How does an atheist define morality? (God, witness, against)

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by more excellent way

brianrees,

You noticed that I "DO" reply to posts. No doubt you consider this a great accomplishment.

However, I said that I am not in the "HABIT" of replying to posts.

You are very wordy and use many vague "integrity words", assumptions, and marginally useful concepts in order to express trivialities as being very significant (in other words, you type a lot but say extremely little that should actually be considered useful information for a debate). You are a "master of the mundane".

You patronize while trivializing the other person's message and the person also (passive aggressive while disowning any harmful intent, no courage to accept responsibility). Do you work for a public relations company?


No doubt you mentioned "shallower person as a result" for a reason. You didn't accuse me of being one, you just HAPPENED to mention this idea (for no real reason, of course, you simply HAPPENED to mention it). I didn't "INSIST" that depression can offer insights, I simply SAID it can (using "integrity words" to hide/legitimize your aggression as "friendly" (passive aggressive,...the inner coward).

Yet, I should take this "in good part" (how polite and kind of you, dignified person).

Ad hominem... NOW you are replying to the person, not the post. I'd say let's get back to the subject of the thread, but that seems to have gone nowhere. Just be careful, moderators don't like deviations from the subject of the OP.

[brianrees]

Originally Posted by more excellent way

brianrees,

You noticed that I "DO" reply to posts. No doubt you consider this a great accomplishment.

However, I said that I am not in the "HABIT" of replying to posts.

You are very wordy and use many vague "integrity words", assumptions, and marginally useful concepts in order to express trivialities as being very significant (in other words, you type a lot but say extremely little that should actually be considered useful information for a debate). You are a "master of the mundane".

You patronize while trivializing the other person's message and the person also (passive aggressive while disowning any harmful intent, no courage to accept responsibility). Do you work for a public relations company?


No doubt you mentioned "shallower person as a result" for a reason. You didn't accuse me of being one, you just HAPPENED to mention this idea (for no real reason, of course, you simply HAPPENED to mention it). I didn't "INSIST" that depression can offer insights, I simply SAID it can (using "integrity words" to hide/legitimize your aggression as "friendly" (passive aggressive,...the inner coward).

Yet, I should take this "in good part" (how polite and kind of you, dignified person).

Very well, Excellent: the gloves are off if that's what you prefer.

If you see me as being 'passive aggressive' - that's no better or worse than your 'open aggression' - which does you no credit whatever, unless you actually want people to dislike you, which seems to be the case. It is typical of you to mistake genuine empathy from a fellow-sufferer of depression for 'patronising you' - you are not a very good reader of people's motives, are you, and you see only what you want to see - again typical. Try taking those blinkers off once in a while, and stop distorting.

I am not going to apologise to you for choosing the most considerate words in my vocabulary when telling you how utterly bizarre your ideas are - I took into consideration your frequently-expressed tale of how much you have suffered, and didn't want to appear too dismissive in case it upset you further.

However, I can now see that such a respectful approach is not appreciated by you, so I will try instead to be as cutting as you want me to be, and that, believe me, will be very easy in your case.

If I am 'wordy' as you say, at least my sentences are comprehensible, and not remotely as chaotic as your effusions, which usually need about ten readings to make any sense of - only to discover that sense is conspicuous by its absence in the first place.

So I will tell you plainly, Excellent (modest choice of name), if you see my logical arguments as being 'trivial' and 'mundane' - it is only because you are so far up your own fundament as to be incapable of even understanding someone else's point of view, let alone respect it. The 'significance' of what I was trying to convey was, of course, totally lost on you, which proves perfectly my original point - that what you see as significantt is limited to irrelevant biblical mythology - and that carries no weight whatsoever to the average atheist.

I will repeat what I said, trying to use words you can understand this time, if it helps:

YOUR VIEWS ARE SECOND HAND, and we are only interested in ORIGINAL THINKING on this forum, otherwise you should confine yourself to the Christianity forms to vent your sarcastic spleen - you will not lack for company over there, I can tell you... (If they can make head or tail of what you are saying, which is more than I usually can).

There - was that direct enough for you?

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by JViello

I'm curious what dictates your right and wrong?

Nature?

Government laws?

God? (Just seeing if you are awake. )

For a unique and coherent answer, I refer you to the philosophy book Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand was a novelist-philosopher who created a philosophy called Objectivism which is atheist. Her philosophy held that reality exists as an objective absolute, that reason is man's means of knowledge and survival, that rational self interest is good, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the political ideal.

(Not saying I agree with all of that, just saying that there's a philosophy that offers excellent answers to the question posed.)

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

For a unique and coherent answer, I refer you to the philosophy book Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand was a novelist-philosopher who created a philosophy called Objectivism which is atheist. Her philosophy held that reality exists as an objective absolute, that reason is man's means of knowledge and survival, that rational self interest is good, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the political ideal.

(Not saying I agree with all of that, just saying that there's a philosophy that offers excellent answers to the question posed.)

Yeah - Objectivism at least does offer a concrete definition of morality without any god. But, in my view, that same hardness of fact is what makes it unacceptable. Rand was just another person who was ruled by her own personality and delusions. It doesn't matter how steadfast she was in her opinions - that doesn't make them any more universally true than any of the theistic definitions of morality. And take a look at her "followers" today - a looney tunes bunch who practically worship the dead author and who definitely look down on everybody who doesn't share their view of the world - remind you of anybody?

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by b. frank

Yeah - Objectivism at least does offer a concrete definition of morality without any god. But, in my view, that same hardness of fact is what makes it unacceptable. Rand was just another person who was ruled by her own personality and delusions. It doesn't matter how steadfast she was in her opinions - that doesn't make them any more universally true than any of the theistic definitions of morality. And take a look at her "followers" today - a looney tunes bunch who practically worship the dead author and who definitely look down on everybody who doesn't share their view of the world - remind you of anybody?

Agreed. Ayn Rand is more of a cult figurehead now than anything. While there are a few aspects of her philosophy that I can agree with, I find her to be more of a religious icon than anything. The way her followers worship her is nothing short of a theistic "demi-goddess" religious following in itself.

[txguy2009]

You don't necessarily need morality.

You can just be a Hobbesian realist - we do what we do because we fear punishment/social opprobrium, etc.etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[Fasaga]

Originally Posted by JViello

I'm curious what dictates your right and wrong?

Nature?

Government laws?

God? (Just seeing if you are awake. )

Morals are simply a set of rules, defining what is right and wrong, good or bad, that has been unquestioningly accepted by a society, group or individual, justified by their specific ethical reasoning or expectations, based on the values considered to be of worth and importance in the life of that society, group or individual.

Morals can not be credited to the exclusivity of any Religion as they cannot be to any other group or individual.

"If it feels good, doesn't hurt anyone and I can get away with it, then do it."

This statement would cause an uproar unless you knew the heart and mind of the person saying it.

"I love to give, depriving noone else, but I want no thanks or recognition, so I donate regularly to Charity, anonymously", means the same thing.

[NateHevens]

Actually, it's relatively simple for me:

If it makes me angry when others do it, then I'm not going to do it. This applies to everything from riding a bicycle in the road to rape (which is the only kind of person [a rapist] I would actually consider killing).

That's how I've always lived my life and how I always will live my life.

[moddestmike]

In my opinion, morality in its most basic form are a set of social constructs developed over large span of time to ensure the survivability of mankind.

A good example would be neighboring tribes deciding it be more beneficial to not kill each, but instead hunt in packs to garner more success. Again, I'm approaching this from a granular perspective.

I would even go as far as to say there IS a such thing as instinctive morality.

[PDD]

If you follow this list you pretty much can't go wrong. I borrowed these from a list I saw someplace.

1. Honor your father and your mother.
   
2. You shall not murder.
   
3. You shall not commit adultery.
   
4. You shall not steal.
   
5. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
6. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.