, it is not the governments job to legislate god into government. In my opinion, placing this wording in the pledge is a stupid attempt by xians to legislate their beliefs into government. In my opinion, it is a divisive move, clearly meant to single out those who do not believe in a sky daddy. In my opinion, the same is true for the placement of god on our money.

In my opinion, if god was so powerful, and the bible so true, then why do xians feel the need to place these references anyway? , in my opinion, xians always claim they are being persecuted, but they have no qualms at all with persecuting others through the courts.

In my opinion, it is time xians realize their fairy tale does not belong in government.

In my opinion, one of the funniest laws here in Georgia is you can't buy beer on Sunday in many/most places. In my opinion, this is clearly an attempt to get government to block the free will of the people. When confronted with this fact all the governor could say is that it teaches time management. In my opinion, how stupid is it that something is legal 6 out of 7 days, and oh by the way, that 7th day happens to be Sunday?

In my opinion, get xians out of government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can say that objective moral values do not exist, but it is very hard to live as if they do not exist.

[olavisjo]

My position is that objective moral values do not exist.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

I have never met anyone who believes that moral values are subjective, even the "live and let live" crowd starts believing in objective moral values when their own rights get trampled on.

So things are not as black and white as you seem to suggest. This is a very good example of how objective morals don't exist. What you consider wrong, I might not. Or what I consider wrong at one point in time, I might not in the future.

This may be where we are having a problem, I am not suggesting that things are black and white,

Oh? You're not saying that for everything there is a right or wrong answer, 'like a math problem'?

This is a perfect example of how we differ because we use words in a different way.
To me the idiom "black and white" means "to have a simple and very certain opinion". To you it is just right and wrong.
And yes moral values can be very complicated like math problems.

For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.

You keep making assertions without backing them up. It is only your unsupported opinion that the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two. But since you seem to know this, please describe what these principles are.

My assertion may be unsupported, but I doubt you would disagree.
All these principles can be reduced to one, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

Driving over the speed limit is wrong,

Really? What's the speed limit? This is like the 'having sex with a minor is wrong' argument you brought forth several pages ago. What possible use is it if the actual limit is elusive? The only measure you have is the law, which you have already made clear is not greatly successful at 'discovering' what is moral.

If we set the limit at 5 mph it would be unnecessarily slow but at 90 it would be very unsafe, so the perfect speed limit is somewhere between the two.
The state hires engineers to determine what the law should be for the speed limit based on their field of expertise, and that is good enough for government work.

Hang on a second. I'm not talking about other people. You stated that I have a 'good moral compass'. You also stated that therefore, if I were to do something which was 'wrong', I would 'feel bad about it' and try to never do it again. I pointed out that I have indeed done things which are considered 'wrong', have done them again, and have not had the experience which you seem so certain that I would have. What is your answer to this?

Let me add "if you did something that you believe to be wrong".

This is going off at a tangent in order to incorporate an appeal to emotion, another fallacy. All I require is your response to my point that I and my 'good moral compass' contradict your bold statement that if I were to do something 'wrong', I would know and try not to do it again.

Correct, I am appealing to your objective emotions.

And yet, the use of the drugs alcohol and caffeine in moderation is still okay and possibly other drugs as well.

That's your clear statement of fact, is it? That 'drugs are bad, m'kay?', But the use of alcohol and caffeine and 'possibly other drugs' is still 'okay'? How did you manage to work out this extremely complicated set of principles? By whose authority are you right? You don't seem to want to answer the questions I put to you. Why not?

I don't know what authority and I don't know if I am right, but I do know that for any given situation there is a a right and wrong. Most of the time common sense will give the answer, sometimes the answer can be elusive.

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

Who says, apart from you? Because although you are just as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, I am also entitled to point out that there is nothing special about your opinion which elevates it to the lofty heights of 'fact'. In light of this, you need to provide evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

True enough, my opinion is not any better than yours, but I think that I have given more reason to support my position than you have given for your position.

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

In theory? How can objective morals be theory?

How can objective physics be theory?

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

This statement appears to be saying that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

The statement is trying to say that there is a difference between what we think we believe and what our actions say we believe.

It is not something that I know from life's experience. I have not formed the opinion that 'a person' does not become depraved overnight. I have not found that 'all the world's worst people (a subjective description) spent a lifetime ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are'. Your unqualified use of the term 'decent people' cannot be agreed with unless you make clear what you mean. Are they people who are morally spotless, or people who do a few slightly naughty things? If it is the latter, do they feel bad afterwards, or are they not bothered? To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? I would see myself as a decent person, but I have taken illegal drugs, had sex out of wedlock and cohabited, and those are only the things considered by various people to be immoral that come to mind immediately. Give me some time, and I can probably dig up several more. Were you wrong about me?

Wrong about you? Have you ever known me to be wrong about anything?
To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? If you adhere to your own moral values, you will be decent. The harder you try to abide by your own moral standards the clearer and better will be your perception of moral standards. In theory you would become perfect.

So, help me out, where do we disagree with each other about moral values?

Nowhere much. Just everywhere.

'Nowhere much.' That gives us hope for agreement.

[Fallibleone]

My position is that objective moral values do not exist.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?

We are still waiting for evidence for the first claim:

Without a god there is no absolute moral standard.

When this one was made, it became apparent that objective morals would have to be shown to exist in order for God to exist. So there have been other claims concerning the existence of objective morals. So far we have 'it's obvious', when you do something wrong you feel bad and 'trust your moral compass'.

I have never met anyone who believes that moral values are subjective, even the "live and let live" crowd starts believing in objective moral values when their own rights get trampled on.

You've 'met' several here. I've arguably (as usual, it depends what you mean) had my 'rights' trampled on and still believe that objective morals do not exist.

So things are not as black and white as you seem to suggest. This is a very good example of how objective morals don't exist. What you consider wrong, I might not. Or what I consider wrong at one point in time, I might not in the future.

This may be where we are having a problem, I am not suggesting that things are black and white,

Oh? You're not saying that for everything there is a right or wrong answer, 'like a math problem'?

This is a perfect example of how we differ because we use words in a different way.
To me the idiom "black and white" means "to have a simple and very certain opinion". To you it is just right and wrong.

Since you are aware of what 'black and white' means to me and some other people, in that you replied using the definition (black and white) yourself first of all, it is curious that the defence now is that the term means something else to you.

Again, what could be more simple than an ojective moral?

And yes moral values can be very complicated like math problems.

This is a revelation indeed, in the light of what your position was at the beginning. At that point, objective morals couldn't be more simple.

We all know that morality is real, we do not make it up, we discover it the same way we discover mathematical truths only easier. Even children figure it out. All you have to do is ask "how would you like it if someone did that to you?"

Once more, How do you know? How do you know that either of your conflicting statements is true?

For example some people may feel that abortion is wrong in any and all situations, while others may feel it should be permitted anytime the woman desires it, but the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two extremes.

You keep making assertions without backing them up. It is only your unsupported opinion that the objective truth is a very complicated set of principles somewhere between the two. But since you seem to know this, please describe what these principles are.

My assertion may be unsupported, but I doubt you would disagree.

In the absence of evidence to support your position, your doubt has little relevance for anyone else.

All these principles can be reduced to one, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

So in fact these still nameless but apparently real principles are not very complicated. There is actually only one, which is to love people like you love yourself. The principle on which objective moral values are all based is 'love one another'? All this fuss and all we really had to do was to ask 'does a certain behaviour show love for one another?' in order to work out if something is immoral or not?

Well, there are a couple of problems with this.

1)How do you know that this is the one principle which all morals rest on?

2)How then do morals have anything to say regarding things not contradicting this 'principle'?

3)How does declaration of the central principle of objective moral values count as evidence that objective morals exist?

Driving over the speed limit is wrong,

Really? What's the speed limit? This is like the 'having sex with a minor is wrong' argument you brought forth several pages ago. What possible use is it if the actual limit is elusive? The only measure you have is the law, which you have already made clear is not greatly successful at 'discovering' what is moral.

If we set the limit at 5 mph it would be unnecessarily slow but at 90 it would be very unsafe, so the perfect speed limit is somewhere between the two.
The state hires engineers to determine what the law should be for the speed limit based on their field of expertise, and that is good enough for government work.

But you have already shown that the law is not good enough for you in 'discovering' objective morals, when you voiced the fact that it doesn't always get it right. So when you broke the speed limit, although it was only the law which said you were 'wrong', you accepted it as such, and have thereby contradicted your earlier statement.

Hang on a second. I'm not talking about other people. You stated that I have a 'good moral compass'. You also stated that therefore, if I were to do something which was 'wrong', I would 'feel bad about it' and try to never do it again. I pointed out that I have indeed done things which are considered 'wrong', have done them again, and have not had the experience which you seem so certain that I would have. What is your answer to this?

Let me add "if you did something that you believe to be wrong".

Have you now abandoned your argument in favour of objective moral values?

This is getting quite confusing. You claimed that one would know that something was wrong when they did that thing and then felt bad about it. Ones moral eyes would be opened. You implied that drug-taking is wrong because of all the people it hurts, and you also said about me personally that if I were to do something wrong, I would feel bad about it and not want to do it again. You put this forward as a means of finding out what is wrong. I told you that I had done something which is 'wrong', and did not experience the things which you said I would. I don't need to do something which I believe is wrong in order to find out that it is wrong. I already think it. I would feel bad going into it and bad coming out.

Please explain why I did not feel as you said I would.

This is going off at a tangent in order to incorporate an appeal to emotion, another fallacy. All I require is your response to my point that I and my 'good moral compass' contradict your bold statement that if I were to do something 'wrong', I would know and try not to do it again.

Correct, I am appealing to your objective emotions.

Thank you for admitting that you are employing a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.

Emotions are objective too now? This gets weirder and weirder. How can one continue to acknowledge such a thing when one has had it pointed out that on doing something 'wrong', people can experience different feelings?

And yet, the use of the drugs alcohol and caffeine in moderation is still okay and possibly other drugs as well.

That's your clear statement of fact, is it? That 'drugs are bad, m'kay?', But the use of alcohol and caffeine and 'possibly other drugs' is still 'okay'? How did you manage to work out this extremely complicated set of principles? By whose authority are you right? You don't seem to want to answer the questions I put to you. Why not?

I don't know what authority and I don't know if I am right, but I do know that for any given situation there is a a right and wrong. Most of the time common sense will give the answer, sometimes the answer can be elusive.

You don't know if you are right, but you are right?

The fine line of right and wrong can be very hard to define in any particular case, but it is still there. In some cases you need more than the wisdom of Solomon to find it.

Who says, apart from you? Because although you are just as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, I am also entitled to point out that there is nothing special about your opinion which elevates it to the lofty heights of 'fact'. In light of this, you need to provide evidence for your claims or withdraw them.

True enough, my opinion is not any better than yours, but I think that I have given more reason to support my position than you have given for your position.

So you admit, then, that you have no evidence? As I said previously, your judgement of your performance alone is not the gauge. Your opinion has been frequently expressed as fact in this thread. Is your position only an opinion? Mine is. Before you answer, let me remind you that you stated very early on that you could not be wrong:

I can't be wrong, the consequences of me being wrong on this are so dire that it is just unthinkable.
Imagine the chaos of a world with no objective moral values, no god, it just makes me cringe.

Have you changed your mind?

In order to make laws simple and fair, society will simply issue a blanket prohibition like the use of marijuana is wrong period. And some individuals in society will try to make the drug available for medicinal use, which in theory would be moral.

In theory? How can objective morals be theory?

How can objective physics be theory?

As far as I am aware, we are having a discussion about objective morals, which you claim exist. You claim objective morals are real, not theoretical. What is your answer to my question?

A woman or man who abuses their children is evil and they are aware and responsible for what they do, but their actions shows that they really do not 'get it' that is why I say 'they know not what they do'.

This statement appears to be saying that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

The statement is trying to say that there is a difference between what we think we believe and what our actions say we believe.

The statement actually says that a man or woman who abuses a child is evil and aware of what they do, but is unaware of what they do.

It is not something that I know from life's experience. I have not formed the opinion that 'a person' does not become depraved overnight. I have not found that 'all the world's worst people (a subjective description) spent a lifetime ignoring their conscience to gradually become what they are'. Your unqualified use of the term 'decent people' cannot be agreed with unless you make clear what you mean. Are they people who are morally spotless, or people who do a few slightly naughty things? If it is the latter, do they feel bad afterwards, or are they not bothered? To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? I would see myself as a decent person, but I have taken illegal drugs, had sex out of wedlock and cohabited, and those are only the things considered by various people to be immoral that come to mind immediately. Give me some time, and I can probably dig up several more. Were you wrong about me?

Wrong about you? Have you ever known me to be wrong about anything?

Were you wrong about me?

To whose morals must one adhere in order to be classed as 'decent'? If you adhere to your own moral values, you will be decent. The harder you try to abide by your own moral standards the clearer and better will be your perception of moral standards. In theory you would become perfect.

Adhering to my subjective morals will make me objectively decent? How can that work when people have different morals?

So, help me out, where do we disagree with each other about moral values?

Nowhere much. Just everywhere.

'Nowhere much.' That gives us hope for agreement.

I should take my own advice and not resort to sarcasm. As far as I can see, in the arena of morals and their objectivity, we agree on nothing.

[JoeyKnothead]

Are not!

[Fallibleone]

Has this thread finished now?

[JoeyKnothead]

Has this thread finished now?

LOL. I think you finally convinced them.

[Skyler]

Has this thread finished now?

LOL. I think you finally convinced them.

I'm convinced...

...that this isn't the place for this debate.