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.

[olavisjo]

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:

You must have gone to the "is not, is not" school of rebutting a debate.
You can always expand on your position like...

'My position is that objective moral values do not exist. Any value placed on a moral act is only emotional and has no objective reality, to say that an act is good, bad, evil etc. is meaningless. People simply act in whatever way they feel serves their own best interest.'

Can you agree with that?

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.

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

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.

Here you missed my point entirely.
When I first used the idiom of 'black and white' I assumed that it meant the same to you as it did to me, but from the context of your reply I became aware that we differ on the meaning of the idiom.
So I will clarify my position on objective morals again.
Take out a piece of paper and draw a horizontal line across it, and in the middle draw a short vertical line, then label one side 'good' and the other 'bad'.
All moral behaviour will fall on one part of the horizontal line. The behaviour that falls on the extreme left or right will be obvious and even children will have no trouble knowing what is good regarding those acts. But, the acts that fall close to the middle will be difficult to know if they are good or bad, they can be complicated like math problems, but they will fall on one side of the center line or the other.

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?

1) If you can think of another, I am all ears.

2) If there is no contradiction, go for it.

3) I don't know if the declaration serves as evidence, it is only a tool for evaluating moral values.

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.

It is impossible for the law to find the exact moral truth in any and all cases, so we will strive to err on the side of safety. Since the law is all that we have for the time being, we will have to settle for that.

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.

Okay, my assumptions about your moral innocence were a bit of wishful thinking. You are obviously blind to the 'badness' of taking drugs for recreational purposes, this may change if you continue taking them and one day find yourself living on skid row.

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?

Trust your emotions. Just try to imagine a world where there is no 'right or wrong', you would not want to live in it.

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 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?

I don't know what authority and I don't know if I am right (about drugs in specific), but I do know that for any given situation (in general) there is a right and wrong.

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:

If I am wrong, the world makes no sense.
The world does make sense.
Therefore I must be right.

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?

No.

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?

The 'theory of objective morals' can be real the same way as the theory of evolution or any other objective science can be.

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.

Yes, on one level they are aware but at another level they are unaware.

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?

Not really, if I had been wrong about you, you would be writing to me from a penitentiary somewhere out there.

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?

We may start at different places, but if we keep going up we will eventually reach the same peak.

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.

We agree that it is wrong to kill people to eliminate defective genes, we believe that it is wrong to be cruel to children, people and animals. We agree that it is wrong to rob stores, tourists and armoured couriers. We agree that promiscuous multi partner sex without protection and never getting tested for AIDS is wrong. We agree it is wrong to be rude to people for no good reason, we agree that we should help people who have suffered a misfortune.

For two people that agree on 'nothing' we sure agree on a lot.

[Beto]

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

I know "red" is subjective, but I'll still call it "red". What exactly is your point here? How does any action indicate belief in objective moral values?

[realthinker]

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

I know "red" is subjective, but I'll still call it "red". What exactly is your point here? How does any action indicate belief in objective moral values?

Red is not subjective. It is

the primary color at one extreme end of the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nm.

With the proper equipment, it can be very accurately and precisely measured.

[Beto]

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

I know "red" is subjective, but I'll still call it "red". What exactly is your point here? How does any action indicate belief in objective moral values?

Red is not subjective. It is

the primary color at one extreme end of the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nm.

With the proper equipment, it can be very accurately and precisely measured.

Yeah, but I don't mean the "red" you can measure, but the "red" you perceive. A daltonic will pick up the same wavelength, but see something different. Still, not the best example, I confess.

[catalyst]

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another.

I know "red" is subjective, but I'll still call it "red". What exactly is your point here? How does any action indicate belief in objective moral values?

Red is not subjective. It is

the primary color at one extreme end of the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nm.

With the proper equipment, it can be very accurately and precisely measured.

However, what if the person who claimed RED is specifically "the primary color at one extreme end of the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nm" but at the time determined the word to describe it was actually "pillowcase", it would then not be RED, but in instead PILLOWCASE, and as such, the word RED would never enter the equation, so wouldn't it make it subjective and objective?

Just putting it out there!

To get back to the original comment (well the one I came in on anyway) of:

I have met people who 'say' that moral values are subjective, relative etc but they really don't believe it. Their lips say one thing but their actions say another

Morals, from no matter which side you look at them, are subjective as ones alleged "moral compass" is dictated purely be sociological conditioning as to what is supposedly right vs supposedly wrong and usually it is based on religious teachings. Some religions claim a huge element of their moral code is "though shalt not kill", however that does not stop them from going out and killing, when they are TOLD the exercise is warranted...because.....hence their being validation for this act when it comes to war or even what is called manslaughter or self defense. In the case of abortion too this same "moral code" is put into question as to the subjective view of when life is considered "viable", - is it at conception? or no, the sperm has to be alive for it to able to fertilise the egg, however those going OTT in their claims that this act(abortion) is "morally" wrong, have no issue with tucking into a pork roast with all the trimmings that night, while telling their families over this KILL dinner of their (to them-subjectively "morally good" deed) and then going off later to have a "toss" to relieve the tension of the day's morally GREAT(to them...as it has ticked all their subjective boxes) demonstration.

SO, yes... assumed morality IS VERY subjective.

[Skyler]

Umm... guys... the objective/subjective debate moved. This thread can now be returned to its original, albeit misguided, purpose.

[Beto]

Umm... guys... the objective/subjective debate moved. This thread can now be returned to its original, albeit misguided, purpose.

But atheist "belief" is directly related to objectivity/subjectivity, as we generally deem the subjective without objective corroboration as something in which "belief" isn't warranted.

[Skyler]

Umm... guys... the objective/subjective debate moved. This thread can now be returned to its original, albeit misguided, purpose.

But atheist "belief" is directly related to objectivity/subjectivity, as we generally deem the subjective without objective corroboration as something in which "belief" isn't warranted.

I think I see. But how can you corroborate the objective without assuming the accuracy of your subjective observations of it?

[Beto]

Umm... guys... the objective/subjective debate moved. This thread can now be returned to its original, albeit misguided, purpose.

But atheist "belief" is directly related to objectivity/subjectivity, as we generally deem the subjective without objective corroboration as something in which "belief" isn't warranted.

I think I see. But how can you corroborate the objective without assuming the accuracy of your subjective observations of it?

You don't have to assume anything. Like a wise man once said: "Assumption is the mother of all f***ups." Why take any perception at face value?

[Skyler]

Umm... guys... the objective/subjective debate moved. This thread can now be returned to its original, albeit misguided, purpose.

But atheist "belief" is directly related to objectivity/subjectivity, as we generally deem the subjective without objective corroboration as something in which "belief" isn't warranted.

I think I see. But how can you corroborate the objective without assuming the accuracy of your subjective observations of it?

You don't have to assume anything. Like a wise man once said: "Assumption is the mother of all f***ups." Why take any perception at face value?

Does that mean you have a proof for the laws of logic and the scientific method? Or do you just assume them anyway?