@zaloomination #atheist #theist
Well, this looks like a booklet rather than a question, but never mind that,
i will try to answer your concerns, after i sort them out :-)
----------------------

-1a- You find my moral standing regarding questions of morality to be good and correct.
But you can't see how Atheism can lead to a good coherent set of moral values.
-----------------------

question -1a- is very similar to the last question -1g- but i will address them each.
A good set of morals, as opposed to a not so good set of morals will inevitable lead to a
more prosperous, stable and peaceful society. As a direct consequence, the individuals in this society
would enjoy the benefits of compliance. There is also the matter of the golden rule, with a bit of
atheist twist to it :-) "Do NOT do onto others, what you DO NOT want done onto yourself" ... merely to
negate the negative effects of bad taste :-)

ok, so those interesting immoral activities that seem to beneficial but are considered immoral never the less due,
according to you, to heavenly guidance.

rape: sure it potentially leads to more offspring, but that offspring will lack a full family, will
likely need more care from society to become a normally functioning member, and even then, runs the
risk of becoming a weak member of that society. So rape may NOT be beneficial, not even in the medium run.
Never mind the harm done to the raped female, being hurt by the experience and may never rear another child as a result.
rape is not beneficial. therefore it is not moral ...

murder: Well, this one is a no brainer, a society that allows murder will likely dwindle in size very quickly,
so there would be none left ... it is immoral to murder.

theft: it is important to note, that the most successful societies are the once that allow and facilitate the
amicable and fair distribution of resources between it's members. Theft in general disrupts this distribution,
and that is what makes it immoral to do.
And for the sake of fairness, I am aware of societies, mostly nomadic in nature, where theft is part of the wealth
redistribution mechanism of the society, and these societies do not consider it immoral ...

lying: it is quite disruptive to the functions of society and even the individuals of a society when truth is
not propagated properly on the transaction and dealings. It is an obvious one, you didn't bring it up, but
never the less.

adultery:This is actually linked to human nature, having an extra marital affair is not desirable, and mostly
by the other participant of the marital relationship. And it end up undermining the stability and viability
of this relationship, children also suffer the side effects, in a negative way, and it is not difficult to
why this one is also immoral.

child[abuse][rape][etc]: Society requires, needs, would like to have mentally, psychologically and physically
healthy and strong individuals. These heinous acts damage and or reduce these and many more aspects of the
individual when they grow up. It is an obvious negative for a society that allows this, and needless to
point out that it is immoral.


-1b- You grapple with individual moral values, testing their validity from the theist and the atheist view point,
that is great. But you cant see how a godless system would function.
-----------------------

Well I guess by individually detailing many major immoral acts in section -1a- I would have derived the reasoning as
to why there is no need for a god to dictate morals to people. it looks very much to be a innate capability in humans.
We humans are capable of moral behaviour as an individual, a family, a small group, and a society. And can make and live
and prosper under natural moral systems.
The golden rule, being a rule, also comes in handy when we want to judge an unknown situation "Do NOT do onto others,
what you DO NOT want done onto yourself".

-1c- You wonder how an Atheist would discern right from wrong, "Indeed, "Justice", Right & Wrong" don't really mean
anything on atheism, it's an evolved, man-made idea to manipulate people to do what only some with power or influence may want."
-----------------------
Indeed, right and wrong are words... but they do carry meaning, specially in regard to what I have answered so far.
it is right if it falls under "moral" and acceptable by the known moral rules of society ... it is wrong if it does not.
The moral standard accepted by society supersedes the application of the golden rule. Needless to say if society
has no previous exposure to the event or the deed, we need to apply the golden rule.

Lets apply it to bone marrow transplant.
- It is a good case to apply, because, let's say, we don't have a moral/immoral society level rule. because it is new,
and we have not addressed it before. This is for the sake of argument here.

- would I like to get a bone marrow transplant if I needed it, say, to save my life? :: yes I would.

- would I be willing to donate bone marrow, to save someone else's life. Knowing that the procedure would be a bit
painful, but would have no lasting effects?

# at this point we have applied the golden rule with
positive outcome.

- Is the performance of this procedure a net positive to society in general? :: I think, the answer here is a yes,
since the sick individual will be cured, and I won't be harmed in any meaningful way. And thus we can add this to the
"moral" side of society rules ... to make future decisions simpler.

# obviously you have noticed that we have added the bone marrow transplant to the moral rules of society based on our example.
This is to demonstrate why the atheist moral system evolves and adapts along time and space. and how that is a good thing.

-1d- The issue of the lack of afterlife , heaven and hell, grave torment (Islam), karma etc... and how would that
influence the Atheist regarding the leading of a morally acceptable lifestyle.
-----------------------
Since we Atheists, and all non theists for that matter are very fact and evidence (scientifically verifiable and testable
facts and observations that is) based. And as a consequence of there being no evidence of these afterlife events what so ever.
We correctly arrive at the conclusion that these events and places do not exist :-) Pure and very simple isn't it.
As a consequence of this and the other factors regarding moral behaviour, we only have this life to do good to our
society and to ourselves.

If some of us end up doing bad,immoral deeds, then we duly expect our punishment to happen here in this life, severely
reducing our ability to fully enjoy it. And believe me, that is a very big deterrent for an Atheist :-)

-1e- "its is wrong to force your morality on others" , "Might Makes Right." & And this is exactly what we see (& would expect to see)
in the animal kingdom.... How to set moral values in a society, and how to make that work.
-----------------------

Moral behaviour, or what we call moral behaviour in Humans, is in fact remarkably wide spread among animals in nature.

# many animals do mate for life ...
# cannibalism is very rare. And when it happens, it is mostly directed against the members of a different group or pride.
# Most animals take care of their offspring, for varying length of time and to varying degrees. Very few species leave their
offspring to the elements. And even those would have millions of offspring from one copulation.
# Many animals do compassionately care about each other and their offspring in times of crises.

If you do take away our complex human behaviour, and interactivity, we do have a lot in common with the moral behaviour
of animal, and to be specific mammals in particular.

You can not force a morality of one group (society) living in one environmental and temporal setting onto another society
living in a different environmental and temporal setting. For one, the sets of moral rules would not be appropriate or
adequate for the other society, but most importantly, morality is inane, and moral rule sets need to be arrived at with
consensus to be effective.

Many Non theists ( Atheists ) do find a multitude of the bible moral guidelines to be unacceptable for this environment and time.
And the stunning thing is, most Christians will find them equally repugnant too.

for example we don't consider stoning our children practical when they curse us.

We do not advocate the stoning to death of those who work on Saturday.

And also we would not like to our newly wed spouse killed, just for finding her v-card stamped.

nor do we find it acceptable to offer up our daughters for rape to strangers.

We also find slavery to be, you know, unacceptable.

And religion has this caveat that you have to take all or be damned , you can't cherry pick... not a very flexible approach :-)

-1f- "It might not be socially acceptable or it might be taboo for humans to rape another, but there's nothing really objectively wrong with it. Naturalistic evolution is divorced from any concern with or sense of truly objective morality." The question of objective / subjective morality ... relative / absolute morality ... ok, will address it that way.
-----------------------

Well I guess I exhausted that one. Rape is immoral, and i have explained why. I have also delved into relative and
absolute / subjective and objective morality. I think i have provided plenty of examples for both, and how this works out.

-1g- "See, you have the good moral values, but you don't have any objective basis for those values. You should consider
a belief in God so that when you're fighting the "evil" & promoting the "good", you have an objective transcendent
basis on which to make your moral claims, which I as a theist can believe are really "good"." ... to wonder if you
need a god to have moral values ...
-----------------------
In my answers, you will find that reason , knowledge , rationality and human ingenuity are quite potent tools to guarantee a
morally and humanly acceptable answer without the invocation of supernatural and or mythical powers.

Reply · Report Post