6 ms·

Atheism is not about morality or lack there-of.

• keane 10y ago
  Both Atheists and Theists sometimes act in accordance with various suggested Norms and sometimes do not. However, the observation is that if Atheism is true this has implications for morality, namely moral facts do not actually exist. I explain more of what the debate is and has been in this comment from a few weeks ago that might clarify: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11646701
  • 0134340 10y ago
    Atheism, in itself, makes no claim about "moral facts". It's the lack of belief in deities. If your whole premise of the article is based on squeezing lemonade from apples, or implying more about atheism other than what it's not, it won't be true because atheism is nothing other than lack of belief in deities. You can be an atheist and still believe morality can be derived from something other than a devised deity. I feel you'd be better off if you just went back to the drawing board; you seem confused by this whole 'atheism has no moral validation' notion. There's many other theories of universal creation other than what we typically think of as gods and those theories can just as well be used to justify personal moral code. I don't think you've had much experience with atheists, willfully or not, who've cared to clear you up on your delusions about it.
  • Retra 10y ago
    Atheism is true and moral facts do exist. They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures to decision-making processes, and we have a moral obligation to engage them, because they are necessary for moral reasoning. Which in turn is just a special kind of general reasoning, which is necessitated by our very existance.
    • icebraining 10y ago
      If moral reasoning is simply a necessity of our very existence, then anything we decide to do is necessarily moral, no? If otherwise our existence only necessitates some general reasoning, but not necessarily that special case, then why should we reason morally? Why shouldn't we avoid that special case?
      • redial 10y ago
        Replace morality with health and you'll see the problem in your argument. Health is a necessity of our existence, but not all the things we do are healthy. Why then should we practice a healthy lifestyle?
        • icebraining 10y ago
          I don't know. Why should we? I mean, it's a good way to achieve some goals, if one prefers to do so.
      • keane 10y ago
        >>They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures... This is what Is-Ought is negating. We can't observe a Fact ("Is") and conclude a Value/Moral Fact ("Ought"). Your observance of structures falls under "Is".
        • mercer 10y ago
          In my opinion this kind of gets to the heart of the (mutual?) confusion here. The person you respond to also wrote: > which is necessitated by our very existance. ...which strikes me as very much accepting that this entire line of reasoning falls under 'Is'. If the premise is that we are compelled to do things because we happen to be creatures evolved that way, the 'Ought' just doesn't become relevant. Perhaps your view of 'Ought' is just very different from an atheist's view of 'Ought' (or at least mine). My 'Ought' is really just a dresses up 'Is', from your point of view, but the difference is that I'm okay with that. Most atheists that I know are.
          • 10y ago
  • redial 10y ago
    > if Atheism is true this has implications for morality, namely moral facts do not actually exist. Only true if you define morality by requiring a god.
    • keane 10y ago
      No, that's not a conditional. Look into what is meant by a 'moral fact'.