So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[shunyadragon]

In addition, atheists and agnostics have consciences, and senses of right and wrong.

Universal with humanity taking into consideration we all our fallible humans.

Not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto - whatever that may be - but just get on with life, like anyone else.

Of course, not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto, but you understate its relevance. It does not determine anybodies morals and ethics, but it does reflect the evolution of morals and ethics from the humanist perspective.

Which would you prefer; the Humanist Manifesto, the Ten Commandments, or the full book of laws the Ten Commandments came from?

It is because they are often highly moral people that many of them are not favourably impressed by those who have a religion.

Depends on how you define religion.

Note: The statues and facia of the Supreme Court reflects the influence of many cultures and religions, and their morals and ethics contributing to the legal system and Laws of the United States

[Tassman]

The working premise need only be that there is no god.

Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.

Unfortunately for most, if not all, atheists have a fundamental problem with absolute truths.

What "absolute truths" are these?

And those who actually know God could not honestly make that premise.

Delusions are like that.

[seer]

Whag, I'm not saying that believers are more moral than non-believers, I saying that non-believers do have the luxury of changing their moral code as it suits them. And why not, if morals are relative it logically follows that these personal changes are rational.

[mossrose]

Whag, I'm not saying that believers are more moral than non-believers, I saying that non-believers do have the luxury of changing their moral code as it suits them. And why not, if morals are relative it logically follows that these personal changes are rational.

Yes. The standard for believers is laid out in God's word, and shown to us as well in the person of Christ. According to that standard, we are not to be swayed by the changing cultural "values" that a godless society presents as moral behaviour. Because God does not change His standard for our behaviour, neither can we.

[seer]

Yes. The standard for believers is laid out in God's word, and shown to us as well in the person of Christ. According to that standard, we are not to be swayed by the changing cultural "values" that a godless society presents as moral behaviour. Because God does not change His standard for our behaviour, neither can we.

Exactly, but the moral relativist is under no such restriction. It would be perfectly rational for her to change her moral standard if she has set it too high (therefore too difficult), or if it interferes with a presently strong desire. The same with any associated guilt that might be generated since that too is merely the result of personal or cultural relative norms.

[37818]

Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.

Of course it is only valid there not being any kind of god.

What "absolute truths" are these?

All truth.

Delusions are like that.

No. There is a difference which you fail to acknowledge. On the premise that there is no god, and one is merely asserting knowing a non existent god, then yes, delusional. But the argument to which you stated this was against someone who is "actually" knowing God, in which case the premise of there being "no god" is the delusion.

[Rushing Jaws]

Universal with humanity taking into consideration we all our fallible humans.

Of course, not all bother with the Humanist Manifesto, but you understate its relevance. It does not determine anybodies morals and ethics, but it does reflect the evolution of morals and ethics from the humanist perspective.

Which would you prefer; the Humanist Manifesto, the Ten Commandments, or the full book of laws the Ten Commandments came from?

Depends on how you define religion.

Note: The statues and facia of the Supreme Court reflects the influence of many cultures and religions, and their morals and ethics contributing to the legal system and Laws of the United States

That is the US. Not all atheism is found there.

[Starlight]

So Easy To Be An Atheist! I mean what is not to like, you get to make up your own moral code, live by it, then claim to be virtuous.

Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.

I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".

And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires, and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?

Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:

[Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

Consider it this way: Imagine a monk who has achieved the acetic ideal of simply meditating on God's glory all day in his small room and he lives out his live in this way. He doesn't transgress any "thou shalt not" commandments. He doesn't kill or even think of doing so, etc. According to deontological moral views he's "perfect" because he hasn't transgressed a single command - by avoiding doing anything he's moral because he's broken no "do not do X" rules. But according to any utilitarian view he's very immoral: He's making no effort at all to maximize the well-being of others. He's not helping people, he's not improving people's lives, he's not bringing happiness to people (other than perhaps himself). Utilitarianism demands that rather than sit on his butt all day doing nothing useful, that he actually be thinking about how he can best help others and be doing it.

This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.

[Rushing Jaws]

Seems like a reasonable "working premise" to me.



What "absolute truths" are these?

That Sparko likes bacon ?

Delusions are like that.

[Rushing Jaws]

Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.

I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".



And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires,

That is too vague to mean much. Clarify, please ?

and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?

I wonder what that refers to ? All sin is against God, so whom else are we to ask ?


Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:

[Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

[Rushing Jaws]

Generally the most widely held atheist ethical view is utilitarianism, and one of the critiques of it among philosophers is that it's too hard:

[Utiliarianism has] the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding.

This is in contrast to deontological ethics (which your divine-command view falls under) which isn't so demanding, because it's a list of things to not do as opposed to demands that we do things. So in deontological views you can generally be moral by doing nothing (i.e. refraining from committing any wrongs) and in utilitarian views you absolutely cannot be moral by doing nothing - failure to act is judged as immoral.

Consider it this way: Imagine a monk who has achieved the acetic ideal of simply meditating on God's glory all day in his small room and he lives out his live in this way. He doesn't transgress any "thou shalt not" commandments. He doesn't kill or even think of doing so, etc. According to deontological moral views he's "perfect" because he hasn't transgressed a single command - by avoiding doing anything he's moral because he's broken no "do not do X" rules. But according to any utilitarian view he's very immoral: He's making no effort at all to maximize the well-being of others. He's not helping people, he's not improving people's lives, he's not bringing happiness to people (other than perhaps himself).

That is a caricature. Monks, no mattered how cloistered, help people in ways that are real, even when they do not register when tested by those ethics.

Utilitarianism demands that rather than sit on his butt all day doing nothing useful, that he actually be thinking about how he can best help others and be doing it.

Some people help the world and the Church best by following their God-given calling to be monks or nuns.

European civilisation was preserved or built by monks.

This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.

Such a monk would be very very very far from Christian perfection. He would have made a beginning, but only a beginning. Christian perfection is not a mere absence of doing external evil actions.

[Tassman]

That Sparko likes bacon ?

Ah! I stand defeated.

Before God can be known "experimentally" he must be assumed to exist and there is no good reason to make such an assumption.

[crepuscule]

Exactly, but the moral relativist is under no such restriction. It would be perfectly rational for her to change her moral standard if she has set it too high (therefore too difficult), or if it interferes with a presently strong desire. The same with any associated guilt that might be generated since that too is merely the result of personal or cultural relative norms.

[seer]

Well if one is a Christian a number of things follow if we disobey God. One is true guilt and sorrow for disappointing our heavenly Father, second the possibility of chastisement. In any case the believer is not at liberty to lessen the demands of God's law.

[seer]

Is 100% of what you say about atheists projection? Just wondering.

I mean you worship "Christ crucified", and your sig is "Atheism is the cult of death".

And then, when Christians are famous for twisting the bible to suit their own moral desires, and when they believe they can claim christ for free forgiveness anytime they fail, you say it's atheists who have it morally easy?

That is nonsense Star, either you don't know devout believers or you seek to twist what they think.

This level of high demand - that we always seek out and do the absolute best thing we can to maximize freedom/happiness/well-being is often considered by philosophers to be so difficult to fulfill and so demanding as to constitute an argument against utilitarianism because it's too hard, as compared to standard historical Christian views where being good was about not doing things like stealing or killing etc.

But there are no actual demands in utilitarianism because utilitarianism has no inherent moral authority - take it or leave it, it is all the same in the end. Where the law of God is universal, exacting and the ruling authority over all mankind.