In fact, atheism is very irrational and inconsistent. You act as if there is morality and yet if there is no God then morality does not exist.
This is a concise statement of the common theist assertion that if there were no God and the Holy Book supporting the mores promoted by the God of the Holy Book there would be no morality.
The first problem with this assertion is that every human Social Support GroupSSGhas mores and a "absolute" moral system that is unique to that SSG. This is apparantly a genetic imperative of a social animal, as we see moral systems in pack animals such as wolves, and in herd animals like most ungulates. These moral systems have many things in common: Protect the young, follow the leader, protect the group from predators as a group, etc.
The second problem with a Holy Book based morality is that the morality is static, and based on the needs of an archaic SSG, that may have no relevance to the needs of modern life. As a prime example there is no morality relevant to a society that includes modern medicine, neither for the providers nor the consumer. The closest thing to a moral system for MDs comes not from the Bible or any other Holy Book but from the ancient Greek healerHippocrates.
The third problem is that Holy Book based morality is based on the historical fact of high infant and child mortality, and high maternal childbirth mortality. When a man needed many conceptions and frequently many wives to insure a few surviving adult children to preserve "his name" sexual morality will reflect these harsh facts of pre-modern medical life.
J'Carlin If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
You've never faulted the rationality and consistency of mine.
You act as if there is morality
Indeed I've twice explained to you that certain moral tendencies arise from our genes, both as mammals and as gregarious animals. Examples are care of offspring (very common among land species), mammalian nurture, dislike of the harmer, fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority and so on. On top of these go cultural morals, such as how to hold a table knife and whether the bride should bring a dowry, the groom should pay a bride-price or no one should pay anything.
There! I've explained it to you a third time. If there's anything you don't understand, let me know. Otherwise I'll assume you've got it and you won't be repeating the assertion that -
if there is no God then morality does not exist.
We have no reason to think that's correct, and you haven't offered any. For example we have evidence of moral civilizations as far back as 9000 BCE yet Yahweh wasn't invented until 1500 BCE.
In fact, atheism is very irrational and inconsistent. You act as if there is morality and yet if there is no God then morality does not exist.
As Jean-Paul Sartre explained, human beings are responsible for morality, not a god. Does this mean that different cultures and different societies are going to have different concepts of morality? Yes. Does this mean that different generations within one society or culture are going to have different concepts of morality? Yes. Morality changes. Slavery and segregation at one time were legal and acceptable in the U.S.; currently, slavery and segregation are illegal in the U.S. The Catholic Church currently declares that the Church supports "the sanctity of life from conception to natural death." "Natural death" means no capital punishment -- not even burning people at the stake for heresy. In fact, if Sartre is correct -- that is, that if each and every individual must invent his or her own morality and vision of how she or she thinks that human beings should behave, then what seems to end up happening is that a majority of individuals who have like-minded moral concepts band together and create institutions (governments, religions, philosophies, etc.) that the rest of the people in a society, a culture, or a group must accept or face punishment or exile. So there is also a level of power involved in which group of individuals gets to determine what the morality of a group, a culture, or a society is going to be.
"...certain moral tendencies arise from our genes, both as mammals and as gregarious animals. Examples are care of offspring (very common among land species), mammalian nurture, dislike of the harmer, fairness and rec..."
Is the sense of what you say changed in the slightest if you omit the word "moral," Blü? By posting as you do you remove all meaning from the word. How do care of offspring, etc, differ from "non moral" behavior such as breathing, excreting, chewing food? "Moral" has definite connotations relating to right and wrong, which your explanation wholly misses.
"...certain moral tendencies arise from our genes, both as mammals and as gregarious animals. Examples are care of offspring (very common among land species), mammalian nurture, dislike of the harmer, fairness and rec..."
Is the sense of what you say changed in the slightest if you omit the word "moral," Blü? By posting as you do you remove all meaning from the word. How do care of offspring, etc, differ from "non moral" behavior such as breathing, excreting, chewing food? "Moral" has definite connotations relating to right and wrong, which your explanation wholly misses.
They differ by level of abstraction. Morality requires self-aware reflection and a conciousness of the consequences of our actions which those other activities do not.
And, no, it does not require divine authority to to assign the concepts "right" or "wrong" to our various actions. We do that for ourselves, whether God exists or not.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
How do care of offspring, etc, differ from "non moral" behavior such as breathing, excreting, chewing food? "Moral" has definite connotations relating to right and wrong, which your explanation wholly misses.
My dictionary says, and I agree, that 'moral' relevantly means relating to the distinction between good and bad in human behavior. Without suggesting that the list is complete, this is what I propose as genetically based moral tendencies in humans -
Protection of offspring. Mammal nurturing. Dislike of the harmer. Fairness / reciprocity. Respect for authority. Loyalty to groups. A sense of virtue or purification through abstinence.
(The last five are from Jonathan Haidt, based on research around the world.)
Do you not, whether as onlooker or participant, feel that questions of right and wrong conduct arise around the points listed?
For example, is it right to neglect one's children? To bully, overpower or take advantage of others? To grab all the cake for oneself? To defy social authority? To betray one's friends or associates? To overindulge in food, sex or whatever?
In fact, atheism is very irrational and inconsistent. You act as if there is morality and yet if there is no God then morality does not exist.
What an odd statement.
Whether a person believes in the Abrahamatic deity or not, there is the same amount of empirical evidence. None. And so we actually have no hard fact pointing us in one way or another.
Given that, we live in the same reality as we would whether one assumes that there is a "God" or whether one does not exist. Morality included. Hence, if no "God" exists, what we call morality must be independent of "him".
Therefore, for a person who does not believe in the Abrahamatic deity, or even one who doesn't believe that he exists in the form promoted by adherents, the existence of morality cannot be used as evidence for the existence of the Abrahamatic deity.
I'm not too good at giving morals, and I don't fear the consequence. If life makes you scared and bitter, at least, it's not for very long.
"...certain moral tendencies arise from our genes, both as mammals and as gregarious animals. Examples are care of offspring (very common among land species), mammalian nurture, dislike of the harmer, fairness and rec..."
Is the sense of what you say changed in the slightest if you omit the word "moral," Blü? By posting as you do you remove all meaning from the word. How do care of offspring, etc, differ from "non moral" behavior such as breathing, excreting, chewing food? "Moral" has definite connotations relating to right and wrong, which your explanation wholly misses.
True, moral is about right and wrong. All those natural activities which have a right way and a wrong way to do have moral implications assigned by social groups most importantly by religions which have hijacked naturally correct ways of doing things even excreting and choosing and chewing food and assigned moral implications to some of the naturally correct ways of doing things. The religions didn't invent morality. Religion just adapted it to create tribal differentiations.
J'Carlin If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
