Why can't atheists define whats right and wrong?

Why can't atheists define whats right and wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They believe other people who are smarter than them can define it and tell them what's right and wrong. Unfortunately, the people they look up to (bill nye the shabbos goy and black science man) aren't smart, but they are very very good goys, so the kike media presents them in a very good light.

Because there is no true morality, only subjective.

One moment you're creating morals the next moment you're a, "muh principles" an-cap fag.

ILL NEVER HAVE PRINCIPLES

NEVER

All is opinion

Because they believe that there are standards simply because of religion.

I'm a deist (which is basically believing in God but also believing he doesn't want to/cannot interfere) and my standards are based on what I would not like to experience personally.

because their worldview is amoral

i dont know which atheists you mean.

Because most atheists are not irreligious, they have simply supplanted traditional morals with militant relativism, an ideology of nothingness.

In this framework, it begins with no objective reality, which in a vacuum, could be considered a good thing. However, we live in a media and academic environment dominated by Jewish Marxists and their shabbos goys as we have seen- anti-Christian/anti-White etc.

It's not perfect, but the old truism is at play

>if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Leftists are the best example of this

Morality doesn't exist

>Because there is no true morality
>Morality doesn't exist
how do you know?
are you guys gnostic atheists?

Burden of proof is on the person asserting that it does exist.

I can.

What's wrong it's what causes one to reify the false notion of one's seperateness from the totality of existence and thus perpetuate the pain that this causes.

the claim was "morality doesn't exist" and "there is no true morality"
not "i personally, don't feel i have enough evidence to warrant the belief that moral truths exist"

You're on a website where every post gets at least a handful of "fuck nigger" comments.

Do you really think you're on a website with any sort of concrete idea of what's right or wrong?

Right and wrong are just words that dont mean anything.

It isn't a 'feeling' its a certainty. Lets say for example if you completely eradicated all existence of the concept of morality in its current day form. Would morality still exist? And if so, who would it effect?

>mfw ahteists have no moral barometer

Morality will eventually boil down to muh feels.
For example, on one hand murder is bad because it is harming someone. On the other, if you help prevent overpopulation and get a nice K/D ratio if you are a serial killer.
Bonus is if you kill a non white, because you are also saving the white race.

>It isn't a 'feeling' its a certainty
if that's how you feel, so be it
>Would morality still exist?
if moral realism were true, yes.
because according to moral realism (objective morality), the truth value of moral claims exist regardless of whether or not anyone is around to know or articulate what they are

Generally I base it on whether or not my actions or behavior hurts others who do not deserve to be hurt.

>believes in objective morality
top fucking kek

'morality' is just a codified set of behaviours expressed in an attempt to avoid suffering. the timescale and inclusiveness of that suffering can vary without but as long as their are concious beings there is morality

That if is quite important. The only way moral realism can exist is if there is someone or something to monitor and make sure the morals are correct. If not how can objective morality exist?

is everybody in this thread high on drugs because i can't understand anything you're talking about

>The only way moral realism can exist is if there is someone or something to monitor and make sure the morals are correct.
no. did you even read what i said?
the opposite is true.

philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

But what if there was a silicon based species out there that couldn't suffer? Of course they would be conscious, so how would morality work there?

...

you need to elaborate first how one can be concious and not have the potential to suffer

We'll say for this example that the silicon species cannot sense pain, and does not have emotions in the way humans do. They act more like a collective than an individual, so if one dies it doesn't matter because there are others and they all know and accept this.

Because one principle of logic is causality, meaning everything as a reason. Something that doenst have a reason is irrational.
The concept of God and morality is something irrational, and there is no rational explanation for something irrational.
Logic will never explain how it all started.

>Why can't atheists define whats right and wrong?
I can, why can't you ?

Right-causes oxytocin to produce in your brain
Wrong-Makes you feel disgust and anger

So its subjective next question.

How do they sense that the existence of the collective is under threat? are they indifferent to it?

They do define what's right and wrong, and that is according to their own subjective views and fewwings. No wonder they're so narcissistic, when they choose to be their own moral compass. They have no principles.

Nobody can
All morals are relative. Objective morality is a fallacy.
Even if you believe in and adhere to a religion's moral code, that's your subjective choice. There is no objectivity involved in that.

No, they aren't indifferent to it, if they have the ability to fend off the invader they will do so. If they cannot fight off the invader they will run. If they cannot run then they will die. They have no problems with any of these scenarios. Their prime directive is to survive and propagate but if their time comes they will accept it.

Religious people can't either. Why are there so many disagreements between different sects of a religion? Why do they always interpret it differently?

t
the principle of sufficient reason/causality you're talking about only applies to things that begin to exist.
God and other necessary beings, being eternal, did not begin to exist, they always were.

I truly do not understand how morals can exist with no one to observe them. Humans included.

if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

truths exists regardless of what we know, how we know, or if we can ever know

Here's a definition; what's good for me is right, and what's bad for me is wrong.

Stealing cars is not good for me. It requires a lot of work and a lifestyle that would be radically different from mine, so I don't do it. Plus there's the police.

I don't steal from family because it doesn't help me to sacrifice those relationships. On the other hand, in the absence of civilized society there is every reason to rob strangers.

This is a fucked up morality, but it goddamn works.

If no one or nothing is around to hear it, no it does not make a sound.

Only insane people or children believe in objective morality.

What you call feeling good is due to oxytocin being released in your brain.

If you genetically modified a human to feel oxytocin when they killed a person then from that person's point of view MURDER IS MORALLY RIGHT.

>Here's a definition; what's good for me is right, and what's bad for me is wrong.
If right and wrong is something that needs a definition, then good and bad need them too.
What's good and what's bad for you. Is you dying bad? Is you doing something that leads to your death bad? Does that mean everything you do is bad because everything you do will lead to your death?

Truths exist as physical reality, morals are literally a human interpretation of events. Morals have no direct consequences in reality - actions do.

>This is a fucked up morality, but it goddamn works.

Sure, if you think Somalia is a nice place to live.

Can god define what's right and wrong?

I would posit that they are not concious if they do not suffer any pain at death yet they follow programming unquestioningly that tells them to survive

What would you define as conscious then?

>Truths exist as physical reality
>morals are literally a human interpretation of events
all truths are dependent on subjective minds to be known and articulated, including physical reality

>good and bad need definitions too
Yes and? Did you think that somehow invalidates their point?

All of those things are subjective. You can try and use logic like 'greatest net benefit for the greatest amount of people' but it's still your subjective opinion to believe that. People who think differently to that have just as valid an opinion as you.

>this is what atheists actually believe

if nothing observes something then that something doesnt exist.

When I say truth, I'm referring to things like 2+2=4. These things do not require your subjective validation to be true, because the rules exist externally to you

When it comes to morals, they are purely internal and subjective.

>When I say truth, I'm referring to things like 2+2=4
me too.
> These things do not require your subjective validation to be true,
agreed, neither would the truth value of moral claims
i said "dependent on subjective minds to be known and articulated" not "to exist"

>When it comes to morals, they are purely internal and subjective.
what makes you so sure?

I actually don't know how to define it, I've just spending time thinking about the things that are not it

>Did you think that somehow invalidates their point?
No, I'm pointing out that the questions isnt answered because the answer is lacking definitions.
If you use words that arent defined to define something, that you werent really successfull.
>All of those things are subjective.
Logic is not subjective. Logic is a tool based on objective principles. Like math, unless you belive math is subjective. Then I can't help you.

Well then we stand at an impasse.

that's retarded
not really sure what else to say

Because morals are literally an opinion - a personal interpretation of actions. There is no single objective universal moral code that everyone agrees on - it's subjective to the individual. Even if you believe in a religion'a moral code, that's your personal subjective choice and nobody else has any obligation to agree with you

>implying you need god to tell you right from wrong

you are fucking retarded

Morals are not inherently logical

But I stand by my first comment

Cant argue with facts so u resort to defamation. kek

Faggot.

This. It's proven to be incredibly consistent.

>Consistently abuse the terms 'right ad wrong'
>Surprised that they don't seem to mean anything.

There is a right and a wrong, but you fools are too gullible to understand what that means for you.

But wouldn't having the knowledge that your existence is finite be liberating rather than imprisoning?

They do, arbitrarily. They base it entirely on what's most efficient for the survival of the human race and on their feelings. lol

no u

Shut up nigger.


But seriously though..I don't think I've seen one thread not spiral into the abyss.

...

>Because morals are literally an opinion
the same can't be said about reality itself?
why the special pleading?

>There is no single objective universal moral code that everyone agrees on
irrelevant, what we know, how we know, whether or not we know has no bearing on what actually is.
you can't bridge the gap between methodology to metaphysics (this goes to you too, bitch )

>if you believe in a religion'a moral code, that's your personal subjective choice and nobody else has any obligation to agree with you
what does that have to do with its ontology?

We havent found a rational source for them yet, and I claim there isnt one.
What I was just doing is questioning is logical conclusions from his first statement. I can agree and work with that, but everything that came from it was just wonky and not working. Not only because it was based on words which arent defined, but also just wrong reasoning.

You assume this species is capable of a perfect response.

To lie down and die when there is even the slightest chance of survival is a grave error.

>ctrl-f "utilitarian"
>no results
Why is this weak and obvious bait getting so many replies?

utilitarian ethics lead to all sorts of psychotic absurdities
plus the whole "suffering bad, pleasure good" good thing just pushes the problem back a step
why is suffering bad and why is pleasure good?

Well I suppose I didn't mention that the species is a highly efficient hive mind. But i did mention that they will fight if they can but if they cant they will flee and if they cant then they will die.

I'm an atheist and I believe in objective morality. Although I do believe the entire universe is inherently a single conscious entity, with every person simply being a self contained portion of that consciousness. That probably puts me outside of the normal atheistic groups though.

Most atheists are just good goy who take on whatever morality the media feeds them.

>Although I do believe the entire universe is inherently a single conscious entity
wouldn't this make you a pantheist rather than an atheist?

Is your argument "objective morals exist because how do you know they don't"? Am I understanding you right?

I may come to accept certain delusions, if I find those delusions useful. It may be that I could get away with screwing people over, but it would be hard, and it wouldn't be in my interests if they were close to me.

Anarchy does not result from selfish actions, as long as you can think in the long term. Look into Franz Oppenheimer. He demonstrated how class interaction forms hierarchies and order, even when one side gives no fucks about the other.

Wouldn't it only be liberating if the existence was painful?

Morality is cultural. Atheists see broadly Christain morals (Charity, kindliness, humility) as inherent to themselves or to 'humanism' values because they are culturized in implicit religion.

>Good and bad need a definition

If you don't know what's good or bad for you, you don't need morality. It would be wasted on you. You need a master with a firm hand.

no.
i'm not arguing for moral realism, i'm pointing out the inconsistency of your reasoning for saying that moral relativism/anti-realism is true

Because different people have different opinions on whats right and wrong.

live a happy life, try not to be a dick

because they have no valid explanation for our sentience
and whether or not we are just sacks of flesh or if there is a ghost operating the machine

Not necessarily. If you are immortal then regardless of the quality of this life (assuming you're talking about souls/spirits here,) you most probably will eventually get bored and desire death, but will be unable to attain it as you're immortal.

You can't define whats objectively right or wrong either.

Morals are an interpretation of events, not physical events themselves. They're inherently different.

I consider myself a pan-psychic. I don't believe in any God, so I think I am technically an atheist still.

That's not really atheism, that is just some bespoke new-age-y spiritualism.

Also, The Egg by Andy Weir if you haven't already.

If the basis of your existence can't be defined in clear, unambiguous terms, you cannot apply any moral understanding to your life.

You have to be able to pick one outcome over the other. Which outcome results in less reification?

>Morals are an interpretation of events, not physical events themselves.
i'm talking about the truth value of moral claims, not our subjective and fallible understanding of what they are.
saying "well, different people have different interpretations, therefore, they're all equal and there is no truth" about this and not any other proposition we hold to including reality itself when it faces the same problem is special pleading

atheist = no belief in god, so by that definition he is still an atheist.

We can, and we do it without the threat of our souls being condemned to eternal damnation if we don't do the right thing. Religion creates more evil than good. Not every religious person is bad, not every atheist is good, but there's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that religion makes people better people.

>posting Steve Harvey as a reaction face for moral high ground