/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1484

Provide an argument for why rejecting the existence of a transcendent deity aposteori has anything to do with arguments for morality? Where is the contradiction? Since Plato the question of morality has always sided with it being something even a deity had to be under and not above of.

>>1485

morality isn't real

>>1486

>Stirner posting one liners.

Whatever. Quality thread right here.

>>1487

the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders for making the claim that morality is real

>>1488

No, the burden of proof is on you. You started the thread. This is what you believe. You are the one making the claim.

You make single propositions without backing them up. That is not an argument.

Shit thread btw.

>>1484

Let me get this straight. To you, atheism equates to the rejection of everything that "isn't real". Please explicate on that by justifying why you use a term that means something else and what exactly you consider to be real. Then provide a reason for what differentiates concepts like "morality" from concepts like "fairness" or "equality" or "society", if indeed they differentiate at all. Then substantiate your initial claim by arguing for the inexistence of those concepts or, to be lenient, of what those concepts refer to. To complete the picture, present an amount of people who would agree with you up to this point while also calling themselves atheists (using your definition, not theirs), preferably an amount sizable enough to warrant the generalisation you've presented.

Then, and only then, have you got yourself a seeming paradox we can talk about.

>>1484

Let's see we have strawmanning, a false dichotomy, greentext, and one line in the OP post.

I agree with >>1487 and >>1502

You're a faggot, and you're thread is shit

>>1517

Your very existence proves morality is real

>you're a degenerate faggot

>which means degeneracy is real

>to have degeneracy you must have morality

>so morality is real

great posting by the way, you're really funny

Y'all are getting out of line.

First of all,

>define morality

Once we define what we all mean by that, we can start moving forward.

/blackpilled

>Being an atheist.

>>1517

>muh wall of text

Really? Ignoring my question concerning your question? I'm asking why you define atheism as a rejection of everything that isn't real and further how you define reality in this context, specifically pertaining to morality and the like. Only then does the question become relatable and you might get some serious replies.

>>1618

/christ/ pls

>>1618

>not being an atheist

>Thinks in Trickster

>Comes to a conclusion

Morality stems from systemic notion of right and wrong, but those may differ from person to person. It's an idea. An idea that differs from person to person also. Morality tends to be personal, not universal.

>Rides off into the sunset

So, you like my Hidden Valley Ranch?

>>1484

morality has its neurocorelates

>>1642

this

BUMPISTS

>>1517

the Burden of Proof argument is something pompous atheist faggots came up with and needs to be thrown in a bonfire.

>>5695

no offense but your mother is a whore

>>5695

no offense but the giant unicorn in the sky told me I have to kill you now

He exists btw I don't need to prove it to you, just trust me.

most of the Skeptic community is full of Utilitarian trash

>>1510

Good answer.

>>1484

Morality is real, there's just no authoritative version of it. This is something atheist fundamentalists strangely overlook.

>>5695

So, I guess we should do away with 'Innocent until proven guilty' and go back to having witch hunts.

>>1484

Because Atheists are actually Agnostics.

>>1510

Not Op, but I guess he's talking about atheistic materialism, which in itself is a rejection of metaphysic concepts and reduces reality to empirical positivism. As such morality, as argued, itself could at best be a biological imperative, and as such practically interchangeable or alterable through evolution or genetic engineering. I'd argue that such a reduction is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of morality, which is not meant to be a system that only reflects favorable circumstances for a society, but a universal a priori set of rules for the human experience, that did not rose from necessity, but dictates necessity and as such formed it. I'd argue that this due to the overly complex nature of Morality, and the spiritual impact necessary for it to function being to complex to be a mere assembly of chance. I'd say the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual functions and capabilities of evolution from the side of the atheistic materialists. To address your point of differentiating morality from other concepts, I'd argue that morality is a base experience, that is not learned but experienced, and as such is contained in the necessary structure of the human experience itself. Equality and fairness on the other hand, are imposed concepts, they are not part of the necessary structure of the human experience but are instead of intellectual origin. In short a human derives morality by itself, as the sense for it isn't learned but felt, while the concepts of equality and fairness have to be intellectually derived to be grasped. In contrast to OP I would not make the argument that atheists reject morality, but that they misjudge it's scope and validity due to their inherent materialism.

But a different question that came to my mind while writing that. Is there a possibility to separate atheism from materialism, or is it possible to combine atheism and spiritualism? I'd argue that spiritualism is always a form of deism, just that the deity isn't personified in this context. And since atheism must reject all forms of deities, it can only hold it's ground through the reduction of reality to materialism. Finally there is no real distinction between materialism and atheism.

>>1485

>>1485

If morality isn't a "higher power", what is?