5 ms·

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 thi

• 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.
        • keane 10y ago
          Retra, paraphrased, reasons "Moral facts exist because decision-making structures exist which are necessary for moral reasoning and this reasoning in turn is necessitated for our very existence". This, shorter, amounts to "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". That humans happen to employ decision-making structures, employ moral language, tell themselves morals exist, or even need moral language and norms to survive/thrive/be happy/be comfortable does not tell us if moral facts actually exist. It only tells us that humans happen to employ morals and happen to need morals to exist. As amazing and insane as it sounds, what Hume shows us is that we cannot even assume human continued existence is necessary to reason. Reason is, as Richard Dawkins notes, cold and indifferent to human existence. At this "necessitated by our existence" is exactly what Retra's argument improperly assumes and hinges on. As Hume writes "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." The same logic that prevents us from decreeing whether Hume ought to scratch his finger based on any observed 'Is' likewise prevents us from decreeing whether Hume should destroy the whole world.
• 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'.