/atheism/ - Atheism

>nothing you do within the confines of reality is actually wrong

I love how much this triggers both religioncucks and ethicscucks.

Drop off a youtube link on /atheism/ of some nutjob talking about feels, gods, angels, etc. Typical christfag bullshit.

>muh feels is more important than logic.

Question to any philosophy fags. Why can't an atheist say that the are just certain inherent moral truths about the universe. Just like how there are certain inherent truths about the universe or God if your a theist.

>>12218

I don't formally study philosophy but I used to browse the philosophy forums at physorg as a christian for years then ultimately I realized that the moral relativists have a point and slowly graduated to an atheist. For every "good" I've ever encountered in life I realized there's also a "bad" side and vice versa. You could go so far as to say what's bad for oneself may be what's good for the world if it ultimately kills you and you're a threat to the world, as we can see in many corporal punishment systems today, which they all are in some way. And because we don't know the future, we could go so far as to say that if someone dies who in the future may become a heinous criminal, then that's good for society. Sometimes the "bad" of life, things that place stressors on an individual or people makes them hardier and in turn you can call it "good". Or let's go all out and say that a few may see society as possibly a bad entity in itself. Don't ask me but some people just want to watch the world burn. So whatever is bad for society may be seen as good to them. I'm not sure if that answered exactly what you're asking so pardon if not but there's as many moral views as there are people.

This good/bad dichotomy that a lot of religions stress doesn't really hold up when you question it too much. But being a moral relativist, that doesn't mean I don't have my own moral views and justifications for it and feel I shouldn't impose it upon others. I impose my views only as much as they're posed upon. But as I mentioned in another thread, civility is one of the best things about being a human, personally. It nurtures creativity, happiness and so on so I do what I can to protect that kernel of humanity and civility that we have as humans.

>>12220

Also, forgot to mention that when I was a christian, my answer to the questions about why an omnipotent god allows negative situations is that without the "bad", the negatives, there is no life. The same still applies to my views as an atheist. Without pains of hunger, pains to be loved, there's no challenges or tests in life to overcome. Sometimes the "good" is also pampering you, makes you too comfortable and not hungry enough to strive for more. That was also my justification for the bible saying to love your enemies, because they challenge you and they probably challenge themselves in as much as they challenge others, they have their own issues to deal with. But as with everything, moderation is key. Don't place yourselves in situations you can't handle. I don't believe in gods anymore but overall, I believe the universe is fair, in its own way in the end, just not in the way most people think of so I don't feel the need to think there should be a heaven or hell for people that challenged themselves or others too much. Usually people live a hell of their own when they're giving it to others and if not and they take advantage of me or others without guilt, shame on me or us because in life you also need due diligence and vigilance. The universe is an entity more powerful than us and it has its own "reasons" why it works the way it does. There's certain inherent "badness" in it that we'll never be rid of because that's just how the cards are laid so all you can do is play the cards you're dealt the best you know how. I hardly find a reason to get angry at much anymore. But no, I've never encountered any "good" which can't also be "bad" and vice versa.

Pardon my wall of text. I usually have my 6pm cup of coffee and my mind flows.

>>12221

>But as with everything, moderation is key.

I don't like the old idea of living with 'moderation,' it sounds too much like mystical yin-yang - remember kids to balance your salad with the dressing or it will be too sweet or too bland. I prefer to look at extreme fashions where a concept is distilled to the absolute, over the boring 'subtle' conservative look old-timers embrace, that looks like its a bland mish-mash of whatever was left in your wardrobe. I swear its because their eyes are dimming with age. Young people are attracted to saturated colors and drama to the point of overacting, because it is unusual enough to be very stimulating.

Btw, the truth doesn't necessarily land between two extreme viewpoints.

>>>/philosophy/2181

>>12070

>atheism and morality incompatible

this is what theists actually believe in order to reinforce the value of their shitty beliefs.

you don't need a PhD to realise that morally concerned religions was a Jewish invention. The ancient Greeks and Romans didn't get their morality from theism.

The overwhelming majority of the ethics theories and moral philosophers don't see a connection between morality and gods. People who really believe that morals are god-given are either ignorant of ethics and history or completely fanatical about their bullshit

>>12070

If certain things are always wrong why do they let God get away with it? He killed more people (acording to bible) than any tyrant.

He lied. He tricked. He's like a jealous little bitch.

>>12231

Yeah, you're also right there. I think for most people trying to maintain moderation bodes better for them as it does me. But excitement is part of the zesty rollercoaster of life and it's that which makes people feel alive. So yeah, that was one of my issues with any religious text. It tries to sum up something as complicated as life into static text as it's the end-all be-all and sometimes improvisation is discouraged. I can't tell you exactly how you should live your life either, just give what works for me.

>>12219

But the point of declaring inherent moral facts is saying they simple are, just like saying god simply is, essentially this would be saving a step

>>12253

But that's baseless. You pointed it yourself. Any apologist who wants to be taken seriously these days won't just assert that god simply is. He'll elaborate.

Again if you're going to declare inherent moral truths.You need to justify where they came from. "They just are" isn't an answer. Clearly they aren't just are, because I haven't heard of them.