"atheism...does not by itself compel any particular moral conclusions. Nor does pure reason...."

This is fine, but reason and atheism are never "pure"--they are accompanied by affects, dispositions, emotions, real-world facts, etc. ("ADEF"). As such, theism and/or reason + ADEF and theism and/or irrationality + ADEF are two entirely different existential sums. That is, given that I have a disposition to do "good," for example, the question of whether atheism or theism is true will impact my moral calculus, whereas if I had no such disposition, the question would be practically inert.

In the case of the abortion question, numerical identity doesn't have the same import within an atheistic metaphysic as it does within a theistic metaphysic. This is because while numerical identity is enjoyed by such things as acorns and oak trees, or chicken eggs and chicks, very few people are prone to say acorns just are oak trees or that chicken eggs just are chicks. (Stabbing a one day-old fertilized chicken egg with a fork is morally less objectionable than stabbing a newly-hatched chick. Discuss.) Thus, identity in and of itself isn't the ontologically compelling fact; something else--some other ontological ingredient--is needed to establish that the orgnism has (or should have) a uniform moral status across different stages of its organic development. In theism it's the soul. In atheism, it's...what?

*shrugs*

So...you said in the beginning that you wouldn't come out and be honest about whether or not you had converted, but you just keep on and keep on tip-toeing around it, don't cha? It's like you recognize the shallowness of your own ethic here: "I'll make a promise I can't make, but I won't justify the morality of making that promise in the first place, since it obscures my position and keeps me from answering honest questions about what I think"

*make a promise I can't BREAK

RA... if you ever refer to me as 'dearest' again, I will be forced to harm you. Is that clear?

Q said: "Stabbing a one day-old fertilized chicken egg with a fork is morally less objectionable than stabbing a newly-hatched chick. Discuss."
Motive. A person who stabs a newly-hatched chick with a fork probably enjoys inflicting pain, and this action is indicative of other moral shortcomings. Although people having abortions are not inflicting pain (at least not when performed early in development) they are ending a life. They aren't doing it because they enjoy being cruel, so it might not be equally immoral to torturing a young child, but that doesn't make it moral. Have you ever noticed that it's illegal to kill people without just cause even if you do it in such a way that they feel no pain?

"There is nothing incompatible with being a reasonable atheist and seeking to maximize one's pleasure by enslaving the population of the whole world. Or, on a smaller scale, with murdering an old lady for money you could put to better use. You only live once, after all."

I think you have to have a very strange definition of "reasonable athiest" in mind to make this statement.

The quoted section is not compatible with a reasonably well thought out athiest strategy for dealing with the world, unless you're going to suggest that reasonable athiests are sadistic, sociopathic, and solipsistic.

Inherent in the concept of "reasonable" social behaviour is the perception of some measure of equality of value between any two persons, including comparisons between yourself and another.

To make the world better improves your own life, and the lives of everyone else. It is a moral goal and a moral act. It demands no faith, and needs no god.

If, as you yourself have suggested in your essays on why you are anti-abortion, we athiests (reasonably) assign a high value to each moment of existence for all people, including the unborn we do consider people, it cannot be (reasonably) suggested that following that supposition is compatible with enslaving (reducing the quality of their finite lives) or killing (reducing the duration of their finite lives) others to improve the quality of life for one individual.

Furthermore, such behaviour would attract violence against oneself, by vegeance or force of law, thereby reducing the quality and/or duration of one's own existence.

Athiesm does offer a yardstick to measure the "right-ness" of an act, and measuring "rightness" is the basis of morality. It may be a colder process than religion offers, to speak of calculating the overall reduction in quality and quantity of lifespan, but it enables the athiest mind to know the costs and benefits of any strategy, to both the self and others. The right path, for an athiest, is to maximize the benefits to the entire system (both self and others). I wager that choices made by following this process will be more justly moral that those made by religious fiat.

RA:
     I'm impressed by the nuances you weave into your argument: you're at least an order of magnitude above the usual denizens of you blog's comments section. Your honesty deserves equal commendation. God's speed to you!
     Apart from this (but without requesting you violate your "prime directive" of not speaking harshly of believer or atheist alike) I'd be very interested (as I'm sure others would be) as to your views on why most of the atheists commenting over the past few weeks feel so threatened by your posts. Do you believe there is a justified generalization that can be drawn from their behavior?

"Had I merely expressed a moral distaste for the practice as many people do (especially at the later stages of pregnancy) but declared that the decision should always be left to the woman, I doubt my rationality (or atheism) would have been called into question."

Or, silly goose, had you merely answered the accusations raised many times that your position on abortion is contradictory. For example, you consider the discarding of a zygote to be the killing of a human life, ie murder, yet you propose no punishment for abortions. You think it is arbitrary to declare the moment of lifehood to be somewhere between conception and birth, yet claim that it is not arbitrary to say the moment of personhood begins somwhere between the production of gametes and the cleavage of the zygote, specificially the "instant" of fertilization.

Anyway, I do call into question the rationality of your position on abortion, but I don't question your rationality as a person overall. And, I never felt disgraced as an atheist because you are oppose abortion or because your arguments against abortion are (in my estimation) flawed. I think it would be silly to question your rationality as a person or to feel disgraced as an atheist on account of our disagreement on abortion. BTW, I think it's misleading that you didn't choose to qualify that only some atheists did act in the way you described.

"Rarely, however, is it argued that [a chemist, biologist, rocket scientist or mathematician's] status as a scientist in a particular field of expertise is compromised by an allegedly irrational or superstitious belief on some unrelated issue."

Well, duh, ad hominem attacks aren't to carry any weight in the scientific community. That an atheist (pro-life or not) is attacked with ad hominem fallacies is nothing special--theists do it all the time. Conversely, atheists make ad hominem attacks against theists all the time. There is no reason to be surprised when atheists use them against ourselves.

Your posts on abortion didn't make you a bad atheist. They made you a boring blogger, which was frustrating because you're clearly capable of being an interesting one.

Ben, you're touching on some interesting issues, but not the issue I intended to raise. Let me simplify. Scenario 1: A rock dislodges and crushes a day-old chicken egg. Scenario 2: A rock dislodges and crushes a newly-hatched chickling. (So there's no human agency involved in either case.) My question: Are these two scenarios equally lamentable?

But, look, here's a more pointed hypothetical that makes the point (I imagine it's been made here before): There is a hospital fire, and you have an opportunity to save either (1) the one living, post-parturition infant on the floor or (2) a container incubating one/ten/fifty/a hundred blastocysts. You can't save both. Which would you choose to save?

Here's something I never thought I'd see - a post from RA discussing the simple, yet often overlooked / ignored / twisted to one's advantage fact that atheism is not, never has been, and never will be a philosophy of life and therefore does not, does not pretend to, and indeed cannot address the issue of morality.

I don't think the scientist issue works, though RA - naturalism, perhaps, because that's at least a worldview, but physics isn't really in the same category as atheism and theism.
I wonder if you're leaning towards (or perhaps have embraced) moral relativism. Care to address that?

My biggest argument concerns one's who lump "immoral" and "godlessness" together. In fact, religion itself propels many immoralities, to use the term loosely. (Lies being pushed, horrible cruel things done in the name of Jesus, etc.)

In fact, morality is common sense and conscience... being a good person, not intentionally hurting anyone. Does that have anything to do with worshipping unicorns...err...makebelieve folk-tale characters? NOT AT ALL!

BTW, I have known many atheists who were pro-life. I rephrase that. PRO-CHOICE, but didn't believe in abortions themselves (just don't think its right to tell others what to do). In the Jewish religion, you don't get a soul until you pass the cervix. So who has the right to say what has any "potential" of life...

Ocmpoma,

No, the Raving Atheist would not care to violate his promise not to take a stand by discussing his opinion of moral relativism. He'd much prefer to prevaricate about how he does have an opinion, but can't actually state it for reasons he's not prepared to discuss.

I'd be very interested (as I'm sure others would be) as to your views on why most of the atheists commenting over the past few weeks feel so threatened by your posts. Do you believe there is a justified generalization that can be drawn from their behavior?

Holopupenko,

TRA is (was?) not one of those atheist bloggers who focused on the abstract aspects of atheism. RA often criticized specific people and events so he attracted an similarly judgmental audience, though TRA didn't resort to profanity and stupid insults to make a point. I doubt these commenters confine their nasty sides to picking on anonymous atheist bloggers who stop making fun of people. My guess is that these commenters react in a similar fashion to a lot of things.

"Q" your question does not really make the point that you want it to.

There is a hospital fire, and you have an opportunity to save either (1) the one living, post-parturition infant on the floor or (2) a container incubating one/ten/fifty/a hundred blastocysts. You can't save both. Which would you choose to save?

As every paramedic, nurse, doctor, etc. trained in triage knows, you give first preference in care to those who have the best chance of surviving. I don't know from first-hand experience but have heard and believe that walking past those who are still alive but not likely to survive is the hardest thing they have to learn to do.

So in your scenario, it is obvious that the baby on the floor gets saved first.

Beyond that, I think you are making the assumption that we pro-life types don't recognize differences in developmental stages. We do, of course. We just don't believe that the smallness or weakness of a human life justifies our terminating it for any reason or none.

There are no words that can adequately express my admiration for TRA for sticking his neck out on this issue. How easy would it have been for him to avoid it entirely on his blog? How much scorn and vituperation would it have spared him? It takes guts to talk the talk and walk the walk. This our host has done.

It really amuses me to see atheists struggling to claim that they can arrive at morality purely via the exercise of reason. So Intergalactic Hussy (cute name, by the way) writes:

In fact, morality is common sense and conscience... being a good person, not intentionally hurting anyone

What, pray, informs conscience? How do you know that not hurting anyone intentionally is a good thing? etc.

If anything, this is great entertainment, and I'm sure the webstats are climbing.

Lily, you up for a discussion of morals and evolution in the forums? ;)

As an athiest and a moral person I can't understand why it is so important. I personally wouldn't want to have someone in my family have an abortion but I wouldn't object if they did. It really boils down to a personal choice. I would choose not to but it wouldn't be necessary for anyone else to chose the same way. It's just my opinion and no one else needs to comply or reject. Who are we to coerce/force anyone else what to do?

Tenspace: Is this a trick question?? :-)

Lily, only if you want it to be. ;)

C'mon, I know you read some popular science. I'd love to delve into morality in the modern light of evolution with you, you ol' absolutist. :)

Is up to RA his position about abortion. As far as I can recall nobody here ever put in doubt his atheism because he was pro-life. Only that we were fed up with his excedingly frequent anti-abortion tirades given the fact that all arguments has been discussed exhaustively and it was clear that positions were final. Things became weird when he proposed an atheist woman an exploratory raid to a CPC center with someting very akin to bribery (20 dollars hour or something like that). Then came his astounding announcement of his entente cordiale with christians. More astounding was his denial to explain why, and the most astounding was he will not explain why not.

Beloved Christians, please, RA is not our victim. On the contrary. Imagine that some day you go to your favorite christian blog and the blogger announces you that onwards he doesn't deffend any longer your cute Christ and won't touch with the petal of a rose the other false religions (all but yours are false) and even the atheists. I suppose etiquette entitles you to an explanation, isn't it?. And if the explanation doesn't appear your imagination will begin to wander and wonder: it's the case that the blogger converted to Ganesh or worse, to Allah, or the worst to atheism? Some of you will deny this because you know your blogger is a saint, but this doesn't solve anything. So don't criticize us, It is the owner who changed the rules in this saloon, and we the people, sorry, the patrons, want to know how much is the new price of the beer and about the new kind of beer. No more than that. Of course we can go to other saloon where the kind and price is in the blackboard and, yes, we have been scouting for that. So what I'm doing here? well it happens that this saloon is in the way to the new ones.

"What, pray, informs conscience? How do you know that not hurting anyone intentionally is a good thing? etc."

Do you really have to ask, Lily? A few days ago, you were spouting the Golden Rule. Have you forgotten it already?

You are a Christian, and you really don't know why not hurting someone is a good thing?

As one of the blogs RA linked suggested, RA seems to have problems with his male sexual identity.

Why he is a mysognist male chauvinist would take some study.

Lily as usual doesn't understand much about anything.

"It really amuses me to see atheists struggling to claim that they can arrive at morality purely via the exercise of reason."

What makes her think that atheists think that there is such a thing as "morality"? By making such a statement she presumes an answer. One cannot arrive at "morality" by reason any more than one can by faith.

In all life forms and in evolutionary development there is no such thing as "morality". It is hardly useful to scientific research and rational analysis to refer to such a myth.

I refer you to Stephen J. Gould.

Ah, yes, Bernarda:
     Gould—a “real” man’s expert on morality... by begging the question of what morality is (or isn’t in your words), and answering it by equivocating it to evolutionary material processes. And you so threatened by RA that you desperately need to descend to ad hominem about his sexuality—something not even remotely brought up or even implied. Talk about “scientific” which you so pompously flaunt in others’ faces! Are you sure it’s not you who needs help in this area? Maybe Choobs could help satisfy you with his depraved sexual fantasies.
     In any event, you’re approach is a cold, calculating one with no room for the human side of reality—one that cannot be so easily captured by “scientific equations.” In a world based on calculations, it is the calculation of consequences that determines what should be considered moral and immoral. In this way, the category of good vanishes, as Kant clearly showed… and as RA alluded to this post. In such a disordered view of reality, nothing is good or evil in itself (except, of course, for hypocrisy of atheists who hold as unquestionable dogma that people of faith are the worst evil imaginable); everything depends on the consequences that may be thought to ensue upon an action. Your questioned turned back upon yourself is just as valid: what makes you think there is no such thing as morality? If there isn’t, why all the shrill, emotional, moral condemnations of others’ views?
     Why not consider for a split second whether Dostoevsky was on to something: if there is no God, or authentic belief in God, there are no real consequences for the destruction and exploitation of human life. (RA caught atheists with their collective pants down on this point… and there was not much to look at.) Why not? Because you won’t: it’s an issue of disordered will, not necessarily flawed reasoning, for you. Your magisterial authority on these issues is untouchable, unquestionable. The ultimate goal is longer, better lives for the rich, the famous, and the elite. Abortion, euthanasia, EMBRYONIC stem-cell research. Aren’t these examples of pure, selfish power trips? Everyone who supported slavery was free. Everyone who supports abortion was born. That’s how oppression works. Self-centered power for longer, better, pain-free life trumps everything; nothing else matters, because they are all that matter. Just listen to most of those who comment on this blog (especially the power-hunger, oh-so-threatened ones who can’t make a point without foul language and ad hominem):”Enlightenment marches on” is the unquestionable mantra.
     Memo to Choobs: Please send me your banking details. I’d like to wire you a penny for every person I’ve invited to comments section of this blog to witness what atheism is all about. Bill Gates will soon be asking you for a loan…

Holo/Hagi said, you desperately need to descend to ad hominem about his sexuality

And then he said, Maybe Choobs could help satisfy you with his depraved sexual fantasies.

:)

I needed to respond to Bernarda but Holopupenko beat me to it. And did it more throroughly and elegantly than I could have ever managed!

One thing I do need to point out to Bernarda, however, is that just in these responses to RA's post at least 2 atheists have explicitly claimed that there is such a thing as morality. In the many months since I have been reading and posting here I have been told not once, twice or ten times but many, many times that atheist morality is superior to the morality religion teaches. (Yeah, I know. That is really off the wall).

So, duke it out with them, Bernarda. It would be an interesting debate to witness.

What makes her think that atheists think that there is such a thing as "morality"? By making such a statement she presumes an answer. One cannot arrive at "morality" by reason any more than one can by faith.

Bernarda:
Just to reiterate what Lily said here. What makes her (and I) think such is that we are regularly, and forcefully told (ad nauseam) that not only are atheists as moral as theists, but in reality are morally superior. So as she said, you’ll have to take that up with your fellow atheists.

Honestly speaking with no anger in my heart (at this point). How do you get good "morality" from the bible as a whole? The New Testament seem neutral in its anger toward the whole population of the world, but the Old Testament, that is another story.

Does anyone here today believe it is ok to kill (purposely) children in war? Because they did in the old testament. Would you stone your child to death? Because they did in the old testament? Would you send a bear to maul children who called you baldy? Because they did in the old testament? Was Noah really good enough to start the world over again? Because God thought He was and look at the world today.

Hm... I guess I'm in the mood for a good fisking, and you're up Holo.

[i]Gould—a “real” man’s expert on morality... by begging the question of what morality is (or isn’t in your words), and answering it by equivocating it to evolutionary material processes.[/i]

Ah, Christians. Always insisting that evolution can't account for anything other than why atheists are so damn stupid. Sorry, but simplistic moral systems have already been observed in many varieties of primates. You know; things like not slaughtering each other en masse(oops, I guess that makes them morally superior to us), exhibiting strong tendencies to help weaker members, etc. The simple, obvious explanation is that some kind of social system that includes what we would call altruism increases the chances of survival for the entire group.

[i]And you so threatened by RA that you desperately need to descend to ad hominem about his sexuality—something not even remotely brought up or even implied. Talk about “scientific” which you so pompously flaunt in others’ faces! Are you sure it’s not you who needs help in this area? Maybe Choobs could help satisfy you with his depraved sexual fantasies.[/i]

Bernarda's comments sounded more amused than desperate, to me. Though, having a little more experience with RA than your average commenter, I'm inclined to suggest this is a long-term consequence of multiple social dynamics. That is to say, attacks by atheists(myself included) on the falling logical standards on this blog over the last year, and RA's increasingly close relationship with anti-choice theists.

Since he himself refuses to say anything in his defense, we're left to our own devices. The majority of our explanations aren't attacking RA at all--if you want to see an attack, go re-read Choobus' Twelve Step Program.

[i]In any event, you’re approach is a cold, calculating one with no room for the human side of reality—one that cannot be so easily captured by “scientific equations.” In a world based on calculations, it is the calculation of consequences that determines what should be considered moral and immoral. In this way, the category of good vanishes, as Kant clearly showed… and as RA alluded to this post.[/i]

Cold... calculating... hmm. Y'know, sometimes I get the impression that you're lost in a lonely universe, desperately looking for direction. On the whole, it's a pretty lonely place for us fragile little humans. However, that doesn't make it any less real. Of course, the most fundamentalist religious person calculates morality by consequences, simply because we have no other way to do so. He has the additional option of 'god says' but in reality that biblical list is extremely short, and there are an awful lot of shades of gray. He who does not see them is blind, and at least as culpable for the meaninglessness of such subjective concepts as good and evil.

[i]In such a disordered view of reality, nothing is good or evil in itself (except, of course, for hypocrisy of atheists who hold as unquestionable dogma that people of faith are the worst evil imaginable); everything depends on the consequences that may be thought to ensue upon an action. Your questioned turned back upon yourself is just as valid: what makes you think there is no such thing as morality? If there isn’t, why all the shrill, emotional, moral condemnations of others’ views?[/i]

You know, slaughtering villages of strawpeople should be a crime. Especially considering that after burning all the men, you're probably planning to go back and rape the women and enslave children(very biblical, that). Uh, hey! The atheists are over here--those are innocent people you're killing.

Excuse me for the digression.

What about the hypocrisy of theists, who claim the authority of god while raping alter boys, or advocating the murder of liberals. I could go on for ages, but I've pretty much come to accept that hypocrisy is a fundamental human characteristic. Seeing theists as evil isn't in itself hypocritical, unless you're suggested that atheists are the worst evil imaginable--in which case, you need to take a look around you.

[i]Why not consider for a split second whether Dostoevsky was on to something: if there is no God, or authentic belief in God, there are no real consequences for the destruction and exploitation of human life. (RA caught atheists with their collective pants down on this point… and there was not much to look at.) [/i]

There aren't, except the consequences we make ourselves. Stop pretending like this is news, hm? Oh, and hey, another ad hom. Weren't you just condemning them?

[i]Why not? Because you won’t: it’s an issue of disordered will, not necessarily flawed reasoning, for you. Your magisterial authority on these issues is untouchable, unquestionable.[/i]

What authority? And whatever it is, how is it more untouchable or unquestionable than your god?

[i]The ultimate goal is longer, better lives for the rich, the famous, and the elite. Abortion, euthanasia, EMBRYONIC stem-cell research.[/i]

What world are you living in? Abortion has been practiced for nearly as long as humanity existed. Stop pretending it's something new. And please enlightening as to how it benefits the elite? Euthanasia is even less on your side. Euthanasia does not make for a long life for anyone, though it might make life better for those who no longer have to witness a relative suffer and die over an extended length of time... praise Yahweh the Merciful.

Ah, and stem cell research. This one, indeed, is about improving life, though I at least hope for everyone, not just the rich and powerful. This entire point of yours, however, seems to be about proving that atheists don't care about anyone but themselves. Stop being such an ass.

[i]Aren’t these examples of pure, selfish power trips? Everyone who supported slavery was free. Everyone who supports abortion was born. That’s how oppression works. Self-centered power for longer, better, pain-free life trumps everything; nothing else matters, because they are all that matter.[/i]

Now accuse us of eating deep-fried fetuses. They're real tasty in a good wine sauce. You sure you don't bugger alter boys for entertainment?

Yes, yes, I know! Ad Hominem! Of course, saying that atheists are power-hungry embryo-slavers is just telling truth.

[i]Just listen to most of those who comment on this blog (especially the power-hunger, oh-so-threatened ones who can’t make a point without foul language and ad hominem):”Enlightenment marches on” is the unquestionable mantra.[/i]

Just listen to Fred Phelps. Mine eyes hath seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord/ He is stamping out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored/ He wields the vengeful lightening of his terrible swift sword/ His Truth is marching on. If you're looking for hateful, ignorant bigots, young one, you need look no further than your own religion.

[i]Memo to Choobs: Please send me your banking details. I’d like to wire you a penny for every person I’ve invited to comments section of this blog to witness what atheism is all about. Bill Gates will soon be asking you for a loan…[/i]

Penny? Make it ten dollars, you cheap bum, and he might have a reason to agree.

Oh, yes. HTML tags, not psuedo-HTML. This is why one should always press preview when writing complex posts.

Reconciled:
     To progress from this point, the term "morality" must be understood as to its meaning... otherwise we'll be talking past each other.
     Your questions, while honest and perfectly valid, beg other questions.
     Consider the following in light of your questions: If evil and suffering (allegedly) disprove the existence of God, then there is no greater proof against the existence of God than the Passion of Christ. Wasn't the greatest evil ever perpetrated deicide... by the hands of His own creatures? I also recommend this post.
     None of this is to put down your questions—they ARE vaild questions that MUST be addressed. But you won't get cut-and-dry sound bytes...

"first preference in care to those who have the best chance of surviving"

Lily, this is only relevant if you are prepared to say that were the chances of "survival" equiprobable you would just as soon save a single blastocyst as you would a newborn babe. Are you prepared to say that?

Well, it is a highly speculative game we are playing since I don't think it would ever be equally probable, but, as I said in my post, we recognize developmental differences. If, in fact, absolutely, positively only one could be saved, I would save the fully developed infant.

The question of why Christ HAD to suffer on the cross doesn't at all add to me.

If God had not created Adam--no suffering.

If God had not created the "Snake"--no suffering.

If God had not created the tree of good and evil--no suffering.

If God has let Adam and all future peoples eat of the tree of life--no suffering.

If God had of killed of Noah and his family along with everything else--no more suffering.

God had lots of chances, but he still allowed the suffering?

Viole - I know, I know....

"...if there is no God, or authentic belief in God, there are no real consequences for the destruction and exploitation of human life."
This one was funny. You see, with a belief in some sort of god, the only 'real' consequences are, in fact, extant only in the head of the believer. The only consequences that I face for my actions are the real ones which occur here, in the real world.

As for the attempts of the theists posting here, you see, atheism (as was the whole point of RA's post) is not a philosophy and says nothing about morality. Your comments on the fact that atheists don't seem to agree about morality do nothing more than highlight the simple fact that RA pointed out, and your own willfull inability to accept it. You theists are all nuts - I mean, a giant tree linking Midgard and Asgard? That's crazy.

In his blog, Holopupenko writes

If evil and suffering (allegedly) disprove the existence of God, then there is no greater proof against the existence of God than the Passion of Christ. And yet, wasn’t this greatest evil in history - deicide - used for the greatest good - our salvation?

But I see from your blog that you live in Kiev, Ukraine. Have you ever considered the effects of 25 years of Chernobyl radiation on the human brain?

Your comments on the fact that atheists don't seem to agree about morality do nothing more than highlight the simple fact that RA pointed out, and your own willfull inability to accept it.

You seem to think we don't get it, but we do. The point was to answer bernarda as to why WE think that atheists think that there is such a thing as "morality". The simple answer is because so many tell us of their suprerior morality derived from atheism.

That is not what all atheists say, and if they stuck to bernarda's assertion..

"One cannot arrive at "morality" by reason any more than one can by faith."

....all would be well in that regard. But you know as well as I do, that atheists make the mistake of violating this as regularly as we do.

That's what I think both Lily and I were pointing out.

I’m going to try to explain some things about “atheist” morality (if it’s fair to call it that). This is just MY opinion and is not meant to speak for other atheists.

1) Atheists can walk and chew gum at the same time. Much ado is being made over the perceived inconsistency between how atheists view the existence of morality vs. how they apply morality in their lives. This inconsistency is non-existent because they deal with different (although overlapping) concepts. One deals with what we believe about the basic nature of the universe and the other deals with how we live and get by in that universe. The first helps inform (to varying degrees) the second, but they are still separate issues. I don’t believe in any “source” of morality outside of human nature and experience, but I am still human. I still wake up everyday and live in a world where having a moral code is conducive to my survival and happiness. I have family, friends, live in a community, work, school etc. Whether or not I believe my moral code is grounded in upbringing, evolution, or from on high is inconsequential to those facts. Granted, believing that there is no objective source of morality has its drawbacks. It means we have to think longer and harder about what moral propositions we get behind, and we are not guaranteed a firm ground for our moral beliefs. But so what? Who said life had to be easy?

2) What informs our conscience? No one thing, but several. Upbringing, culture, nature (evolution?), just dumb personal preference and probably a plethora of other things. In my opinion, each of those things taken on their own is a much better explanation than appealing to a supernatural force. Taken together, supernatural forces become superfluous. It certainly accounts for some of our differences better.

3) Is there such a thing as atheist ethics/morality? No. And it wouldn’t matter even if every atheist in the world believed the same exact things concerning morality. Atheism CAN”T have common ethics because atheism DOES NOT DEAL WITH ETHICS. It deals with existence. PERIOD. However, that doesn’t mean people who ARE atheists can’t have common ethics. They do, and they vary. So, can RA believe in the right to life for fetuses AND still be an atheist? Absolutely. I would argue that he is not required even to defend his position. Unless, of course, he wants to convince others of it. Does that mean Larry Darby can deny the holocaust and still be an atheist? Absolutely, because, again, it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. So why do some atheists feel the need to push Darby and RA out of the atheist community? Simply put, politics. Atheism is nothing more than concept, but ATHEISTS are a community and like any community trying to make it in a political world, image is everything. We know that people like Darby will be used to malign all atheists just like Stalin and Mao are used to malign us. Is it any wonder we don’t want this guy representing us? Ra’s case is a little more difficult. Personally, I think he’s been treated unfairly concerning the abortion issue. People have a right to disagree with him emphatically. His stance on abortion is a threat to the freedom of women in the minds of those who are pro-choice. But I don’t think that means he should be ostracized from the larger atheist community. Then again, I don’t think the majority of atheists on this site were calling for that.
4) Are atheists more moral/rational than theists? No, but with a sprinkling of Yes. The individual beliefs that a theist has are not necessarily more or less moral/rational to atheists. In, fact many cases, they are the same. Whether or not a theist’s belief is moral is subjective, as it is for atheists. As to RATIONAL, well…IRRATIONAL may be too hard a word. I believe the theistic take on morality is unreasonable because it relies on superfluous assumptions. We all make assumptions about reality. In order to even begin building a framework for knowledge, we have to. We have to assume that we are perceiving things the way they are. We have to assume our experts aren’t lying to us. We have to assume that the simplest explanations are the best and most likely true. At our best, we should only make those assumptions that are absolutely necessary to build a framework for gaining knowledge. Without that, there is no knowledge. Assuming a creator goes far beyond that. It also taints the knowledge we gain. Any new evidence is filtered through God belief unnecessarily. Now, I’m not saying we should filter knowledge through the hard belief that there is no God, just that we shouldn’t bring the concept of Gods into it until absolutely necessary. I don’t think we’re there yet.
5) Are atheists hypocrites? No. People are.

When you get too much change back from a cashier, do you hand back the surplus?

If so, you have morals; if not, you are a thief. It doesn't matter what you believe; how you live is what matters.

And please don't tell me believers hand it back ONLY because God commands it. I am discouraged enough as it is.

I believe the theistic take on morality is unreasonable because it relies on superfluous assumptions.

You mean assumptions like this?

We have to assume that the simplest explanations are the best and most likely true.

On what is that assumption based? Does this mean something like Quantum Physics is out? ;-)

At our best, we should only make those assumptions that are absolutely necessary to build a framework for gaining knowledge.

Which ones are those? Who decides?

Any new evidence is filtered through God belief unnecessarily.

So instead we should trade this filter for the materialist filter? Why?

Good points Steve.

1) I'm not saying the assumptions we make are always the correct ones or even EVER the correct ones. They are just what we start with to build a framework for knowledge. They are not absolute and they can change. We just need good reasons to do so.

2) Who decides, indeed? A tough question. My opinion? Those studying the feilds of knowledge in question. It make sense that different fields of knowledge whould require different starting assumptions. For us lay people, the only assumption we can make is that we aren't being lied to when we put our trust in those gaining and relaying knowledge. Without that assumption, we are crippled. After that, we can only do our best to work through the evidence and try our best to come to conclusions we can live with. I'm not saying we will all come to the same conclusions.

3) I'm not telling anyone what to do, just what I believe. I have traded God belief for a materialist filter because I don't think there is any reason to bring the concept of God into my understanding of the universe. Bringing it in, in my opinion, complicates the quest for knowledge needlessly. Don't get me wrong, I realize that by the time I do need to bring it in it may be too late, if you catch my drift. ;) But that's a risk I'm willing to take, at this point.

Between two assumptions, the simpler one is preferred.
Quantum Physics is not an assumption.
God is.

#28: "Of course, the most fundamentalist religious person calculates morality by consequences, simply because we have no other way to do so."

Well, speaking for many Christians, we do have another way: Love. We can be moral not because the consequences of doing so will more likely lead to a favourble outcome (we don't try to get away from the Cross) but because we love or at least are trying to love as Christ loves us. We fail and get it wrong and there is certainly an excess of those who name themselves Christian and then reveal themselves to be demonic. Still, there are those who seek to be moral because of love, who come to morality by experiencing God's love.

# 33: "God had lots of chances, but he still allowed the suffering?"

Yes.

Perhaps suffering has a meaning, purpose, value that is not readily apparent.

June,
Noah said...
We have to assume that the simplest explanations are the best and most likely true.

The assumption I am questioning is not Quantum Phsyics. I am questioning why the assumption that 'the simplest EXPLANATIONS are best and most likely'. I tried to be cute and use QP as an example where a complex, almost incomprehensible explanation thus far seems best.

2) A tough question. My opinion? Those studying the feilds of knowledge in question. It make sense that different fields of knowledge whould require different starting assumptions. For us lay people, the only assumption we can make is that we aren't being lied to when we put our trust in those gaining and relaying knowledge.

Yikes! This sounds like so much scientific Gnosticism to me. You even use the term ‘lay’ people. So we must trust in the high priests (experts) of materialism and be content that they are not lying? Why? Because they show us wonders that are marvelous to behold? Just believe in them because of the might ‘works’ they perform? Now where have I heard that before? ;-)

Q said:
"this is only relevant if you are prepared to say that were the chances of "survival" equiprobable you would just as soon save a single blastocyst as you would a newborn babe. Are you prepared to say that?"
Given that the unborn and the born have the same chance of survival and that I have no more history with one than the other (both stangers to me), the second consideration I would have is which one would suffer more. The third consideration would be which one I cared for more, or felt more empathy for. It might be reasoned that it is more moral to save 10 strangers than my fiancee, but since I'm not attached to them and I'm greatly attached to her, I'd saver her. So even if I'm more empathetic toward the newborn (maybe I see more of myself in it), that doesn't make my choice to save it the more moral choice, it just means that morals don't dictate my actions 100%. I would say that given equal chance for survival, saving either one is morally equivalent to saving the other, even though I can't promise this morality would dictate my actions.

Steve,

Yes, I believe that for the simple reason that I am not a quantum physisist. I am not a biologist. I am a machinist and a mechanical engineering student. I am a family man with real life responsibilities. As much as I would like to, I will never have the oppurtunity to comb through mountains and mountains of evidence, ranging from a near infinite feilds of knowledge, in order to determine whether or not scientists and philosophers are pulling my leg. All I can do is take any evidence I come across and try to make sense of it. In that, I have to assume it hasn't been fabricated. Again, I think to do otherwise cripples the quest for knowledge. Can we call this "faith"? I guess so. But it's faith in something tangible, something that can be cross referenced with other evidence. Makes alot more sense to me than the alternative.

am not a biologist. I am a machinist and a mechanical engineering student. I am a family man with real life responsibilities. As much as I would like to, I will never have the oppurtunity to comb through mountains and mountains of evidence, ranging from a near infinite feilds of knowledge, in order to determine whether or not scientists and philosophers are pulling my leg. All I can do is take any evidence I come across and try to make sense of it.

I am with you in every regard. I think that this is what most folks do (whether through rigorous intellectual excercise, or through mere intuition), and I think it’s a totally reasonable position. I have come to a different conclusion as to what makes sense, but I respect where you are coming from.