Where do atheists get their morals from?

[Viking]

How do demands for absolute truth fit with:

I'm sorry but you don't know shit about science if you think that it thinks it has conquered uncertainty. Only faith leads to certainty. I have no faith and I have non idea that I am certain on. Every single idea I have is subject to being changed with new evidence (check out my sig).

I take it this in an attempt to point out a supposed contradiction between acknowledging that there will always be uncertainty and epistemological scepticism as a conclusion. The process is to reduce the uncertainty to the smallest possible level. There is no conflict there. Even if the grand theory of everything is reached and it turns out that this is truth with a capitial "T" that idea will remain subject to revision should contradicting evidence show up and the search will continue.

[Viking]

these three issues (determinism is different) you have binary (or trinary) answers. If anything exists that is soul then monism is wrong, completely wrong, if anything exists that is not matter then materialism is wrong, completely wrong. These are truth claims, they are not knowledge claims. If you make them as knowledge claims then "I don't know" is a further specific answer.

If you are making a truth claim, then you need to set out your criteria for truth and the basis for deeming those criteria satisfied in the individual case.

I'm not making a truth claim or setting the criteria I'm saying that there are true answers to those questions, I'm not saying I know what the truth is. I think I may have expressed myself unclearly there.

My fundamental "problem" is that I am never satisfied with "I don't know" or "I can't know" as answers or conclusions. . 

That puts paid to epistemological skepticism, but the problem is that your subjective satisfaction is not an argument likely to command much weight.

We were talking about what "my problem" was so naturally my subjective satisfaction is highly relevant as to why I'm having a "problem" with something. I'm reasonably sure I have already made my view of knowledge clear. There is knowledge and all the knowledge there is came from examining the material world.

I'm a sceptic in the colloquial sense, but I'm reasonably sure I haven't used the word to describe myself of my ideas in this thread and I am certainly not a philosophical sceptic.

[Razgovory]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".

I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.

Good for you, you memorized the stock responses.  Like a Liturgy.  It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.

[Malthus]

Oh, boy the atheist brigade is out in force today.

Onward, atheist soldiers, marching as to war,
vicious internet flames going on before.
Dawkins, the science master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".

I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.

Dude. We are making fun of *you*, not "atheists".  The fact that your reasoning appears to be similar to that of a fundie doesn't mean atheism is a religion, at all.

You remind me of this chick I knew many, many years ago (yes she was hott, and yes I was trying to get into her pants - that is not, however, the point of resemblence  ). She was a dyed in the wool Troskyist. Now, I had no fucking clue as to the exact meaning of Trotsyism, though you can bet, being a horny 17 year old, I pretended an interest like crazy. All I knew was that she was a fanatic on the topic - in that she would not shut up about it, and she was not suceptible to reason on the topic.

She said something to me that has always remained with me. Over a joint and a bottle of wine, she confessed to her deepest, darkest secret - that, once upon a time, she had been a believing Catholic, and worse, she had been a totally committed and fanatical one. She then said, "can you believe that? Me, a Catholic?" as if it was absolutely impossible that a person so committed to Trotsyism could ever have been just as committed to Catholicism. 

Of course I was thinking "you bet I can. I bet you were just as tedious about your Catholicism then as you are about your Trotskyism now", but of course I didn't say it.

If I had, as well as spoiling all my chances of getting laid (which were non-existent anyway - hott as she was, the cost of pretending an interest in Trotskyism was simply too high to maintain), no doubt she would have pointed out that Trotsyism in no way resembled Catholicism.

Which is true but of course entirely not the point.

[Viking]

If this is a problem it is a problem with reality. You can't be a bit pregnant or somewhere on the scale from 0% pregnant to 100% pregnant.

Except you can, in fact, be just a little bit pregnant.  The difference between a zygote travelling down the fallopian tube, and a 40 week old fetus, are fairly profound.  If you've followed the abortion debate at all you'll note that the issue of "when does life begin" is pretty hotly contested.

Seriously WTF? I have followed the debate and the issue of when life begins is completely irrelevant to if there is a pregnancy or no. Even if pregnancy did not start at conception you are not partially pregnant at any stage in the process you are either pregnant and the process is partially completed or you are not pregnant and the process hasn't started.

Did you really think your post above was relevant to the issue? If yes please explain how. If not, stfu.

[frunk]

I take it this in an attempt to point out a supposed contradiction between acknowledging that there will always be uncertainty and epistemological scepticism as a conclusion. The process is to reduce the uncertainty to the smallest possible level. There is no conflict there. Even if the grand theory of everything is reached and it turns out that this is truth with a capitial "T" that idea will remain subject to revision should contradicting evidence show up and the search will continue.

I agree, but your supposed revulsion at "I don't know" is either at odds with acknowledging that nothing can be known with certainty or you live eternally tormented by the fundamental uncertainty of existence. 

[Viking]

Atheism is certainly not just another religion.

Your zeal in prosecuting your internet campaign against religion certainly is carried forth with religious-like fervour.

You seem to miss that many of those who are arguing with you are atheists/agnostics themelves.

You don't have to post in this thread, you do realize that. This thread started with me being effectively called a bigot by the usual suspects. I certainly don't accept that accusation.

You might think I'm a zealous activist with a religious-like fervor. Well I think it is natural to be pissed off when you mendaciously claim to have good evidence for god. I think it natural to be pissed off when I get slandered and lied to.

This thread started with an honest attempt to explain where I think all people get their morality from and to explain why the Norwegian resistance followed that morality and the Iraqi insurgents did not.

[Razgovory]

Atheism is certainly not just another religion.

Your zeal in prosecuting your internet campaign against religion certainly is carried forth with religious-like fervour.

You seem to miss that many of those who are arguing with you are atheists/agnostics themelves.

You don't have to post in this thread, you do realize that. This thread started with me being effectively called a bigot by the usual suspects. I certainly don't accept that accusation.

You might think I'm a zealous activist with a religious-like fervor. Well I think it is natural to be pissed off when you mendaciously claim to have good evidence for god. I think it natural to be pissed off when I get slandered and lied to.

This thread started with an honest attempt to explain where I think all people get their morality from and to explain why the Norwegian resistance followed that morality and the Iraqi insurgents did not.

What else would you call a person who can't respect others because of their religion?

[Viking]

Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".

I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.

Good for you, you memorized the stock responses.  Like a Liturgy.  It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.

Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.

[Razgovory]

Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".

I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.

Good for you, you memorized the stock responses.  Like a Liturgy.  It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.

Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.

Was there a part of that post I left out?

[Viking]

Dude. We are making fun of *you*, not "atheists".  The fact that your reasoning appears to be similar to that of a fundie doesn't mean atheism is a religion, at all.

You remind me of this chick I knew many, many years ago (yes she was hott, and yes I was trying to get into her pants - that is not, however, the point of resemblence  ). She was a dyed in the wool Troskyist. Now, I had no fucking clue as to the exact meaning of Trotsyism, though you can bet, being a horny 17 year old, I pretended an interest like crazy. All I knew was that she was a fanatic on the topic - in that she would not shut up about it, and she was not suceptible to reason on the topic.

She said something to me that has always remained with me. Over a joint and a bottle of wine, she confessed to her deepest, darkest secret - that, once upon a time, she had been a believing Catholic, and worse, she had been a totally committed and fanatical one. She then said, "can you believe that? Me, a Catholic?" as if it was absolutely impossible that a person so committed to Trotsyism could ever have been just as committed to Catholicism. 

Of course I was thinking "you bet I can. I bet you were just as tedious about your Catholicism then as you are about your Trotskyism now", but of course I didn't say it.

If I had, as well as spoiling all my chances of getting laid (which were non-existent anyway - hott as she was, the cost of pretending an interest in Trotskyism was simply too high to maintain), no doubt she would have pointed out that Trotsyism in no way resembled Catholicism.

Which is true but of course entirely not the point.

gnōthi seauton

I posted earlier in this thread that if I actually did believe in a god I would be a fundamentalist. So you're not telling me anything new I have known this for a long time. Way back when I did read the bible cover to cover (though bart ehrman said I should have read the gospels in parallel) I did ask myself what I would do if this stuff was actually true and what I would do if God did exist.

If god does exist then that is the most significant fact in the history of the universe. The fundamentalists make sense to me. The presuppositions are wrong so naturally their conclusions are wrong as well but their process is honest, moral and correct. If god says gays must be killed and he will punish me with an eternity of torment if I don't go on a killing spree then I think the choice is obvious.

Understanding a suicide bomber is easy. A little pain and immorality in this life leads to redemption and paradise for you and 40 of your relatives? Easy. Understanding the moderate christian is hard. To me the moderate is sacrificing well being in the after-life for well being in this one. The only way the moderate christian (or jew or muslim) makes any sense is if he either is a closet atheist or he sincerely thinks that the god he invented in his own mind which approves of his own choices is real.

Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.

[Viking]

I agree, but your supposed revulsion at "I don't know" is either at odds with acknowledging that nothing can be known with certainty or you live eternally tormented by the fundamental uncertainty of existence.

Ah, OK. I live in a reality where nothing can be known with a 100% certainly but that knowledge exists and affects our lives. I can have uncertain knowledge that I treat as provisional truth and live with that. In my world there is no capital "T" truth but there is lots of lower case truth about.

I don't think uncertainty is a torment, I think it is a fact of life. My revulsion was for the idea that any uncertainty in knowledge means that there is no knowledge. I am not sure the world is round, but that doesn't mean that any other shape (yes I know it is an unbalanced oblate spheroid if you smooth out the terrain features) is just as likely. The provisional truth is that it is round and I accept that provisional truth because it is the best explanation for the observed facts.

[Viking]

What else would you call a person who can't respect others because of their religion?

I respect your right to have a religion. That is intimately connected to my right not to have one. I just don't have to respect your beliefs or show you respect when you assert them as true.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

this is an assertion that stands and falls on it's own merits and your acceptance of these assertions affects my judgement on your character and if you deserve my respect. You get to believe this tripe and I get to mock you when you do.

[Viking]

Again the "atheism is just another religion" fallacy. To keep it at the silly level "atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color" and "atheism is a religion like non-stamp collecting is a hobby".

I think it is sad to consider that too much noise here is generated by religiously motivated trolls declaring us crazy.

Good for you, you memorized the stock responses.  Like a Liturgy.  It's not a religion, but inspires the same fanaticism, hatred, dogmatic thinking that the worst religion has to offer.

Fuck you Raz for merely quote mining me and thank you Raz for so amply demonstrating my point.

Was there a part of that post I left out?

you ignore the bit where I said I was going to be silly when you were criticizing me for being silly.

[Malthus]

gnōthi seauton

I posted earlier in this thread that if I actually did believe in a god I would be a fundamentalist. So you're not telling me anything new I have known this for a long time. Way back when I did read the bible cover to cover (though bart ehrman said I should have read the gospels in parallel) I did ask myself what I would do if this stuff was actually true and what I would do if God did exist.

If god does exist then that is the most significant fact in the history of the universe. The fundamentalists make sense to me. The presuppositions are wrong so naturally their conclusions are wrong as well but their process is honest, moral and correct. If god says gays must be killed and he will punish me with an eternity of torment if I don't go on a killing spree then I think the choice is obvious.

Understanding a suicide bomber is easy. A little pain and immorality in this life leads to redemption and paradise for you and 40 of your relatives? Easy. Understanding the moderate christian is hard. To me the moderate is sacrificing well being in the after-life for well being in this one. The only way the moderate christian (or jew or muslim) makes any sense is if he either is a closet atheist or he sincerely thinks that the god he invented in his own mind which approves of his own choices is real.

Moderate christians do not live as if god were real and jesus died for their sins.

I think I speak for everyone when I say I'm glad you have chosen a point of view that leads you to merely wax tediously on the Internet, rather than one which requires you to engage in murderous sprees. 

But here's the sticking point: not everyone believes in the same way, nor is every belief interchangable in content. For example, take Judaism. It is fundamental to Judaism that the written law of the Torah is explained and supplemented by the oral law. This is what the most hardcore believing Jews believe, and it introduces questioning and debate right into the centre of the faith. The premises of Judaism may be screwy, but a Jew who goes out and kills people who don't believe as he does is simply wrong, within the context of the faith.