Atheistic morality

[shickingbrits]

No, I would like to continue with fluoride.

Fluoride highlights the problems with a free market:

1. In a free market, the producer can have more means than the consumer to control information. A newspaper publishes damaging articles, buy ad space, buy stock, get leverage over the publisher, engage in legal battles, fund competitors. Profits aren't necessarily maximized by minimizing the costs. They can be maximized by hiding the costs.

2. Minimizing costs does not maximize profits. If the costs associated with fluoride were minimized, then the producer would lose profits, the dental and medical professions would lose profits, the bottled water companies would lose profits, the government would lose profits. The idea that maximizing profits improves people's lives is the broken window fallacy.

3. Free markets lead to monopolies. Once a product hits the market, the market has an incentive to deride profits off of it. The market profits the most when demand is high, supply is available but controlled, cost of production is minimized and cheaper alternatives are restricted. In this you can say that restricting alternatives is not part of the free market. But of course it is. If the technology which is going to displace fluoride is cheap, it will be bought up and put on ice. If it's expensive then the change over costs are prohibitive and the monopoly doesn't have to worry about it.

There are many examples of this. BP owns the patent on producing biofuel from algae. Rockefeller bought up compressed air technology.

Profit-and-lose does not motivate people to improve other people's lives. Profit provides means and motivation to maintain the status quo and lets the status quo dictate innovation. The concepts of free markets pay lip service to morality, while encouraging mass fraud. The entirety of the market has an incentive to turn air into energy, but the individual players of the market dictate that this will never be. The concept of getting rich enriches us all is null and void. It always has been and there was always a need to secure humanity against it.

[BoganGod]

...If I say that I am a sexy Chinese girl then it is possible for me to show you some evidence which demonstrates that what I say is true.

If you'd kindly provide your evidence, then maybe this circle jerk can come to a happy ending.

Oh, wow! My daily giggle!

+1

Now if someone would be so kind as to purchase shaggingtwits or whatever handle he/she/it goes by. A large print copy of Sophie's World. Possibly a large print copy of the pentateuch so he/she/it could see all the totally necessary genocides ordered by God. Genocides that conveniently led to large swathes of vacant arable land for migratory tribesmen to settle on as divine reward. Crime ain't crime, murder ain't murder, raping virgins ain't rape, if God tells you to do it.......

[shickingbrits]

Player,

Buddhism has the Golden rule, has the concept of Nirvana, and the concept of striving eternally for it.
That is, it has exactly the morality being argued here.

In treating everyone as their own individual, we are treating them the same.

Atheists can come by the same ideas. Then why don't they? Instead they have rejected the ideas that exist and say, we want none of these. Why? Because they are not true. Why? Because we found ways to disprove them. Why were you seeking ways to disprove them? Because we wanted to. Why did you want to, because we want to be better than others, we don't want to be confined by the rules of man, we want to act with impunity.

Atheism is a religion as much as any other. It's just the rejection of standards for one without standards. But of course atheists still have standards. Most atheists believe in the standard of random mutation creating inequality. Most atheists don't believe in an afterlife. What does that mean?

It means that they are their own standard and that standard is dictated by what they can do. The very same standard tells them if they can't do something then they are weak, but if they can do it then others are weak, and being strong is a necessity of survival. Having eliminated the weak through their strength becomes imperative. Bill Gates wish to depopulate Pakistan is a prime example. The poor of Pakistan are challenging the survival of the strong (Bill Gates). Because Bill Gates is strong, he should increase his chances of survival by eliminating the threat and his failure to do so shows weakness.

This is not morality. Morality is not any rule or guide. Black is not white, no matter how many books they write to say it is so.

[shickingbrits]

If someone could purchase a copy of the Bible for Bogan, he could see where Jesus condemned anyone who lives by the sword to die by the sword, where he says turn the other cheek, he without sin may cast the first stone, judge not because you will be judged by the judgements you cast.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, I would like to continue with fluoride.

Theory abstracts from reality in order to initially understand what portions of reality can be explained by theory. Theory is composed of narrower assumptions and is armed with hypothetical conditions (broader assumptions) that outline what the analyst should expect. Violations of the broad or narrow assumptions can thus be observed and in turn demand modification of the theory and its hypothetical conditions (or demand a better exposition of the theory on part of its adherents).

• Theory is like casting a net and seeing how many and what kind of fish one pulls in. The collection of fish can be changed by modifying theory and its hypothetical conditions.

The 'simple case' examined by theory is the necessary starting point for understanding more complex phenomena. It teaches you how to minimize the intrusion of cognitive bias. That's the underlying point of the scientific method; it's an outline for beginning to understand the real world. By refusing to engage in this scientific quest, one consequently welcomes the inevitable surge of one's cognitive bias.

• In other words, when you cast your shoddy net into the tumultuous seas of the real world, the net often breaks or brings in the 'wrong' fish, so you furiously throw it down and blame the net, the fish, and other people's nets. The problem is not the net or the fish; the problem is the maker of the net.

[Army of GOD]

this thread is fuckin terrible

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, in order to properly criticize something, you have to first know how to criticize so that you can understand what you're criticizing. Otherwise, it's emotionally charged complaining (e.g. see AoG's previous post. )

[tzor]

It doesn't take Christianity to know that the "Golden Rule" is a generally good idea.

Actually it doesn't make a "good idea" at all. It does make a nice social compact among people but as a general rule, one cannot assume the moral behaviors of others and if you live by that rule and the others do not, you're going to get the short end of the deal every time.

And even as a social compact it makes no sense unless there is an enforcement mechanism as the first person who knows how to game the system can violate it with immunity.

This sort of works in "Christianity" because getting the short end of the stick is sometimes considered noteworthy. (From direct quotes of the gospels, if someone forces you do to a thing, respond by doing a greater thing in return.) But even here it drives the Utopian Christians absolutely batty.

One might make a better argument for the libertarian rule (leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, but don't mess with me or I'll mess with you) because that rule allows for violations of the rule by the other.

[shickingbrits]

The reality is that the powers that be are poisoning the air, land and skies and then pointing to the poison in the air land and skies to demand more power.

The reality is that the powers that be are murdering people with drones, starvation, bombs which creates an enemy and then use that enemy to demand more power.

The reality is that the powers that be control technology and then say we need to make them rich in order to enjoy better technology.

The reality is that the powers that be have provided a new doctrine which justifies these acts and people are bending over backwards to fall for it.

Thanks for your theories though, now if I could just ignore reality like you, wouldn't I just be the most docile little worker bee.

[shickingbrits]

It doesn't take Christianity to know that the "Golden Rule" is a generally good idea.

Actually it doesn't make a "good idea" at all. It does make a nice social compact among people but as a general rule, one cannot assume the moral behaviors of others and if you live by that rule and the others do not, you're going to get the short end of the deal every time.

And even as a social compact it makes no sense unless there is an enforcement mechanism as the first person who knows how to game the system can violate it with immunity.

This sort of works in "Christianity" because getting the short end of the stick is sometimes considered noteworthy. (From direct quotes of the gospels, if someone forces you do to a thing, respond by doing a greater thing in return.) But even here it drives the Utopian Christians absolutely batty.

One might make a better argument for the libertarian rule (leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, but don't mess with me or I'll mess with you) because that rule allows for violations of the rule by the other.

Lovely logic, now shouldn't you be using it more productively like justifying Agent Orange.

[tzor]

Lovely logic, now shouldn't you be using it more productively like justifying Agent Orange.

I think Agent Orange falls into the same category as lead in paint and petroleum. I don't think the lack pf product testing should ever be justified.

[AndyDufresne]

The reality is that the powers that be are poisoning the air, land and skies and then pointing to the poison in the air land and skies to demand more power.

--Andy

[shickingbrits]

tzor, you make a piss-poor scientist then.

The truth is I could write all about the evils of fluoride. It's not hard. It's classified as hazardous waste. I could then convince you all to put it into the water supply. It's not too hard.

But I won't. That's morals.

[AndyDufresne]

tzor, you make a piss-poor scientist then.

The truth is I could write all about the evils of fluoride. It's not hard. It's classified as hazardous waste. I could then convince you all to put it into the water supply. It's not too hard.

But I won't. That's morals.

--Andy

[tzor]

tzor, you make a piss-poor scientist then.

I'm not sure I'll take that as a complement. But I'll admit it's been decades since my physics degree,

The truth is I could write all about the evils of fluoride. It's not hard. It's classified as hazardous waste. I could then convince you all to put it into the water supply. It's not too hard.

Now remember, fluoride is a lot like climate change. Think about that for a moment.

[shickingbrits]

Please tell me more.

[BoganGod]

If someone could purchase a copy of the Bible for Bogan, he could see where Jesus condemned anyone who lives by the sword to die by the sword, where he says turn the other cheek, he without sin may cast the first stone, judge not because you will be judged by the judgements you cast.

I was raised in a fundamentalist christian cult. Read the bible cover to cover twice by the time I was 8........ Which particular version of the constantly changed, re "imagined", paraphrased bible do you consider to be gospel? Are you one of the schizophrenic hypocrites that selectively follow parts of the bible. Ie eat shellfish(forbidden and mentioned more than homosexuality), but hate on gay people(if there is a God, why did he make people gay? Don't blame the devil, the devil only does what God allows if they exist....).

Next thing you will be attempting to argue that Jesus not claiming divinity, shows he was divine.....

I would suggest brickingshocks, that your belief systems both actual and stated(your habit of exaggerating your purported position, without firmly stating a position tells volumes about your self doubt and disbelief) would be better suited to an Umberto Ecco novel than a post industrial age dystopian society.

[shickingbrits]

I'm sorry you experienced so little affection as a child

If someone could purchase a copy of the Bible for Bogan, he could see where Jesus condemned anyone who lives by the sword to die by the sword, where he says turn the other cheek, he without sin may cast the first stone, judge not because you will be judged by the judgements you cast.

There, there.

[dwilhelmi]

It is a demonstrably false statement, it would seem, that atheists are incapable of moral behavior. There are plenty of atheists who are good people and do good things. Furthermore, as a Christian, I do not solely get my morality from the Bible - were I to turn my back on my faith, I would in no way suddenly revert to baby killing. I believe everyone has an internal moral compass, not that an individual person only gets their morality from belief in God.

However, when used properly, that is not what is claimed by the morality argument for God. That argument simply points out that "right" and "wrong" as universal values can not exist if there is no divine being. You can still act in ways that you personally find right or wrong, or in ways that the society that you are in find right or wrong, but it would be nonsensical to look at another society and claim that they were doing something wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nonsensical document under an atheistic worldview, because there is no source for those human rights rather than consensual agreement.

To go back to the ol' Hitler example, it would make no sense to say that our society is better than the Nazi society, unless you had some objective measuring stick separate from society to compare the two with. The most you can realistically do, from an atheistic worldview, is claim that you personally find our society preferable to the Nazi society.

The moralistic argument is simply stating that if you feel, as I do, that right and wrong are real things, independent of personal preference and society, then that is good evidence that some form of deity exists. It has nothing to do with how you personally choose to act.

[The Bison King]

'Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air. Consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.' - Hitler

Discuss.

You're quoting Hitler... I think that says it all.

[tzor]

You're quoting Hitler... I think that says it all.

Not really, there is the "broken watch" argument, after all. (*)

(*) Or the blind squirrel argument ...

[BigBallinStalin]

The reality is that the powers that be are poisoning the air, land and skies and then pointing to the poison in the air land and skies to demand more power.

The reality is that the powers that be are murdering people with drones, starvation, bombs which creates an enemy and then use that enemy to demand more power.

The reality is that the powers that be control technology and then say we need to make them rich in order to enjoy better technology.

The reality is that the powers that be have provided a new doctrine which justifies these acts and people are bending over backwards to fall for it.

Thanks for your theories though, now if I could just ignore reality like you, wouldn't I just be the most docile little worker bee.

The point of theory is to clarify phenomena in the world in order to understand (a) who's doing what and (b) why/how. Theory is unavoidable--except for radical historians who never assert their judgments, make predictions, or make causal claims. Before you criticize theory, note that you are implicitly using theory in order to frame your opinions toward your conclusions. You're making a self-defeating argument.

1. Yes, there's pollution, but what's the optimal amount of pollution? What are the consequences of imposing zero pollution?

2. Sure, the interactions among bureaucrats, politicians, special interest groups, and many voters ("the powers that be"?) have resulted in the deaths of people abroad, a greater control over technology to some degree for some groups, and the derailing of science and philosophy to justify pro-government bias. Where are you going with this?

[shickingbrits]

Dude, they are not just creating pollution, they are intentionally putting hazardous waste into the water supply.

Where I'm going with this is: the theory which promotes wealth makes us all wealthy is nonsense.

Where I am going with this is: you, BBS, yes you, are the person who is going to come up with a better theory.

The wealthy consider the population to be bison, a mob impeding "their" progress. Just about everyone would call this a conspiracy theory if the good ol' Harvard name wasn't on that study. For decades they called people who had concerns about fluoride conspiracy theorists.

What you, BBS, yes you, are going to do is explain the economic mechanism behind dumbing down the population. You are going to explain why free markets fail when enough wealth is concentrated in a few hands. I'm going to be so proud of you.

[chang50]

It is a demonstrably false statement, it would seem, that atheists are incapable of moral behavior. There are plenty of atheists who are good people and do good things. Furthermore, as a Christian, I do not solely get my morality from the Bible - were I to turn my back on my faith, I would in no way suddenly revert to baby killing. I believe everyone has an internal moral compass, not that an individual person only gets their morality from belief in God.

However, when used properly, that is not what is claimed by the morality argument for God. That argument simply points out that "right" and "wrong" as universal values can not exist if there is no divine being. You can still act in ways that you personally find right or wrong, or in ways that the society that you are in find right or wrong, but it would be nonsensical to look at another society and claim that they were doing something wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nonsensical document under an atheistic worldview, because there is no source for those human rights rather than consensual agreement.

To go back to the ol' Hitler example, it would make no sense to say that our society is better than the Nazi society, unless you had some objective measuring stick separate from society to compare the two with. The most you can realistically do, from an atheistic worldview, is claim that you personally find our society preferable to the Nazi society.


The moralistic argument is simply stating that if you feel, as I do, that right and wrong are real things, independent of personal preference and society, then that is good evidence that some form of deity exists. It has nothing to do with how you personally choose to act.

Well argued.Can I ask why you think right and wrong are 'real things' and what that even means?It seems to me that even if they are personal or societal preferences they are still real ie they exist.

[shickingbrits]

Where does everyones "internal moral compass" come from?

Did Saddam have one? How about Bin Laden? Bush? Hitler? Bundy?

Please describe how and why an atheist becomes atheist.