Atheism Discussion Thread:Tipping the Fedora

[Pacomia]

My grandad and I are 2 bulwarks of spiritualist-agnosticism in an increasingly Christian family.

Christian gang here!

Heey boyz, it's one of them there Christ-ians! *atheist tavern falls silent*

So... what’ll it be?

[The New California Republic]

You have never heard of the Quakers? That is very surprising.

I don't think they're as common outside of the Anglosphere.

I think that people who study history will be more likely to be aware of the existence of the Quakers even if they have never encountered them in day to day life, due to their well known anti-slavery stances when the slave trade was still operating etc.

[Bear Stearns]

I don't actually believe in any sort of deity and am a bit of a genetic determinist. Guess that means I'm an atheist.

However, I fully embrace the culture and values of radical militant Calvinism, so...not sure where that puts me.

[The Alma Mater]

No Maltheist or Misotheist ? While those are not atheists, they usually get along splendidly with anti-theists

What are they?

Maltheistst believe God or gods exist, but they are malevolent towards humanity. This could be a believer in a trickster god; but also a surprising number of Jews fall in this category.

Misotheists believe God of gods exist, but perceive us as insignificant or a potential snack at most. Lovecrafts fictional pantheon would probably qualify.

[Estanglia]

I don't know whether or not a god exists (though I tend to lean towards there being no god at all), but, if there is a god, it either doesn't give a shit about us or isn't capable of showing that it gives a shit about us. A god (or something on the level of a god, but not a god as we usually think of one) may be proven in the future though.

So, I guess you could describe my beliefs as a mixture of weak agnosticism and apathetic agnosticism.

[Absolon-7]

Been a staunch atheist and been keeping it a secret from my family since 4th grade. Funnily enough I have no clue what convinced me that theres no god back then.

Oof. Well, let us hope that one day, you’ll be able to tell them.

Tbh I'm not sure if it'll ever be worth it. They're pretty hardcore Catholics who very much hate everyone who isnt one.

Been a staunch atheist and been keeping it a secret from my family since 4th grade. Funnily enough I have no clue what convinced me that theres no god back then.

I don't get not telling your family. I mean what's to hide? Your beliefs are part of who you are, and if they can't handle that then their not really family, are they? It's really not healthy to lie constantly imo. Whatever tho, you do you.

What an absurdly naive, sheltered, and privileged thing to say. Im not even going to bother responding since others have already done a good job in doing so.

[Antityranicals]

I don't know whether or not a god exists (though I tend to lean towards there being no god at all), but, if there is a god, it either doesn't give a shit about us or isn't capable of showing that it gives a shit about us. A god (or something on the level of a god, but not a god as we usually think of one) may be proven in the future though.

So, I guess you could describe my beliefs as a mixture of weak agnosticism and apathetic agnosticism.

I'd like to add to your "if there's a God" possibilities the idea that God perhaps doesn't want to reveal himself to us directly, but would be perfectly capable of doing so.

[Antityranicals]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

I think you all might be wrong,weak agnosticism may make the most sense

[The New California Republic]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a decent attempt at demonstrating that there can be objective morality without God. Bentham's Utilitarianism is another. So yes, objective morality is possible without a God.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I think you all might be wrong,weak agnosticism may make the most sense

Please bless us with enlightenment why do you think so.

[The Alma Mater]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Yes, although the basis for said morality would still be subjective. The aforementioned Kants imperative and Benthams greatest happiness principle are choices; just like how one can choose between Yahweh, Vishnu etc.

[Page]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

There may not be objective morality, but we can act as if there is. A godless, uncaring universe does not see a difference between a football game and a genocide, it's all just matter and energy in flux. But as we are beings which can experience pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, it is sensible for us to adopt a morality of at the very least doing no harm and perhaps also striving to live better lives. We respect the right to life because we don't want our own lives extinguished by someone else. We believe in compassion because one's quality of life increases when there is compassion.

[Antityranicals]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a decent attempt at demonstrating that there can be objective morality without God. Bentham's Utilitarianism is another. So yes, objective morality is possible without a God.

But neither the categorical imperative nor utilitarianism have any root anywhere other than the mind. Both are based on a concept of common good, which is subjective.

[Antityranicals]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Yes, although the basis for said morality would still be subjective. The aforementioned Kants imperative and Benthams greatest happiness principle are choices; just like how one can choose between Yahweh, Vishnu etc.

How can something objective be based in something subjective?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Yes. Atheists can have a sense of morality. I care about others and wouldn't violate the rights of others.

[Antityranicals]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

Yes. Atheists can have a sense of morality. I care about others and wouldn't violate the rights of others.

I'm not talking about a sense of morality, but an objective basis for a moral code.

[Nakena]

I don't actually believe in any sort of deity and am a bit of a genetic determinist. Guess that means I'm an atheist.

However, I fully embrace the culture and values of radical militant Calvinism, so...not sure where that puts me.

Cultural Christian if I were to guess based on that statement.

[Kowani]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

I’m probably one of the few atheists who would say no to that-and then I would go on a assert that because we’re not idiots, we can’t use that as an excuse to go around eating babies.

[The New California Republic]

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a decent attempt at demonstrating that there can be objective morality without God. Bentham's Utilitarianism is another. So yes, objective morality is possible without a God.

But neither the categorical imperative nor utilitarianism have any root anywhere other than the mind. Both are based on a concept of common good, which is subjective.

Nope that's not how it works. For a morality to be objective then it needs to be true independent of the person stating it. The Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism are.

[Kowani]

Oof. Well, let us hope that one day, you’ll be able to tell them.

Tbh I'm not sure if it'll ever be worth it. They're pretty hardcore Catholics who very much hate everyone who isnt one.

I’m sorry about that, my friend.

This post is infinitely better than my own when I was asked the same thing.

Thank you! May I ask for the link to your post as well? Just to see the points that were brought up.

I’ll go look for it.

[Antityranicals]

But neither the categorical imperative nor utilitarianism have any root anywhere other than the mind. Both are based on a concept of common good, which is subjective.

Nope that's not how it works. For a morality to be objective then it needs to be true independent of the person stating it. The Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism are.

I'd disagree. Both are entirely dependent upon a concept of "the good," or "the general well-being." What either of these terms mean is entirely up to subjective interpretation.

[Antityranicals]

One question to all atheists: If there is no God, can there still be objective morality? In other words, without a God, can there be an act which is morally wrong? This is something which I have sincerely wondered about for a while.

I’m probably one of the few atheists who would say no to that-and then I would go on a assert that because we’re not idiots, we can’t use that as an excuse to go around eating babies.

I understand the "not eating babies" bit. Obviously, there would be certain repercussions to eating babies beyond any moral implications...

[Kowani]

I’m probably one of the few atheists who would say no to that-and then I would go on a assert that because we’re not idiots, we can’t use that as an excuse to go around eating babies.

I understand the "not eating babies" bit. Obviously, there would be certain repercussions to eating babies beyond any moral implications...

Bingo. Thus, as a general guide (although not applicable on every circumstance) on a personal level, the Golden Rule is a good guideline.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Yes. Atheists can have a sense of morality. I care about others and wouldn't violate the rights of others.

I'm not talking about a sense of morality, but an objective basis for a moral code.

I don't think morality is ever completely objective. Even different Christian groups have differing views on the subject.