We can reliably conclude that there is truth, but we cannot reliably conclude what that truth is.

This doesn't mean that I can't talk about its possibilities: one of which is the empirical viewpoint of nature, and the others, which are all the non-empirical viewpoints.

In doing so, my position is not limited, but rather, flexible.

If based on a set of epistemological assumptions, I want to conclude that moral decision-making matters, I can. If based on another set of epistemological assumptions, I want to conclude that it doesn't matter. I can.

One may ask: so which do you choose?

To which I answer: the one that sustainably keeps me feeling 'good'.

What personal attack?

In any case you've claimed you have acquainted yourself with millennia of moral philosophy but as you have failed to demonstrate any understanding of it, or even any familiarity with it, it seems either that you haven't or that you should read it again until such time as you actually understand it.

I've demonstrated a lot more knowledge of it than you have, since you haven't contributed anything to this thread so far.

You haven't demonstrated any.

There's really little need for bickering. Not knowing something doesn't mean that one should be prohibited from commenting on it. It is by commenting on such matters, that we often learn after all.

Unless you have a contrary contribution to the thread, that's detailed and easy to understand for those with less knowledge, the bickering is hardly justifiable.

Not knowing doesn't mean that someone should be prohibited from commenting, it does mean if you claim knowledge of some subject where you are clearly lacking you may be called out for it.

Just as OP doesn't need to justify his OP I don't need to justify my comments.

I'm not so sure that you can conclude there is universal truth, since anything removed from your experience would be unreliable. But I think you would agree. You're talking about a personal truth, right?

And if I understand right: you can determine that there is truth, but not what it is. So, essentially, that information you gleaned is very limited. Like if you were looking through a microscope, you can determine that there is an object, but you can't see what object it is? I agree that the truth can be elusive.


As for your moral philosophy, you have a sort of free reign on morals. I like that. It's like you can pick and choose, which does follow an atheistic worldview. It sounds like you would choose hedonism. Haha. Go for it man. William Blake said the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, which is probably my favorite quote.

So you agree that feeling 'good' is a result of decisions you make. (I would say that that is a moral: we all want to feel good, and it's moral to want good things for yourself. I would even argue that it is immoral to harm oneself.) So let's say you devote your life to making decisions that keep you feeling good. In the beginning, you only care about your own well being. Anybody who gets in the way of that is fair game; if you have to lie, cheat, or even murder if you can get away with it, you will.

Now, let me ask you this. Do you feel bad when you treat someone unjustly? (they didn't deserve your wrath)? Or do you keep feeling good? And do you think that all humans feel the same in these situations, or do you think all humans are completely unique: some feel good, some feel bad?

dereds is the kind of person who sits on the sidelines and criticizes but is afraid to get in the ring. There's no purpose to giving him more attention

I'm not afraid to get into the ring I'm not interested in talking about topics I'm interested with people who are poorly informed but very confident with their position regardless.

The claim that there is no truth is without basis. The claim after-all asserts a truth - that there is no truth - making it self-refuting, and in fact demonstrating that there is truth.

Whether you want to call this a 'personal truth' is not particularly important. It stems from the self-evident principle of non-contradiction.
Kind of. You can never define anything in its totality, and whatever definition you attach to something, it will always exclude some aspect of it.
Not necessarily. Lying, cheating and murdering doesn't make me feel 'good', so naturally I wouldn't do such things, unless coerced into it.
Very broad question so I'll provide a broad answer. I generally feel bad when I treat others unjustly.
I don't know if others feel the same in these situations. Indirect correlative evidence would suggest most people feel generally the same, with the exception of the mentally ill.

You might have some problems talking to anyone in that case. Particularly interesting people: they tend to have strong opinions that are loosely held (if that makes sense).

50k posts across various forums says otherwise.

Interesting people have interesting things to say, talking about subjects in which one or more contributors has weak information but strong opinions isn't interesting.

Look I know you aren't an idiot and I get that you've done some reading of philosophy, certainly more than OP has demonstrated, so a conversation with you may be interesting irrespective of which of us is more informed on the topic in question, this is not the case with an OP who states

And worse

Problem is there is no particular reasons to suppose ones own feelings and preferences need be any more correct than any other random person's.

Sometimes caring about others well-being makes the humans feel good.

Scary thought presses that gets you to murdering people as a part of feeling good...

My my, this thread certainly is rehashing some old themes.

The problem is that you don't know your material very well. You don't understand that the teachings you are trying to interpret saw nihilism as a problem of contemporary society. This nihilism is the moral vacuum that results from realizing the world seemingly does not conform to contemplative moral theories (like say... Christianity). The supposed "ubermensch" represents an end to such nihilism, not the confirmation of it; a prediction that there might come humans who create moral foundations for humanity based on commitment rather than contemplation.

To use a silly (and overly simplified) example: The "ubermensch" would help you because he cares, not because he is told he should care or he is told God cares.

My main question to people who want to think that absolute morality is a must is, so what if there isn't one?

It should be obvious that there are different morality systems across different animals species. Even wolves, and monkeys, etc. exhibit a morality based system. And even if that doesn't convince you, humans are clearly a tribal species where you can see different morality systems across the globe.

Most modern world populations would unanimously agree that chopping fingers off for stealing is a bit excessive. Or that stoning a woman to death who was raped or had unmarried sex does not jive with their own morals. It should be patently obvious that morality has much to due with society. Back in the days of slavery, most didn't object. Today almost every sees it as being utterly immoral to own another human being regardless of race or status. Yet, slavery still exists in some 3rd countries and religions (especially women slaves).

I guess I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that our morality doesn't come from any god. We do good by others, because of empathy and the fact that living in a civilized society benefits us all. What's considered civilized, depends on what you're used to. Evolution has instilled in us a sense of helping others, because we want to be helped in turn should we need it. And as an atheist, I don't think it's okay that you or I should be able to get away with murder, because I don't think it's okay if you randomly murder me or my loved ones.

I really don't get why this is so hard for theists to understand. Do they REALLY think that if it weren't for fear of god punishing them that they would lose their minds and start raping, robbing, and murdering everyone in sight? If so, how on earth can they considers themselves to be moral beings? It just doesn't make sense.

Bingo

I agree with all of this.

I also don't think an absolute morality is even desirable. An absolute morality is always based on rules and I don't think any finite set of rules can lead to the best solution in every situation.

take the statements

they are opposites so if either statement is meaningful, one is true and the other is false

the first is consistent and the second leads to a direct contradiction

so it's pretty easy to conclude that there are at least some (or at least one) universal truths)

granted, you have to assume a few things about logic and language to reach this conclusion but I don't see those axioms as problematic in any way

Christianity and other religions believe that a Supreme Being gave us love (what you call "empathy") and that religion helps people to focus on it and to give it high value. When people are unsure that having "empathy" is important, they tend to discount it and revert to self-interest. Reminding people to "Love thy Neighbor" only comes from religious groups not from atheist groups.

Sorry, but there is plenty of evidence that modern humankind is not "evolving" into one with a "helping others" attitude. I'll spare the history lesson.

I'm an atheist.

The highest principle of morality (better than any set of rules) is love.

Your claim that atheists don't believe or say that is demonstrably false.

And I'm not the first or only atheist to say that.

The evidence in psychology literature would disagree with you.

Religiosity has no significant association with moral behaviour or moral integrity.

I addressed this in the OP. No I don't think that - I actually think there wouldn't be a big difference at all. But you atheists don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between moral behavior and the philosophical foundation for that moral behavior.

Not that it matters too much, really, in terms of how society operates. Philosophy for that matter won't have much bearing on how the average person behaves. And that's what I'm posing in this thread, a philosophical question. What you're responding to is more of a sociological question.

If you want to talk about the Christian morality, I would say that Jesus makes it clear the only moral law is to love they neighbor, and do unto others as they would unto you. It seems like the least restricting morality ever devised. Now there are a lot of Christians who would disagree with me on this. But in my reading of of the gospels, taking all dogma away, this is how I understand Jesus.

Universal in the context of humans, you mean, right? Because if there is no god then the language would have to be strictly human language, so it only works within a closed system of human communication. Say that the language structures are inherent at birth and these structures contain logical elements so we are more effective at communicating.

To my mind that's not universal.