# Atheists are NOT just another religion **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 7, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491 "2005-12-07T12:36:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/361 "2005-12-14T17:17:30Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > So why are we better than them? We’re not. We and imaginary world people have differing standards, but there is no overarching objective standard to compare ourselves against. So, in essence, are they evil people? No. Are we? No. To us, form our viewpoint, they are evil. To them, _we_ are evil. A while back, a poster named **TVAA** argued that there _is_ an objective morality of sorts, on the basis that morality is subject to evolution along with the other little built-in rewards and punishments that guide our behaviour. By his logic, the raping murderous society will eventually be out-competed by the more empathic, less selfish society (probably because the raping murderers can’t work together effectively.) Games with [cellular automata](http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/intro.html#sec3) show that mindless entities operating in very simple universes can develop “morality” of a kind. When the automata interact, they can choose to “co-operate” or “welch”. Welching on a co-operator gets the most reward, mutual co-operation gets the second highest reward, mutual welching gets both automata screwed, and co-operating with a welcher (being played for a sucker) gets the co-operator royally screwed. Under these rules, the most successful strategy is to co-operate on the first interaction with an automaton, and every encounter afterwards to do what it did last time. This is the famous “tit-for-tat”. Although “tit for tat” is hardly what we would normally think of as “moral”, it _works better_ than simple “always welch”. “Tit-for-tat” automata accumulate more rewards than “always welch” or “always co-operate”. If you start with an assortment of automata and let them reproduce when they reach a certain score, “tit-for-tat” will simply _outbreed_ the other strategies. No on-line cite, but I’ve read it gets more interesting when we allow _misunderstanding_ in the model universe that cause accidental bad interactions between the cellular automata. This is closer to the type of universe we know - you can be getting on fine with your neighbour until you accidentally scrape their car! In this error-prone universe, “tit-for-tat-plus-random-forgiveness” _works better_ than simple “tit for tat”. This is because simple “tit-for-tat” populations tend to get locked into unbreakable cycles of retribution due to misunderstandings. And _both_ still work better than “always screw everyone”. “Tit-for-tat-plus-random-forgiveness” isn’t too far from simple human moral codes. Work with people who worked with you before, punish transgressors, sometimes let bygones be bygones and try and re-establish good relations. Note that this doesn’t involve emotion or even sentience - it’s simply that some moral codes promote survival and reproduction more than others. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/362 "2005-12-14T17:25:27Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Actually, as an atheist, I’m explicitly NOT making the claim that atheist morality is superior to theistic morality. And I don’t think most of the other atheists in this thread are making that claim either. If I, an atheist, didn’t think that Negative Rule Utilitarianism (or whatever) was a superior morality to theistic biblical traditionalism (or whatever), why, I would be a theist! The axioms on which one bases one’s position are themselves subject to disagreement. Theists might disagree with my axioms (suffering ought to be minimised), I disagree with theirs (God exists). Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/363 "2005-12-14T19:09:00Z")
> [@Schuyler](#): > > What makes you think that he wants you to follow his moral code? He says so. > [@Dio](#): > > My moral system requires me to judge the actions of others. To judge others is to express a preference as to how they act, is it not? > [@](#): > > Do you want him to follow yours? Broadly, yes; and by the way, I believe he does. ---
**Author:** ![Schuyler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Schuyler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schuyler)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/364 "2005-12-14T19:39:33Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > > [@Schuyler](#): > > > > What makes you think that he wants you to follow his moral code? > > He says so. **Diogenes the Cynic** may correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that he most certainly did not say that he wants you to follow his moral code. How is he even to communicate to you, with perfect fidelity, what his moral code is? With all due respect, I believe that you have misrepresented his position. > [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > > [@Schuyler](#): > > > > Do you want him to follow yours? > > Broadly, yes; and by the way, I believe he does. Well, I would hope that, if we are to be members of the same society, that our moral codes should be similar. But I’ve never even met you (to my knowdedge) - how do I know, broadly, what your moral code is? ---
**Author:** ![Schuyler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Schuyler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schuyler)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/365 "2005-12-14T19:50:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I am thinking of the difference between the statements, “I like ham” vs. “the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides”. You can’t really argue about the first one - _de gustibus non disputandum_ - and it cannot be considered binding on someone else. Nor can you show it to be true. Maybe you like ham, but the statement “you should like ham too” is meaningless. But I do like ham (full disclosure: I actually don’t like ham). I can show that statement to be true, I just said it. Unless there’s some other definition of “true” that I should be aware of, or unless you are calling me a liar. > [@Shodan](#): > > Something is better because it is better. > Actually, if you think about it for a second or two, you will see that this is practically the definition of “subjective”. Are you even reading the posts? > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Summary of the argument so far: > > **Theists** : “God exists - we get our morality from that”. > **Athiests** : “God doesn’t exist, morality is just part of ourselves” > **Theists** : “Well, wouldn’t that only be subjective?” > **Athiests** : “Hmm. Yep, pretty much. Doesn’t mean it’s unimportant, though” > **Shodan** : “But look, your system is subjective” > **Athiests** : “Yes, we know. We’re saying all systems are subjective - even yours” > **Shodan** : “But your system is SUBJECTIVE!” > **Athiests** : “Uh…Yeah, we know. We agree. So’s yours? Anyway, your system is just as subjevtive as ours - your system is not objective either” > **Shodan** : “Guys, think about this though: Your system is only subjective!” > **Athiests** : “…” [QUOTE=Schuyler] I’ll ask again: [ol] [li]Do theists consider the only righteous form of authority to establish a moral code to be external and supernatural?[/li][li]If someone’s behavior is substantially in agreement with what you consider to be your moral code, does it matter [to you] from where they perceive the authority deriving that code? Would you consider that person to be a moral person?[/li][li]If someone’s behavior is substantially different from what you consider to be actions consistent with your moral code, would you consider that person to be an immoral person? In your consideration, does it mitigate the morality of their actions if they perceive the same authority as do you in deriving the moral code under which they act?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/366 "2005-12-14T20:22:38Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > He says so.To judge others is to express a preference as to how they act, is it not? Preference does not equal either expectation or obligation to anybody else. I can _hope_ that your moral aesthetic is the same as mine but I can’t dictate it. > [@](#): > > Broadly, yes; and by the way, I believe he does. I don’t expect you to view things morally the same as I do but I can deal with you reactively if I believe my own moral system obliges me to do so, and you can do the same with me. What other standard are you suggesting we should both adhere to other than our own subjective moral aesthetics. What alternative is there? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/367 "2005-12-14T20:45:43Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What other standard are you suggesting we should both adhere to other than our own subjective moral aesthetics. What alternative is there? None and none. What I am saying is that to judge others is to hold your standard to be more than an aesthetic preference. We say and mean “this is right” and “this is wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/368 "2005-12-14T21:10:47Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > None and none. What I am saying is that to judge others is to hold your standard to be more than an aesthetic preference. We say and mean “this is right” and “this is wrong”. Right and wrong ARE aesthetic preferences. They mean nothing beyond the subjective. The ability to subjectively “judge” the actions of others according to my own moral aesthetic is completely within my purview. So is (in some circumstance) reacting to the behavior of others in a way I feel is morally imperative. I think you have to draw a distinction between feeling morally free to judge or respond to behavior and the ability to affect or change someone else’s personal moral aesthetic. Under my moral system, they are allowed to THINK whatever they want. What they feel subjectively is not in my purview. What they DO sometimes IS. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/369 "2005-12-14T21:31:27Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Preference does not equal either expectation or obligation to anybody else. . . . So is (in some circumstance) reacting to the behavior of others in a way I feel is morally imperative. In some situations you would say “Do the right thing or I’ll make you do it”. How is this diferent from saying it is obligatory? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/370 "2005-12-14T22:30:52Z")
> [@matt](#): > > A while back, a poster named **TVAA** argued that there _is_ an objective morality of sorts, on the basis that morality is subject to evolution along with the other little built-in rewards and punishments that guide our behaviour. By his logic, the raping murderous society will eventually be out-competed by the more empathic, less selfish society (probably because the raping murderers can’t work together effectively.) That does make sense - but however, you’ve missed something. Your approach assumes that it is moral to continue the species, for humanity to survive. It isn’t. It’s practical for the species to survive, but not moral. A person could think it was moral that their society dies, or that they are out-competed - thus the statement that “There is an objective morality, and it is based around the species surviving” is also useless - who’s to say that a person might think it moral for their society to die out? **TVAA** ’s logic is sound, but based upon the incorrect assumption that the survival of the species is moral. It is - but only to us - and so is as subjective as everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/371 "2005-12-14T22:31:49Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > In some situations you would say “Do the right thing or I’ll make you do it”. No. I would never say “do the right thing” as such. The most I’m saying is that, in some extreme circumstances, I might feel morally compelled to prevent somebody from doing a _wrong_ thing. > [@](#): > > How is this diferent from saying it is obligatory? Nothing is obligatory to anyone else. I’m only talking about what is obligatory to _me_. I am morally obliged to prevent harm to others if I have the ability. If another person is acting in a manner which is harmful to someone else (or myself, for that matter) then (with some qualifications) I have a moral imperative to prevent that harm if I am able. It’s about stopping the harm, not controlling another person’s moral aesthetic. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/372 "2005-12-15T00:22:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s about stopping the harm, not controlling another person’s moral aesthetic. And I would add that it’s impossible to COMPEL someone to accept a particular moral aesthetic anyway. You can compel their behavior, but not their belief. If you want to change someone’s morals you have to do it through argument and persuation. A lot of the discourse in Great Debates and the BBQ Pit is exactly this: Arguments between competing moral aesthetics as to which is superior. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/373 "2005-12-15T01:09:14Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > This entire line of debate started with \*\*Scylla \*\* making comments that suggested that he didn’t believe atheists were capable of making rational moral decisions given that they don’t have an objective basis for their morality. Untrue. I did not say, suggest, nor do I beleive that. I am asking about the derivation or foundation of moral decisions for atheists, which is an entirely different thing. > [@](#): > > Since then it has consisted almost entirely of atheists demonstrating that theists don’t have an objective basis for their morality either, and the theists ignoring the implications of that revelation. Nonsense. I am fully aware that the basis of morality is not objective for theists. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/374 "2005-12-15T01:29:55Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I’d like to try and explain why, if we think all morality is subjective, why we do not just let everyone do what they want. > > Let’s take Persons A through D. Let’s say…A and C are theists, and B and D are atheists. > > How do these people interract? Well, we don’t want people to come and steal our things…and it’s probably better that we all help each other, trade goods and so forth. So, let’s hire Person E to be our police - E can arrest those that go against our moral code. > > Hang on, though - A-D don’t all have the same moral code. A, for example, as a theist, may want people who blaspheme against their deity to be arrested. C agrees. B and D do not - they don’t believe in that deity, so why does it matter if you say bad things about them? On the other hand, B is very much in favour of abortions. C is too - C’s religious, but believes that abortion is still morally correct ( up until a certain point). A and D are very much against abortion - A because of his belief in a deity that says it’s bad, and D because she believes that a fetus is as living, and has the same rights, as we do, logically. Should abortionists be arrested? Argh! They cannot decide! What can they do?! > > Well, they can compromise - A and C might agree that the police should not arrest blasphemers, but in return, B and D might agree that police can arrest those who stir up hatred against religious groups. Likewise, A and D might come to a comprimise with B and C as to the time of the pregnancy at which a fetus can still be aborted. Hooray! They’re in (relative) agreement! E can now arrest people, and, in general, people will be happy with this arrangement. They’ll disagree with some things inevitably, but on the whole, more people are happier. > > So, along comes Hitler (Boo! Hiss!). His moral positions are not the same as A-D either! They’re just as subjective, though - they are no more wrong or right than the others! So, what can we do to him, if he is not, objectively , wrong? > > Well, Hitler’s actions and beliefs are seen to be subjectively wrong by A-D. So, laws against him are passed, and he is arrested! (Hooray!). Four people are happy - A-D are all very pleased, and they feel happiness. One person is sad - Hitler’s not gonna be a happy bunny in prison. Overall, then, what’s been achieved? Well, four people are happy, one person is unhappy. It’s a victory for (subjective) morality! Hoooray! > > I realise this is a simplification - Hitler’s arrest is also good for many other people who may be killed in the future because of him, plus it gives the families of those killed, as well as strangers who are morally opposed, happy thoughts. Likewise, there’s going to be more people who are unpleased - Hitler’s supporters aren’t gonna be happy. But I think you’ll understand my general point - morality is subjective, but a group/culture can still act in accordance with a comprimise of all their moral beliefs to counter those who disagree with them on one of those general comprimised beliefs. I’ve quoted this in it’s entirety because you’ve put your finger on the crux of the problem… as I see it. Your system, an atheistic system derives morality by popular consensus. According to your system if everybody decides that eating baby’s is moral… than it is. The gist of it is that morality is decided by consensus. This may in fact be true. It does however lead to some interesting consequences. Not long ago discrimination and even slavery were considered acceptable and moral by majorities in many societies. As you’ve outlined the system you’re describing as long as those majorities existed, it **was** moral. This ummmm, may in fact be an accurate assesment of the foundations of moral systems no matter how distasteful it looks. I however think differently. I dismiss moral relativism, and beleive that there are moral absolutes, and these rules exist and are correct independant of one’s personal beliefs or the consensus beliefs of a given population. For example, I beleive that breeding and raising human children so that they may be slaughtered and eaten as a gourmet food is inherently evil, and that no amount of rationalization or popular support can make it moral. (I chose something so out there that I think we can all agree on it.) I think that right and wrong exist independant or our personal opinions, and that to be moral people we must act in respect to this. To build my moral code, I start with the premise that there is a creator and the moral code derives from that creator, and that it is knowable and discernable to me and all others who seek it. More importantly, I believe that all others who seek it are working on solving the same equation and that there is or are right answers to be found and wrong answers. I do not beleive the rightness and wrongness is completely relative or subjective. I would be curious if your concept of moral relativism or morality by popular vote is the consensus among atheists, or, if atheists too believe that morality is absolute. (I’m glad you read the article) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/375 "2005-12-15T02:07:23Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’ve quoted this in it’s entirety because you’ve put your finger on the crux of the problem… as I see it. > > Your system, an atheistic system derives morality by popular consensus. According to your system if everybody decides that eating baby’s is moral… than it is. > > The gist of it is that morality is decided by consensus. No, it derives morality in exactly the same way as theists, by pure intuition and personal aesthetic. It also derives _cultural_ mores and standards of behavior from popular consensus (just like theists) but cultural standards are a completely different animal than personal morality. I’ve never derived a single moral thought from any fucking consensus. > [@](#): > > I however think differently. I dismiss moral relativism[.quote] > And yet you still practice it…as you _must_. > > > [@](#): > > > > and beleive that there are moral absolutes, and these rules exist and are correct independant of one’s personal beliefs or the consensus beliefs of a given population. > > > > For example, I beleive that breeding and raising human children so that they may be slaughtered and eaten as a gourmet food is inherently evil, and that no amount of rationalization or popular support can make it moral. > > > > (I chose something so out there that I think we can all agree on it.) > > > > I think that right and wrong exist independant or our personal opinions, and that to be moral people we must act in respect to this. > > And, just like my own, all of these beliefs are derived from nothing but your own moral aesthetic. > > > [@](#): > > > > To build my moral code, I start with the premise that there is a creator > > A premise which is completely unsupportable. > > > [@](#): > > > > and the moral code derives from that creator, and that it is knowable and discernable to me and all others who seek it. > > Un other words, you base yor moral code on absolutely nothing objective or supportable. Your assertion that this creator’s moral code is “discernable” is (excuse my bluntness) a complete crock of shit. > > > [@](#): > > > > More importantly, I believe that all others who seek it are working on solving the same equation and that there is or are right answers to be found and wrong answers. > > Prove it. Prove that any sort of objective morality is knowable. If you can’t prove it, then all you’re doing is basing your moral system on the same intuitive aesthetic as everybody else. Claiming you “believe” that your moral system is magically derived from an invisible sky god is just adding extra words but no actual substance. Claiming an objective morality exists will not make it so. > > > [@](#): > > > > I do not beleive the rightness and wrongness is completely relative or subjective. > > And yet your morality is still completely subjective. > > > [@](#): > > > > I would be curious if your concept of moral relativism or morality by popular vote is the consensus among atheists > > “Moral relativism” is one of those fake appelations like “Darwinism” which is used to obfuscate or distort an opponents view rather than to describe a real position. This agnostic, weak atheist is absolutely not a moral relativist. I believe that my morality is the right one and that’s the end of it. I am also not a politician and I do not derive my moral system from “consenuses” or polls. I don’t believe that anyone else does either. > > > [@](#): > > > > or if atheists too believe that morality is absolute. > > Of course we do. We just don’t believe it’s revealed to us in code by invisible, wrathful sky gods. > > Let me ask you the same question I’ve tried to ask **Shodan**. Can all human beings tell the difference between objective right and wrong? Yes or no? > (I’m glad you read the article) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/376 "2005-12-15T02:08:21Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I’ve quoted this in it’s entirety because you’ve put your finger on the crux of the problem… as I see it. > > Your system, an atheistic system derives morality by popular consensus. According to your system if everybody decides that eating baby’s is moral… than it is. Sort of. It’s certainly moral to them. It’s not moral to us. The difference in this case would be, as it’s the majority morality, they would be fine legislating as a society to allow baby eating. > [@](#): > > The gist of it is that morality is decided by consensus. No. Morality is decided by the individual. Consensus determines the majority morality - in which most people are forced to comprimise and give up some things they’d be able to do normally in exchange for protection or aid. > [@](#): > > This may in fact be true. It does however lead to some interesting consequences. Not long ago discrimination and even slavery were considered acceptable and moral by majorities in many societies. As you’ve outlined the system you’re describing as long as those majorities existed, it **was** moral. No. It was moral to those people. It is not moral to us. There is no “At that time, it was moral”, only “at that time, the marjority morality agreed it was moral”. And the majority morality today disagrees. > [@](#): > > This ummmm, may in fact be an accurate assesment of the foundations of moral systems no matter how distasteful it looks. Definetly distasteful - i’d much prefer a deity that sets a moral standard. However, i’d want that deity to have a moral standard close to mine - as, I imagine, would everyone else. > [@](#): > > I however think differently. I dismiss moral relativism, and beleive that there are moral absolutes, and these rules exist and are correct independant of one’s personal beliefs or the consensus beliefs of a given population. Very well. I disagree - I do not think there are moral absolutes. > [@](#): > > For example, I beleive that breeding and raising human children so that they may be slaughtered and eaten as a gourmet food is inherently evil, and that no amount of rationalization or popular support can make it moral. Again, I disagree. It is only evil from our viewpoint - from other’s, it may be moral. > [@](#): > > (I chose something so out there that I think we can all agree on it.) Sorry. It can be as out there as you like, and it’d still not be evil objectively - only from our viewpoints. > [@](#): > > I think that right and wrong exist independant or our personal opinions, and that to be moral people we must act in respect to this. I do not think that right and wrong exist independant of our personal opinions. I believe they are a part of ourselves - and that to be moral people we must follow our own moral code. > [@](#): > > To build my moral code, I start with the premise that there is a creator and the moral code derives from that creator, and that it is knowable and discernable to me and all others who seek it. Actually, you make an additional assumption; that the moral code provided by that deity is the “correct” and “valid” one. Cthulhu could exist, but any moral code set out by him I would imagine you’d call “incorrect”. > [@](#): > > More importantly, I believe that all others who seek it are working on solving the same equation and that there is or are right answers to be found and wrong answers. Acceptable. > [@](#): > > I do not beleive the rightness and wrongness is completely relative or subjective. I do. > [@](#): > > I would be curious if your concept of moral relativism or morality by popular vote is the consensus among atheists, or, if atheists too believe that morality is absolute. I, personally, am an agnostic, and this is personally what I believe. I cannot speak for other athiests. I can’t myself say how one could reconcile both athiesm and a concept of moral objectivism, because it would entail believing in a “cosmis moral standard”, which seems to me as though it would have to be spiritual in nature - although i’m sure it could be argued that athiests can believe in the spiritual but not deities. > [@](#): > > (I’m glad you read the article) Sure. It was definetly interesting, even if I didn’t agree with it. Feel free to suggest anything else you find informative. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/377 "2005-12-15T02:09:19Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > And I would add that it’s impossible to COMPEL someone to accept a particular moral aesthetic anyway. You can compel their behavior, but not their belief. You can’t even compel your own belief, even if you would prefer to believe something you don’t believe. > [@Pochacco](#): > > If you want to change someone’s morals you have to do it through argument and persuation. **Diogenes** seems to be saying he never wants to do this, which I find rather strange. > [@Scylla](#): > > I would be curious if your concept of moral relativism or morality by popular vote is the consensus among atheists, or, if atheists too believe that morality is absolute. It may not be a consensus view, but an absolute morality is conceivable without a theistic worldview. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/378 "2005-12-15T03:28:50Z")
> [@](#): > > For example, I beleive that breeding and raising human children so that they may be slaughtered and eaten as a gourmet food is inherently evil, and that no amount of rationalization or popular support can make it moral. I agree that that is evil. I wish I could go along with the adjective “inherent.” But because you can I feel compelled to ask if the following actions also are “inherently” evil, and if not, can you explain the difference? Is it inherently evil to firebomb a city, knowing with absolute certainly that it will cause many human children to die in anguish? Is it inherently evil to attack a city and kill all the occupants, including the children, because you believe your god wants you to do so? ## Is it inherently evil to be willing to ritually sacrifice your only child, because you believe it to be the will of Yahweh? ~Baal~ ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/379 "2005-12-15T03:48:47Z")
Diogenes: > [@](#): > > I’ve never derived a single moral thought from any fucking consensus. I think that would make you unique. > [@](#): > > And, just like my own, all of these beliefs are derived from nothing but your own moral aesthetic Where does this moral aesthetic come from? How do you derive it? > [@](#): > > A premise which is completely unsupportable.(that there is a creator) It’s not unsupportable. There are only several possibilities: 1. The universe was created by a creator. 2. It created itself or just happened 3. The idea that it needs a creator is flawed and it simply always existed 4. It does not exist. If we take scientific thought back to the Big Bang, we still have an unknowable incident. What created the Big Bang? By definition, there was nothing before it. It’s an event without causation. What precipitates such an event is as good a definition of God as you’ll likely find. So, there’s some support. However, choosing any other possiblity from the list is equally supported or unsupported as the case may be, maybe less so unless you care to speculate on what caused the uncausable. > [@](#): > > Un other words, you base yor moral code on absolutely nothing objective or supportable. Your assertion that this creator’s moral code is “discernable” is (excuse my bluntness) a complete crock of shit. Yes. I said as much. I simply beleive it, as an article of faith. I’ve selected the possibility that a God exists, a moral code exists and that it is discernible from a group of equally nonobjective nonsupportable suppositions, simply because that seems to make the most sense and be the most useful explanation. Provide me with an explanation that another explanation is more supportable and useful than the one that I’ve chosen and I’d likely change my mind. I have before. > [@](#): > > Prove it. Prove that any sort of objective morality is knowable. If you can’t prove it, then all you’re doing is basing your moral system on the same intuitive aesthetic as everybody else. Claiming you “believe” that your moral system is magically derived from an invisible sky god is just adding extra words but no actual substance. Claiming an objective morality exists will not make it so. I don’t understand why you’re being an asshole. I did not claim my beliefs were provable and beleive I’ve already said or implied they weren’t. It is in a tenant of most brands of theism that faith is necessary. With proof there is no need for faith. I can’t know it’s true. I can simply beleive. > [@](#): > > And yet your morality is still completely subjective. You seem stuck on this issue. I _believe_ that it is not. > [@](#): > > “Moral relativism” is one of those fake appelations like “Darwinism” which is used to obfuscate or distort an opponents view rather than to describe a real position. That’s semantics bullshit. You can call it “subjective morality” or “moral relativism,” for all I care. Unless you provide me with a useful distinction or grounds for your objection to the term, you’re just handwaving. > [@](#): > > Of course we do. We just don’t believe it’s revealed to us in code by invisible, wrathful sky gods. So you say. Revenant doesn’t appear to agree. Belittling my theism does nothing to improve your arguments, you know. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you the same question I’ve tried to ask Shodan. Can all human beings tell the difference between objective right and wrong? Yes or no? I don’t know. My guess, not all, all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491/380 "2005-12-15T03:59:51Z")
Revenant: We seem to be getting to the point where we understand each other and where our beliefs diverge and are not reconcilable. Cool. > [@](#): > > Actually, you make an additional assumption; that the moral code provided by that deity is the “correct” and “valid” one. Cthulhu could exist, but any moral code set out by him I would imagine you’d call “incorrect”. Cthulu is not God. He’s not even a God. Having read much of the Cthulu mythos it seems that Cthulu is just an alien and possibly a transdimensial one. He doesn’t fit the definition of God. To not ignore your point, let’s look at Mumbo Jumbo, the Creator/Supreme God of a hypothetical headhunter tribe. Is headhunting then moral? If Mumbo Jumbo is real, and is the creator, and headhunting is moral, than he would create a universe in which the positive morality of hunting would be evident or discernable. To flesh out my argument a little further. I beleive that morality is discernable just as the laws of physics are discernable. In Mumbo Jumbo’s universe, a group of morally committed non-headhunters would be able to discern that morality of headhunting. > [@](#): > > I, personally, am an agnostic, and this is personally what I believe. I cannot speak for other athiests. I can’t myself say how one could reconcile both athiesm and a concept of moral objectivism, because it would entail believing in a “cosmis moral standard”, which seems to me as though it would have to be spiritual in nature - although i’m sure it could be argued that athiests can believe in the spiritual but not deities. I agree. Nor do I think it’s a weakness in atheism. It’s just a choice of what you beleive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-are-not-just-another-religion/334491.md?page=20)