CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Objectively, the universe is really just matter and energy. There is no right and wrong. There is no reason for anything, everything just exists.
However, through an accidental formation of matter and energy, consciousness has formed. Consciousness results in a new reality - the subjective reality. We as humans can create meaning for ourselves. We can feel joy and sorrow. It is here that we find right and wrong.
I say what's right is what best maintains a level of relative happiness for everyone; something is wrong if it results in an overall unhappiness for everyone.
Objectively there might be more questions than answers about the universe. Therefor it is arbitrair to state that the universe is really just matter and energy. Although we suspect there is no right or wrong in a objective point of view, we cannot prove it until we have answered all possible questions about the universe.
We as humans are influenced constantly by a proces called socialization. The subjective reality is not soully based on the meaning we create ourselves. Chunks of it are synthetic. Right and wrong from a subjective point of view may shift and even become their counterparts as time and ongoing socialization occurs.
"Right and wrong from a subjective point of view may shift and even become their counterparts as time and ongoing socialization occurs."
I agree that what is socially acceptable shifts around over time. However, we can find a more absolute right and wrong by observing the positive or negative emotions that occur as a result of an action.
" ..more absolute right or wrong.." seems to exist on some form of continuum. Observing from an external source only leads to addressing suspected positive or negative emotions from a certain behavior. Observing from an internal source is already a secondhand representation. So there might be tendencies moving towards a side of the continuum, it cannot be determined a as fixed right or wrong. Therefor a real right or wrong does not exist.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Something about a continuum? Well, of course there's a continuum. Some actions are really good (loving someone), others are really bad (unjustified torture), most are in between.
Now there seems to be a difference between good and bad love, right? Or do you suspect there's actually only one kind of love. There's even might be too much good love which might be considered to become bad. It all tends to be to volatile to me to state there is really right or wrong, because it all has a tendency to be determined by a specific point of view. I don't support the idea that right or wrong exist as is. There just might be a specific bandwith on the continuum that most of us recognize as right or wrong, but that's never a fixed point.
You keep talking about "what most of recognize as right or wrong" which is another way of saying "what is socially acceptable at a current point in time". That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that whether an action is right or wrong is determined by the amount of pain or pleasure derived from the action. This definition is not the same thing as what society views as being right or wrong.
Society's values shift around over time. At one point in time burning "witches" was considered socially acceptable. However by my definition witch-burning was still wrong because it caused a great deal of pain without sufficient justification. Pain is absolute, social values are not.
The problem with your way of defining right and wrong is that it isn't consistent. Is killing someone with no immediate family (so no one will mourn for them once they are gone) via a morphine overdose, meaning that the person will die whilst probably feeling a large amount of pleasure, right or wrong? By your simple definition, that would be right, whereas society now would definitely view that as wrong.
You're still pinning right and wrong down to an absolute, but all you're doing is shifting which absolute to pin it to, which I believe is wrong.
Absolutely there is a right and a wrong. You know this by a little thing called a conscience. Its a nagging little voice in your head when you've done something wrong and you KNOW you did something wrong. Knowing right from wrong is whats differentiate us from animals. Animals do things according to nature, we humans do things according to will.
there will always be a right and wrong. personal morals and the benefit of the population govern laws. people will always think 'that just wrong' when someone does something against someone elses morals or ethics. wrong is also something against law, such as theft or underage sex etc.
Yes, but only when you are married, because when you are married, your wife is always right, and you are always wrong. [; But as a bachelor you will always be wrong no matter what because you aren't married. So its really a lose lose for us men.
Ultimately, the yardstick must be a democratic one. If the majority think stoning women to death for adultery is right, then it's right. If you don't think it's right, the onus is on you to change opinion else be damned as a radical.
If you asked me for change for a dollar and I gave you just 85 cents, you'd be the first person to say it was wrong. You want to know if there's a right or wrong? Ask a three-year-old. They don't overthink subjects.
Of course there is right and wrong. For instance, chopping off a childs hands for stealing bread is wrong. Helping an elderly person across the road is right. Needless to say, this my personal opinion which others may or may not agree with. So, it's subjective with varying appeal. If I wanted to impose any sort of laws based on my view of right and wrong, I'd need a democratic mechanism to do so.
Only monsters and fans of Linkin Park wouldn't agree with these examples.
First of all, there are no absolutes. What you decide is "right" may be "wrong" for another; what one society decides is "right" may be "wrong" for another.
And secondly, if you are a true atheist, then there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong." People are just highly evolved organisms, chemical "blobs," if you will. A dog doesn't think in terms of "right" and "wrong." It simply acts based on the environment. Same goes with humans.
I completely disagree with your second statement regarding a true atheist believing in no such thing as right and wrong. I have an ethical and moral code built into me, partly from evolution and partly from society's influence.
Knowing that we are simply highly evolved organisms has no relation on whether we accept the morals of current society and those ingrained within us due to our evolutionary history. Your comparison between a human and a dog has completely missed the mark.
Society has a set of laws and morals that are judged to be right and wrong at the time. I live my life in regards to these principles and those of treating others how I would wish to be treated. Murdering is wrong, firstly because society says so, but secondly (and most importantly) because I wouldn't want to be murdered myself and I have the intellectual capacity to contemplate and empathise with the hurt and suffering that would be caused to friends and families of the murdered. A dog doesn't have the intellect to fully understand and contemplate his actions from another's view point. He can not see the world through another's eyes, where as humans can.
You're right that there are no absolutes. A quick glance through history and what would be considered right and wrong shows this quite clearly. But we're living in today, with today's moral codes (as decided by society) and the ability to understand how our actions affect others.
Saying a true atheist doesn't accept such things as right and wrong is absolute nonsense.
Er, I agree that with concept that there is no universal right or wrong. But to say "if you are a true atheist there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'", is er, wrong. I don't need a God to know what I consider to be right and wrong.
As a biologist, (Darwinist, physicist, etc etc) I would agree with the second statement, but atheism is just the belief that there is no God, not that there are no morals.
But what makes murder wrong? Are you advocating the "sanctity of human life?" If we all evolved from the same thing, what makes it okay for animals to kill others of their species but not okay for humans?
Why can humans reason at higher levels? Biologically, their brains function in the same way as all other animals (i.e. neurons, calcium messengers, etc.). And, to the atheist, there is no such thing as "reason" - if it can't be explained scientifically, then it is supernatural, and the supernatural does not exist (remember, "supernatural" only means "something attributed to a force outside science and the laws of nature").
On a side note, what I'm saying here may sound loony, but this is what atheists really should believe. Unfortunately, 99% of atheists don't hold to everything that they should. Atheism isn't just saying that there is no God and no afterlife. It is also saying that:
- there are no absolutes
- your life has no purpose (everything happened by chance...this why true atheists are nihilists)
- souls and conscience don't exist
- mind and thought aren't real
- free will and dignity do not exist (behaviorism - your position is imposed by the environment)
If you don't believe all those, then you are not a true atheist. You are simply rejecting the possibility of God while unknowingly believing that in other areas there are supernatural elements to life.
"But what makes murder wrong? Are you advocating the "sanctity of human life?" If we all evolved from the same thing, what makes it okay for animals to kill others of their species but not okay for humans?"
Mainly because our intelligence has allowed us to build very complex societies, with a deep emphasis on social interaction. The sanctity to human life is ingrained in us through our evolutionary history. Those who had an ability to build social networks (the real kind, not online ones) had a greater chance of passing their seed on. I suggest you read up about human evolution and how our tribal roots set us up for life within complex societies.
"Why can humans reason at higher levels? Biologically, their brains function in the same way as all other animals (i.e. neurons, calcium messengers, etc.). And, to the atheist, there is no such thing as "reason" - if it can't be explained scientifically, then it is supernatural, and the supernatural does not exist (remember, "supernatural" only means "something attributed to a force outside science and the laws of nature")."
We simply have bigger and differnetly wired brains. I'm no brain expert, but I can assure you that our vast intelligence compared to other animals is purely natural, bound within the laws of nature and science. We have bigger brains and have survived as a species purely because of our social skills. Some animals are faster, can react quicker, etc. We, on the other hand, use far more of our brains for intelligent, emotional and social thinking.
"On a side note, what I'm saying here may sound loony, but this is what atheists really should believe. Unfortunately, 99% of atheists don't hold to everything that they should. Atheism isn't just saying that there is no God and no afterlife."
Why? I can't see any reason why what you're saying is what atheists should believe. All you're doing is showing a great misunderstanding of the power that nature and nurture has over us. There is nothing supernatural involved at all, and you haven't shown any reason or evidence to back up what you're saying.
"...there are no absolutes"
I'll agree with you on this one. We're bound by society and evolution, but that may change in the future. There are no absolutes.
"...your life has no purpose (everything happened by chance...this why true atheists are nihilists)"
Well... your use of chance here bothers me. Things didn't happen by chance. Things happened due to evolution via natural selection. Chance doesn't play a part in human evolution. But I'll agree that there is no supernatural purpose for our lives. We just happen to have got lucky... it doesn't mean I'm not going to take hold of the fantastic oppotunity I've been given.
"...souls and conscience don't exist"
The standard supernatural definitions of the soul and conscience don't, no. Our senses and intelligence allow us to perceive a conscience which do, on the surface, appear to be in some way seperated from the crudeness of simple chemical and electrical interactions. But modern brain studies show quite clearly that the brain is involved at every level of higher thinking.
"...mind and thought aren't real"
I don't really get what you're saying here. They're very real. The mind is the brains ability to perform higher thinking. It's the perceived seperation of the brains crude operations from the complex concepts that can arise because of it. Thoughts are real... they are simply chemical interactions in the brain.
"free will and dignity do not exist (behaviorism - your position is imposed by the environment)"
Wrong again. There is a whole different issue regarding free will, and this hinges on just how random quantum mechanics really is. All that matters here is that we have the perception of free will.
"If you don't believe all those, then you are not a true atheist. You are simply rejecting the possibility of God while unknowingly believing that in other areas there are supernatural elements to life."
No, your understanding of Atheism is wrong. The things you've mentioned can be quite easily explained without any mention (even a hint) of any supernatural intervention. You're just misinformed.
This isn't really a discussion about right or wrong, but what atheism is.
You are wrong wrong wrong about atheism.
Atheism isn't just saying that there is no God and no afterlife. It is also saying that:
Wrong, atheism is only about a lack of belief in god(s).
- there are no absolutes
Wrong, as an atheist, there is absolutely no god or gods.
- your life has no purpose (everything happened by chance...this why true atheists are nihilists)
Wrong, atheism says nothing about the purpose of life. Darwinism has a lot to say about that.
- souls and conscience don't exist
Wrong, I can say that with 100% authority that I have a conscience.
- mind and thought aren't real
WHAT! that's not even worth responding to... Damn.
- free will and dignity do not exist (behaviorism - your position is imposed by the environment)
Wrong. Dignity? I can't have dignity, what's that all about? And I have the illusion of free will, which is good enough for me.
If you don't believe all those, then you are not a true atheist. You are simply rejecting the possibility of God while unknowingly believing that in other areas there are supernatural elements to life.
Wrong. Atheism rejects the possibility of god(s) not frickin' reality.
Murder is wrong because because it creates pain, both physical pain to the person being killed and emotional pain to the people who will miss them.
It's a sad thing thing that animals kill other animals, however it is forgivable because animals are incapable of reasoning about morality.
Humans can reason at higher levels because we have a much larger neocortex than other animals. (wikipedia link)
The dictionary definition of Atheist is simply "Someone who either states a disbelief in a god or gods or an unbelief in a god or gods." The extrapolations you have personally made are debatable.
Murder is not wrong...nor is it right. Let me explain.
You make a good point that murder creates pain, but you should understand that the murderER is also in pain, whether it's mental illness, rage, jealousy, or a chain of unfortunate events.
Murderers don't wake up one day and say, "I'm going to murder this person today." They go through unfortunate events in life that may lead to murder a person or persons.
For example, envision a child born into a city full of poverty and gangs. As he grows up, he will be exposed to violence, guns, and drugs. One thing will lead to another and he may join a gang just to survive in the streets, and one day he may murder someone whether for money, drugs, or power. Now this child was not born a murderer, nor did he wake up and say "I'm going to murder someone today."
Yes, he is the one that pulled the trigger, but can you really blame this kid? The media and the masses point the finger at the person who pulls the trigger, but we all tend to forget what made this person pull the trigger.
Murder creates pain, but it isn't necessarily wrong nor right. Murder is just the next chain of the cycle of pain. This cycle will keep going as long as there is greed, envy, hate, laziness, and the whole bunch of other attributes of humanity.
Concerning murder, you've hit the nail on the head. I've never heard it stated better. :)
You also made an allusion to something atheists also believe, which I'll say again because it is a vital component of atheism: a person's actions are caused by the environment.
"You also made an allusion to something atheists also believe, which I'll say again because it is a vital component of atheism: a person's actions are caused by the environment."
A person's actions aren't directly caused by the environment, they are (in some part) reactions to the environment. Regardless, I still don't see what point you're trying to make here.
And I'll say again that Atheism says nothing about whether a person's actions are caused by their environment. It is simply a lack of belief in any god.
I'm sorry; I think I caused some confusion. What you are saying is true; atheism at its most basic level is simply a belief in any god. But the other points that I listed are beliefs that follow from that belief in no god. For example, there is no way that an atheist can possibly reject evolution; doing so would require that there be some sort of god. Similarly,
- An atheist cannot believe in absolutes; that would imply the presence of some god that set the absolutes.
- Your life has no purpose; you are just an organism, an animal, like dogs or monkeys. People say that they can create "self-purpose," but then that implies the next point ("reason").
- Souls and conscience don't exist. This one is obvious; souls and conscience, if they existed, are supernatural elements that cannot be explained by evolution.
- Free will and dignity do not exist. As I've said before, your position is imposed by the environment (behaviorism). Everyone, even identical twins, act differently due to their environment.
And finally, I'd like to say that I don't speak for all atheists. As I said before, 99% of atheists don't believe what they should and thus do not have a cohesive worldview. It would be like a Christian who believes that the God of the Bible is true, but also that is no heaven or hell - as you can imagine, the entire belief system falls apart.
I'd be very careful about the assumption that the conscience is supernatural. Can you back that statement up?
Because in my opinion the conscience is simply another word for the percieved seperation of higher thought from the crude operations of the brain. Who says it has to be supernatural?
I understand that you think those points are implied by Atheism, but I disagree. Each of those points are a debate unto themselves, so I won't go into them here. Feel free to create separate debates if you would like to discuss these issues.
I would like to leave you with a final thought, though, one that I think addresses a lot of these issues: Consciousness in an emergent property. Individual strokes of paint have little meaning, but combine thousands of them in just such a way and you have "Starry Night". Similarly, combine billions of neurons in just such a way and you end up with consciousness, wherein you can find free will, mind, thought, dignity, purpose, and maybe even souls and absolutes.
You meant "...atheism at its most basic level is simply a disbelief in any god."
For example, there is no way that an atheist can possibly reject evolution; doing so would require that there be some sort of god.
Though I don't reject evolution myself, you are wrong. To say that shows that you incorrectly think that the opposite of evolution is god. You may state that an atheist may not reject natural causality.
- An atheist cannot believe in absolutes; that would imply the presence of some god that set the absolutes.
Why can only a god set an absolute? What absolutes are you talking about?
- Your life has no purpose;
No, being an atheist doesn't exclude me from having a purpose. Being a Darwinist and an atheist gives me both purpose, for my genes to survive, and a disbelief in god(s). I can if I want give myself a purpose.
but then that implies the next point ("reason").
Is this cut and pasted from another argument? The next point is not reason, and I can obviously do that, as an atheist, as well.
- Mind and thought aren't real.
In what sense can I not believe in "mind and thought"? They can both be explained, easily, by evolution (e.g. non supernaturally).
-Souls and conscience don't exist
"Souls" in the sense that I think you mean obviously don't exist. Conscience, again I believe in the concept of conscience, and it is easily explained using evolution (read the rest of that wikipedia link for a start).
-Free will and dignity
The argument for free will is obviously a long winded one, which is why I retorted about the illusion of free will, which is good enough for me. And I still don't see how as an atheist I can't "believe" in it or dignity.
None of the things you mention are exclusive of atheism, and shows either a lack of or misunderstanding of evolution.
Just because someone was compelled by external forces to commit a murder doesn't remove the wrongness from the act. It might explain why he committed this moral crime, but the pain is still inflicted, so the wrongness remains.
If you could stop the person from committing the murder, would you? Or would you say, "He's just a product of his environment, his actions are neither right nor wrong." I think you would stop him, because on some level you agree that murder is wrong and thus should be prevented.
As thejourney said, "Murder creates pain, but it isn't necessarily wrong nor right." Let me explain. I would stop a person from committing murder not because it is necessarily "right" or "wrong," but because the murderer's environment has made that murderer dangerous to the rest of humans in our struggle for survival (i.e. "survival of the fittest"...but we won't survive unless we try to prevent as much intra-species fighting).
Concerning "right" and "wrong," the most that those two words can mean is this (and I quote thejourney again): "Right and wrong are just words that humans created to ensure our survival so we don't end up killing each other for resources and power..." Right and wrong are not some sort of absolutes that all (or most) people follow.
Right and wrong cannot be absolutes; that would imply the presence of a supernatural force. But then are they determined by society? In India a while ago, the Indians practiced satī, or burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. The British eventually outlawed it because they found it "wrong." But what made the British idea of "wrong" any better than the Indians' idea of "wrong?" Was it because the British were bigger? More powerful? Was it good that the British stopped it? As an atheist, can you really say that they were wrong? And satī is just one example of many where societies have clashed over the definition of right and wrong.
What you say makes sense. "True atheists" (if there can be a "true" anything) believe in nothing other than numbers, statistics, and variables. I feel that this is because they want things to be explainable, predictable, and safe so they can prolong their survival; interestingly, this is also the case for religious people where they want things to be explainable, predictable, and safe for what? Yep, survival. So then the difference between atheists and theists is belief in numbers versus the belief in God(s), but in the end they all fight for the same things.
So the term "2 sides of the same coin" fits right in. Atheism and theism are not opponents. They are rather 2 different ideals striving for the same goals: survival and explanations for the unexplainable.
For this debate, I feel that all actions are arbitrary, but the intentions are pure. Many people commit actions whether it's sex, murder, drinking etc. It's not the action that is important, but the intention behind the action.
For example, there are many intentions for sex: Procreation, rape, sex addiction, boredom, love.
There are many intentions for murders: with a cause, without a cause, revenge, capital punishment, accidental, suicidal.
There are many intentions for drinking: just to get drunk, forget problems, celebration, wine-tasting.
So for the question is there really right and wrong? Nature doesn't know right from wrong. Right and wrong are just words that humans created to ensure our survival so we don't end up killing each other for resources and power, oh wait, that's been happening ever since history started recording things.
It's all very confusing for me. Like everyone else, I don't know for sure, but from my perceptions and experiences, actions should not be labeled as 'wrong or right.'
Ah. I know i'll be flagged for this weird entry, but oh well. I'm as confused as anyone else would be...hopefully?
Ah man. You almost touched on the issue there, but you seemed to kinda skirt past it without giving it the recognition it deserved.
"So for the question is there really right and wrong? Nature doesn't know right from wrong. Right and wrong are just words that humans created to ensure our survival so we don't end up killing each other for resources and power, oh wait, that's been happening ever since history started recording things."
Absolutely. Right and wrong are purely human concepts. This is a very important aspect that I think a lot of people miss when they are talking about morals. Right and wrong, good and bad... they are simply human concepts with no absolute. They change, evolve, mutate, etc. What may be accepted and right now may be deemed wrong in the future.
I think that the effects of one's actions are more important than their intentions in determining whether an action is right or wrong.
Sex for procreation is fine because the result is enjoyable for both parties. Sex as part of rape is wrong because it results in pain. By observing the effects of an action we can determine whether it's right or wrong.
It's completely wrong. Atheism!=Nihilism in any sense.
Nihilism falls down in asserting that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another. This is true if we are assuming that these morals are objective; however they are not. They are subjective and subject to change. An action I perform now may have more moral value than another, but may not in the future.
the problem is that atheism can not believe in any way to determine morals. in order to determine what is truly justified and right or wrong you need some kind of moral authority, instead of just a mass form of cells (humans).
Wrong. Atheism certainly can believe in a way to determine morals. To think that a supernatural god must be involved for any type of morals to be accepted is utterly false. Morals are dictated partly by society, and partly by our evolutionary history. They are not absolute, and are very much subject to change, but they are acceptable for setting our current morals. Nihilism doesn't allow for this, and therefore is not the same as atheism.
nihilism is recognition of our status. who are we to decide on what's right and wrong? what gives us that power? a moral is purely a state of mind and nothing more. just because society can create a "social contract" doesn't mean any real morals have been created. it just means these living organisms are gonna act a certain way which is acceptable to each other, but that's it. there's no way to determine that anything we do is right or wrong.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, and misunderstanding nihilism. Nihilism, in its simplest form, states that no choice should be made over another simply due to the morality of that choice. I agree that there is no absolute right or wrong, and there never will be. There is, however, a moral contract imposed by our evolutionary history and by society. This is the social contract that we use, our current moral base.
We can and most definately do still use these non-absolute morals as a basis for our social interactions. I'm an atheist, and I will most definately weigh-up the moral implications when making decisions. Whether they are based on an absolute moral system or one that is currently acceptable is completely beside the point.
Atheism and nihilism are in agreement on one thing, and that is that there is no objective and absolute morality. Nihilism, however, also goes on to say that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another, and that is where it differs greatly from simply being an atheist.
the thing about the social contract is that it's on our state of mind. you can believe in your own principles and be a nihilist, the thing is, nihilist realize that it all doesn't actually matter anyway. they see that no matter what they do, it's all just slight occurrences within the universe and nothing more.
Firstly, a Nihilist would never make a choice over another due to his own principles. If you do that, you're not a nihilist. Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. When there is no essential value to life, why run yours by a set of principles (a moral code, if you will)? Secondly, you keep talking about this "state of mind," but you completely ignored the point I made above.
Nihilism believes that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another, which atheism doesn't. Also, I believe that what we do here does matter, but for the preservation of the species and the welfare of my offspring rather than for the satisfaction of some supernatural power. I would even go so far as to say that people who believe in evolution (as I would assume the majority of atheists do), value human life far more than those who believe we were created, simply because we understand the beauty of the process by which we have arrived, and just how fragile within an environment our species can be.
Regardless of all this, I think you're totally misunderstand what Nihilism is. Nietzsche defined the term as any philosophy that results in an apathy toward life and a poisoning of the human soul. He even went so far as to assert that this nihilism is a result of valuing "higher", "divine" or "meta-physical" things (such as God), that do not in turn value "base", "human" or "earthly" things.
You're misunderstanding nihilism, and you're making generalised and incorrect assumptions about Atheism to try and justify your argument, rather than just accepting that you're initial argument was wrong.
based on there own wants and desires. a rational thinking nihilist knows that pain and prison life is bad, so they will not break the law. that is there priniciples, has nothing to do with morals. it's their personal wants.
You're still completely ignoring my main point. Is that because you can't actually answer it?
Can you show me how or why an atheist would think that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another, in regards to a subjective moral set imposed by our evolutionary history and society? I'm an atheist and I would choose certain actions over others simply on their moral value.
the problem is that with atheism, there is no moral value for anything. you may have set them, but what gives you that power? to automatically set a right and wrong. you obviously don't realize the fantasy you're living if you can really justify any action you take.
nihilist know that nothing is justified, that it's all based on what is most convenient. an atheist who claims not to be a nihilist is really just living a fantasy. i've answered the question plenty of times, you just wish not to accept it.
No, actually, you're not answering the question at all.
"the problem is that with atheism, there is no moral value for anything. you may have set them, but what gives you that power?"
How many times do I have to tell you that this is an assumption, and a wrong one at that. Everything does have a moral value that has been set over time by evolution and due to society. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter who gave me the power, or whether the morals that are set are subjective or not. The fact is that they are there, and I use them when making decisions. Making decisions based on these morals aren't a fantasy, and if you believe so then you have some very serious issues. How do you think the human race has survived and become as powerful as we have? It's due to our immense social intelligence compared to others animals. We have evolved with a basic moral set that has allowed our species to survive.
"an atheist who claims not to be a nihilist is really just living a fantasy."
No, you're simply ignoring that using a subjective moral set is acceptable. You're dismissing it without showing any evidence or making any good logical arguments as to why you're dismissing it. Why is it living a fantasy? Where's the fantasy in understanding evolution correctly and seeing how our inbuilt moral set has allowed us to survive as long as we have? Where's the fantasy in accepting that society works better when we all follow a similar moral set? Where's the fantasy in being able to emphasise with other people and understansing what effect my actions will have on them?
"i've answered the question plenty of times, you just wish not to accept it."
You haven't. Answering the question would be showing me why what I've said is wrong. You've simply dismissed it without cause.
there's a difference between natural selection and morals. morals are values that people feel they must live because it is the "right" thing to do. evolution doesn't determine morals, evolution determines being able to make a better, stronger version of a species. Hitler was trying to do this, and no one would say he had morals. actually, because of his lack of morals, this is what caused him to do this.
morals are made up ways for humans to regulate society. an atheist can make up morals, but it doesn't mean what he's doing can be considered right or wrong. nihilist realize that no action is logically preferrable to the other. if an atheist thinks that one way is better than the other, that means he is giving that action a "purpose". what gives something purpose if there is no "true intelligence"? what will the purpose achieve if there i no true achievement. it's like the loophole for atheists to make for themselves.
we are nothing but large organisms made up of smaller organisms that make random actions based on a set pattern of living. when these organisms die, they break down to smaller organisms that set a new pattern. there is no "right and wrong" set, for no matter what we do, it all amounts to nothing at all.
"morals are values that people feel they must live because it is the "right" thing to do. evolution doesn't determine morals, evolution determines being able to make a better, stronger version of a species."
You've absolutely completely misunderstood what I said, and you're showing a blatant lack of understanding about the evolutionary process.
Humanity has done so well simply because we are a deeply social species. Individually, we can't compete with other animals, especially compared to the animals of the African Savana where humans first began to emerge. We're slower and weaker than nearly all other animals in relation to our size. The only thing we had going for us is our intelligence, and our fantastic ability to work together and be social. We started to build up tribes, and understood that we needed each other in order to survive. It is during this evolutionary stage (tribes, etc) that morals would have become evolutionary ingrained. Having a solid moral set in order to interact with other members of our tribe is obviously going to be a huge benefit to our survival. Those who were best able to work together were more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. This is evolution by natural selection.
"Hitler was trying to do this, and no one would say he had morals. actually, because of his lack of morals, this is what caused him to do this."
And what on earth has this got to do with anything? I was saying that our engrained morals are a product of evolution by natural selection, not the driving force of it. We have built up a set of morals simply because it made us better at surviving. Jeez.
"morals are made up ways for humans to regulate society. an atheist can make up morals, but it doesn't mean what he's doing can be considered right or wrong."
You're missing the point here. Morals are made up ways for humans to regulate society (well, partly made up, and partly engrained into us as I explained above), but so are the concepts of right and wrong. You have a problem with assuming that right and wrong and morality have to have an absolute meaning. They don't; they are all subjective. The moment you make up a moral set and allow this to have some baring on the choices you make, you are not a nihilist.
"nihilist realize that no action is logically preferrable to the other"
Exactly, which is what I have been arguing. Atheists don't think this at all.
"if an atheist thinks that one way is better than the other, that means he is giving that action a "purpose""
Absolutely, and this is where you are obviously having some trouble. An action having a purpose doesn't mean that the purpose was set by some intelligent or divine force. The purpose is set by society or by our evolutionary history, and that is all. The purpose of me not stealing money from someone is that I can emphasise with the fact that they rightly earned it, and then make the connection to the fact that I wouldn't want people stealing my money that I earned. Where is god in this thought? Where is the "true intelligence" you speak of? It's absent. Believing that we only recognise certain things being right and wrong because some intelligent being gave us this information is, frankly, a rather child-like view on the world. If you understood evolution at all, as you seem to think you do from you initial paragraph, then you would be able to clearly see that acting in a "moral" way is beneficial to you and your survival, and therefore is an engrained part of your genetic code.
"there is no "right and wrong" set, for no matter what we do, it all amounts to nothing at all."
If you truly believe that, then why don't you just commit suicide? There's no point to anything, so why bother? The thing you're missing is the fact that there doesn't need to be some divine point to life in order for me to enjoy living mine. I don't care that when I die, I'm dead. The fact is that I am here, and I am going to take full advantage of the fact that I am. I'm going to try and do well in my job, so that I can earn enough money to do all the things that I enjoy doing. Then I'm probably going to have some kids, and because evolution has made it so, I'm going to love them and want them to have the best in life. I'm going to put some money away, save it up, and leave it to my children so that they can have the best possible start in life to carry on this cycle. That's a fantastic purpose for my life, all of which has been granted by the power of evolution... with no need for an absolute purpose as set by a god.
Do you really want to carry on arguing this? Because you're absolutely, completely and utterly wrong.
you're still missing the point completely. i'll leave you with this... what gives us the power to determine right and wrong? yeah, we can make up rules... but what makes it that way? i've already told you on the fact that we're organisms made up of smaller organisms and nothing more (something a true atheist would believe)... but you want to ignore that. sad really.
There is no absolute power to determine what is right or what is wrong. We can make up rules, and we can live our lives by those rules. It doesn't matter if the rules are absolute, subjective, made by god, made by man, made by the flying spaghetti monster, or anything else for that matter. The fact is that they are there and I use them when making decisions. Atheists can use the morals that are set by society in order to make decisions, and that means that atheists are not inherently nihilist.
I'm not missing the point; I'm getting the point entirely, but the point is nonsense.
I'm a true atheist. The problem is that you don't get what atheism means, and you can't seem to understand that morals don't have to be absolute. You keep talking about who has the "power" make right and wrong, but that is just nonsense. It doesn't matter where the right and wrong come from... the fact is that they are there.
you know, you're argument for right and wrong sounds like the arguments of a wise agnostic who tries to prove god through saying "maybe us believing in it makes it exist".
just cause you make up rules and morals doesn't mean they exist... it just means you have set a pattern for a set of organisms (in this case being human) to go by. nothing more. nothing is actually justified just cause a mass amount of organisms will attack those who do otherwise. it's just an occurrence.
i'm getting tired of repeating myself though, so why don't we agree to disagree, or do you really think you will convince me that we do is truly justified? after all, all i have to say is "who says" or "prove it" and all you have to say is "we do".
Objectively no, subjectively yes. 'Right' and 'wrong' only exist due to a societal culture which may or may not have stemmed from a particular religion, either way right and wrong for that culture helps keep order and the continuation of that society. e.g if a culture says it is 'right' to kill someone if they steal a banana from you the only judges are a court of law and/or cultural influences throughout life
Who is to decide what is right and wrong? We have rules because they keep us safe, created out of fear that, gone unchecked, one person or group would harm another person or group, we keep these rules for safety, but when pressed enough we behave like any other animal.
Just to clarify, inoculation is when you are injected with a weakened version of a disease in order to be resistant to in the future, right?
If so, then I would say, yes inoculation is a slight evil, because it causes a slight pain. However the slight pain prevents a much greater pain (the disease) from being inflicted in the future. Therefore inoculation is a good thing, or at least a necessary evil.
Everything is a mixture of everything. You can be in the middle of a bank robbery and save the bank. But if you hurt anyone you could get sent to jail. Where is the right and wrong in that. I rest my case.