A Question for the Atheists and Agnostics

Nerd Politico: I would even go so far as saying that the Bible's moral philosophy should not be given as much credence as other mainstream moral philosophies, as the Bible doesn't really provide arguments as to why actions are immoral, but only asserts that they are.

admin: I see how you arrived at that conclusion. I am not going to elaborate on why I disagree with it because it would be a different discussion altogether.

You seem to think human nature is good or rather that is what understood from what you said. I disagree with this profusely. I can explain why another time and in a different thread or in a PM because that is an entirely different discussion from this thread.

Nerd Politico: A "democracy of morality?"

No.

I don't even know where you are taking this discussion or even what you are reading and responding to considering I didn't mention the Bible or a moral philosophy LOL. It seems you have gone on a rant or you are responding to a comment that does not exist.

Tophatdoc: That would be interesting for sure. I said compassionate, though, not good. Good can mean pretty much anything.

Tophatdoc: I know you did not mention the Bible specifically, but you were talking about religious morality, and saying that without religion, there is no morality, as atheism doesn't affirm or deny any moral value. You completely ignore the countless other moral philosophies other than the religious variety, like utilitarianism, deontology, consequentialism, etc, all of which are atheistic. I gave the Bible as an example of the contrast between different moral philosophies. You could sub in basically any religious text.

The democracy of morality is just a phrase I coined to describe the normative nature of morality absent a belief in any particular moral philosophy. Say that I don't believe in any particular moral philosophy, be it religious, utilitarian, deontologist, whatever. My morality would still be influenced by the general moral sentiments of the society surrounding me.

I don't see how any of this is nontopical.

Nerd Politico: "But you were talking about religious morality, and saying that without religion, there is no morality"

Where did I say "without religion there is no morality?" I did not. As I said you are responding to arguments that have not been presented in this thread and implying things that were not said.

" You completely ignore the countless other moral philosophies other than the religious variety, like utilitarianism, deontology, consequentialism, etc, all of which are atheistic"

You are also confusing morals and ethics it seems. None of which you mentioned deal with morality but rather the practice of morals.

Ethics and morality are not the same. The philosophies you mentioned are mostly normative ethics. Normative ethics have no relevance to this discussion because they relate to ethics, not morals. Normative ethics studies the values of actions, not the moral judgement of whether an action is right or wrong. Meaning the code of conduct essentially. This is a discussion about morals, not ethics. The two are not interchangeable.

admin: Understood, I think you are referring to the actual concern for others. However, I was responding to your other statements before that, that referred to morals reflect social norms.It seemed you were implying that if social norms already existed, morals must have existed coincided with these norms previously in society. This is was what I was responding to in particular.

Perhaps, I am reading too much into two or three sentences lol(very likely)

Tophatdoc: Then perhaps I should clarify. I believe social norms reflect morals, and that morals reflect social norms. It's a chicken and egg question.

admin: I understand,I agree and disagree because I don't think that is absolute because I can think of examples that don't fit into that statement.

Tophatdoc: Right and wrong must be defined in terms of value ultimately. This is true even for religious morality.

Tophatdoc: "I said the world would become a dangerous place without religion. I said under atheism there is no moral difference between squashing a bug and squashing a human being."

This is where you implied that "without religion there is no morality." If I've misinterpreted that, I apologize, but I really see no other way to interpret it.

All of those philosophies aim to determine what is moral and what is immoral.

Tophatdoc: "I said the world would become a dangerous place without religion. I said under atheism there is no moral difference between squashing a bug and squashing a human being."

This is where you implied that "without religion there is no morality." If I've misinterpreted that, I apologize, but I really see no other way to interpret it.

All of those philosophies aim to determine what is moral and what is immoral.

Nerd Politico: I said the world would be a dangerous place without religion. I never said morality would not exist without religion.

In fact, I searched the phrase on this thread "without religion there is no morality" and you were the first person to bring it up.

I also noticed you blatantly ignored my point that there is a difference between morals and ethics, then continued to make a statement acting as if I never stated there was a difference between the two LOL

The philosophies you mentioned relate to ethics.

People said that to have a religion you have to have faith. Would you say atheists and agnostics have faith?

Pinkie: I don't think agnostics do, that's kind of the point. Theyre the fence sitters that basically say "well we can't really know".

Using my definition of faith, (the belief in things unseen/unverifiable) I'd say that atheists have faith. Maybe the difference is that when their faith is challenged because of new evidence, they can shift their belief system. Age of the earth being a classic example.

nzlockie: Well athiesm is the disbelief in things unseen/unverifiable - so how does that meet your definition?

admin: I thought atheism was restricted to disbelief in "god". I didn't realise it extended to non-religious things which are unseen/unverifiable.

My bad, retracted.

admin: But they believe there is no God. Right?

Pinkie: Some do. That's called hard atheism. Soft atheism would reject that statement. Atheism in general is just not believing in god.

admin: But believing in no gods is the same as not believing. There has to be something the don' believe in