Jump to content


Photo

Morality Without Religion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#1 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

There is a fairly widespread belief among theists that without God, there can be no morality. According to this belief, there is nothing to stop atheists from raping babies and eating kittens. This is not only incorrect, but it serves to put theists in a very bad light indeed. Here's why:

First of all, enlightened self-interest provides a perfectly sound faundation for moral behavior. I want to live in a world where people treat each-other kindly, don't steal each-other's stuff, and respect one-another's feelings, both physical and emotional. There are two things I can do to make the world more kind and respectful - I can ask other people to act in a kind, respectful manner; and I can do so myself.

Of these two options, the more powerful by far is my own actions. If I tell other people to be decent to each-other but I am not decent myself, why should anyone listen to me? But if I am a decent human being, then I am teaching by example already. Adding words to the equation merely serves to reinforce what my actions are already saying. So, if I want to live in a world like the one I describe, my course of action is clear: I must act morally, and teach moral behavior.

What's more, I actively want to be a decent human being. I feel better about myself whenever i do right by another person, and I feel bad when I harm others. Studying other tribal species leads me to believe that this drive towards co-operation and respect is innate to Homo Sapiens, having evolved as a necessary part of being a tribal species.

Theists, OTOH, appear to believe that if there were no God watching them 24/7, they would immediately run out tosteal, kill, rape and pillage. I hear constantly that only God can provide a moral foundation, and without God we are free to do anything. So apparently the only thing keeping theists from going on a horrific rampage of brutality and lust is a cosmic morality policeman watching over their shoulders. Frankly, theists often come across as envious when they say that atheists have no morality.

The Golden Rule exists in nearly every culture in the world, with good reason. It provides, as I have described above, a rational basis for secular morality. One need not believe in gods to see that acting like a decent human being is a win/win for everyone.

#2 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:50 AM

There is a fairly widespread belief among theists that without God, there can be no morality. According to this belief, there is nothing to stop atheists from raping babies and eating kittens. This is not only incorrect, but it serves to put theists in a very bad light indeed. Here's why: First of all, enlightened self-interest provides a perfectly sound faundation for moral behavior. I want to live in a world where people treat each-other kindly, don't steal each-other's stuff, and respect one-another's feelings, both physical and emotional. There are two things I can do to make the world more kind and respectful - I can ask other people to act in a kind, respectful manner; and I can do so myself. Of these two options, the more powerful by far is my own actions. If I tell other people to be decent to each-other but I am not decent myself, why should anyone listen to me? But if I am a decent human being, then I am teaching by example already. Adding words to the equation merely serves to reinforce what my actions are already saying. So, if I want to live in a world like the one I describe, my course of action is clear: I must act morally, and teach moral behavior. What's more, I actively want to be a decent human being. I feel better about myself whenever i do right by another person, and I feel bad when I harm others. Studying other tribal species leads me to believe that this drive towards co-operation and respect is innate to Homo Sapiens, having evolved as a necessary part of being a tribal species. Theists, OTOH, appear to believe that if there were no God watching them 24/7, they would immediately run out tosteal, kill, rape and pillage. I hear constantly that only God can provide a moral foundation, and without God we are free to do anything. So apparently the only thing keeping theists from going on a horrific rampage of brutality and lust is a cosmic morality policeman watching over their shoulders. Frankly, theists often come across as envious when they say that atheists have no morality. The Golden Rule exists in nearly every culture in the world, with good reason. It provides, as I have described above, a rational basis for secular morality. One need not believe in gods to see that acting like a decent human being is a win/win for everyone.


Hi Xanifred and welcome to the forums!

First off, I would like you to show where on these forums that theists have stated atheists have no morality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that statement has been said on this board. I'm sure there are radical theists out there that say such things, but on the other hand, so do atheists.

I have asked WHERE does this morality stem from. If evolution is indeed true, and there is no God, they why can't we go around killing babies and eating kittens? If we humans are ultimately a rock, bacteria, or what have you, and we just happened to evolve from said rock into a living, breathing, human, why should it matter if I kill someone? No other creature on this planet is held to a standard like us humans, but why?
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:46 AM

Hi Xanifred and welcome to the forums! First off, I would like you to show where on these forums that theists have stated atheists have no morality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that statement has been said on this board. I'm sure there are radical theists out there that say such things, but on the other hand, so do atheists. I have asked WHERE does this morality stem from. If evolution is indeed true, and there is no God, they why can't we go around killing babies and eating kittens? If we humans are ultimately a rock, bacteria, or what have you, and we just happened to evolve from said rock into a living, breathing, human, why should it matter if I kill someone? No other creature on this planet is held to a standard like us humans, but why?


Excellent point, jay. I also accept the fact that evolutionists have morals...to one degree or another as they are influenced by the culture they live in...usually. Any other morals outside of the societal norm are purely out of their own imagination. But if evolutionists were consistent with what they say they believe in there can be only ONE level of morality: survival of the fittest...kill or be killed. After all, isn't that what they have been telling us that the animal kingdom has been doing for aeons of earths history?

#4 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

Excellent point, jay. I also accept the fact that evolutionists have morals...to one degree or another as they are influenced by the culture they live in...usually. Any other morals outside of the societal norm are purely out of their own imagination. But if evolutionists were consistent with what they say they believe in there can be only ONE level of morality: survival of the fittest...kill or be killed. After all, isn't that what they have been telling us that the animal kingdom has been doing for aeons of earths history?


Precisely. All I can picture from the evolutionist point of view is something like this. Please be advised, I'm sure my numbers are off but that's not the point of this thread:

500 million years ago, everything killed each other in order to survive. Posted Image
350 million years later, as man started to evolve, he realized, "wait! We shouldn't do this!"

200 million years later, the 'new evolved man' made law and said, 'don't kill! it's wrong!'

Thus, our moral compass comes from this.. ??

According to atheists, when and where did morality get its roots?

#5 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

Hi Xanifred and welcome to the forums! First off, I would like you to show where on these forums that theists have stated atheists have no morality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that statement has been said on this board. I'm sure there are radical theists out there that say such things, but on the other hand, so do atheists. I have asked WHERE does this morality stem from.

My mistake. I have seen "morality cannot exist without god" equated to 'atheists cannot have any true morality' numerous times, and made the assumption that this equation was being made here as well. I apologize for this apparently unfounded assumption.

As to the question "where does morality come from," it depends on what you mean by "morality." If you're talking about nearly universal standards such as 'don't kill children' and 'don't have s@x with close relatives,' those are evolutionarily necessary traits. If you're talking about culture-specific standards such as 'don't drive on Saturday' or 'don't have s@x for purely recreational purposes,' those are arbitrary rules made up by human beings.

If evolution is indeed true, and there is no God, they why can't we go around killing babies and eating kittens?

We can, if we want to. However, it will not be advantageous to the survival of our species.

If we humans are ultimately a rock, bacteria, or what have you, and we just happened to evolve from said rock into a living, breathing, human, why should it matter if I kill someone?

Since we go around killing each-other pretty regularly without any legal or moral consequences (we call this "war"), clearly it doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as that "someone" is form a competing tribe.

No other creature on this planet is held to a standard like us humans, but why?

All animals on this planet are held to the same standard. Human beings are a social species. All social species have behavioral standards which, if violated, result in the individual being shunned or even killed by the tribe. There is nothing unique about human morality.

#6 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:52 AM

Excellent point, jay. I also accept the fact that evolutionists have morals...to one degree or another as they are influenced by the culture they live in...usually. Any other morals outside of the societal norm are purely out of their own imagination. But if evolutionists were consistent with what they say they believe in there can be only ONE level of morality: survival of the fittest...kill or be killed. After all, isn't that what they have been telling us that the animal kingdom has been doing for aeons of earths history?

This is an unfortunately all-too-common misinterpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest." Fitness in the evolutionary sense means not only that the individual is most likely to reproduce (and so are their offspring), but also that the individual's behavior is the most advantageous for the population as a whole.

Therefore, in a social species, co-operation is far more "fit" behavior than selfishness or sociopathic behavior. Among solitary animals, killing competitors of the same species carries little or no evolutionary penalty. But among co-operative species, the group acts as a more-or-less cohesive whole, jointly determining which behavior is most advantageous and which is not.

"Survival of the fittest," BTW, was not something that Darwin wrote. It is not a phrase which is generally used in scientific settings, since it is both inaccurate and misleading.

#7 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 29 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

You said, My mistake. I have seen "morality cannot exist without god" equated to 'atheists cannot have any true morality' numerous times, and made the assumption that this equation was being made here as well. I apologize for this apparently unfounded assumption.

Not a problem at all. Where we differ is where we believe our moral compass stems from.

You said, "As to the question "where does morality come from," it depends on what you mean by "morality." If you're talking about nearly universal standards such as 'don't kill children' and 'don't have s@x with close relatives,' those are evolutionarily necessary traits. If you're talking about culture-specific standards such as 'don't drive on Saturday' or 'don't have s@x for purely recreational purposes,' those are arbitrary rules made up by human beings".

Can you show me the evolutionary evidence that proves these traits are indeed evolutionary traits? How did they evolve?

You said, "We can, if we want to. However, it will not be advantageous to the survival of our species".

But what makes murder wrong? For example, why don’t you just go out and smash someone over the head with a baseball bat? You know it’s wrong, there are laws, consequences, etc. Where do those stem from? What makes it wrong to do these things?

You said, " Since we go around killing each-other pretty regularly without any legal or moral consequences (we call this "war"), clearly it doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as that "someone" is form a competing tribe".

Generally speaking, there are consequences if you are caught. My question again, is if ultimately we are just evolved rocks, we have no ultimate purpose on this planet, when we’re gone, we’re gone, what should it matter what we do? Where in the evolutionary time line did this morality kick in?

You said, "All animals on this planet are held to the same standard. Human beings are a social species. All social species have behavioral standards which, if violated, result in the individual being shunned or even killed by the tribe. There is nothing unique about human morality".

All animals are held to the same standard? So if a cat kills a mouse, it could face jail time? A possible death sentence? The cat knows right from wrong? Nothing unique about human morality? Do animals know they are going to die? Do they contemplate life like humans do? Do they seek out truth?

#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

"Therefore, in a social species, co-operation is far more "fit" behavior than selfishness or sociopathic behavior"


What, pray tell, is a 'social species' and who determined such a designation?

What is selfishness in terms of survival of the fittest and why is it a bad thing?

What is sociopathic behavior and likewise, why is it a bad thing?

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

The atheist may claim that he or she may 'wish to live in a world of harmony and therefore use that as a basis for doing good', and that is all well and good, however there is no accountability for those at the top. An old saying goes 'the measure of a man is how he treats those who can do him absolutely no good', ergo what happens when with those in power who have no-one to hold them accountable for their actions... This is the basic tenet of all morals from religion in that no matter what happens we will be held acountable for our deeds in life, (yes they can be forgiven, however there is still the accountability aspect). This is why atheism-morality cannot be objective and ultimately fails in the end since those who can do bad an get away with it are under no obligation to restrict themselves to go good. (This doesn't say that people can't be good, its just saying that atheist-morality as a moral code fails to live up to what it is supposed to do)

#10 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:14 PM

Can you show me the evolutionary evidence that proves these traits are indeed evolutionary traits?

What do you mean by "evolutionary evidence"? Evolution is a robust theory which makes numerous predictions about what we will find in nature. Thus far, those predictions have been shown to be correct. When it comes to social evolution, the "evidence" is all around you. People who act violently and break the social rules of their given community are shunned, jailed, outcast, or othewise harmed. It is clear that co-operation among individuals in social species is good for the survival and procreation of the species as a whole.

How did they evolve?

This question appears to involve a basic lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution. How did any behavior evolve?

But what makes murder wrong? For example, why don’t you just go out and smash someone over the head with a baseball bat? You know it’s wrong, there are laws, consequences, etc. Where do those stem from? What makes it wrong to do these things?

"Right" and "wrong" are human inventions. Murder is a bad idea for a number of reasons. For one thing, I depend on the larger community for my life, as do 99.999% of all humans (truly self-sufficient humans are extremely rare). For another, if I go around killing people, I contribute to a lawless and violent society, which is not the kind of society i want to live in. Why not? Because, in such a society, my own personal chances of being murdered are increased, and - like any animal - I don't want to die.

You said, " Since we go around killing each-other pretty regularly without any legal or moral consequences (we call this "war"), clearly it doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as that "someone" is form a competing tribe". Generally speaking, there are consequences if you are caught.

Not if you're wearing a uniform. Then the only consequence is the possibility that the other tribe's soldiers will kill you, instead of you killing them.

My question again, is if ultimately we are just evolved rocks, we have no ultimate purpose on this planet, when we’re gone, we’re gone, what should it matter what we do?

If this life is all we get, then this life is incredibly precious. Life is incredibly precious. Failing to live one's life in the best possible manner would be a terrible waste.

In the long run, I won't care, because I'll be dead. But I'm not dead today, so today I care.


All animals are held to the same standard? So if a cat kills a mouse, it could face jail time?

Of course not. Mice and cats are separate species. And cats aren't social to the extent that humans are, so even killing another cat would not create negative repurcussions.

Other species, however, have social norms. We've been studying primates in the wild for decades now, and we have discovered all sorts of social rules and regulations which, when violated, lead to group punishments. These are the "right" and "wrong" of the chimpanzee or gorilla communities, respectively.

A possible death sentence? The cat knows right from wrong? Nothing unique about human morality? Do animals know they are going to die? Do they contemplate life like humans do? Do they seek out truth?

Why do you believe that contemplation of life is a necessary component of human morality?

#11 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:17 PM

The atheist may claim that he or she may 'wish to live in a world of harmony and therefore use that as a basis for doing good', and that is all well and good, however there is no accountability for those at the top. An old saying goes 'the measure of a man is how he treats those who can do him absolutely no good', ergo what happens when with those in power who have no-one to hold them accountable for their actions... This is the basic tenet of all morals from religion in that no matter what happens we will be held acountable for our deeds in life, (yes they can be forgiven, however there is still the accountability aspect). This is why atheism-morality cannot be objective and ultimately fails in the end since those who can do bad an get away with it are under no obligation to restrict themselves to go good. (This doesn't say that people can't be good, its just saying that atheist-morality as a moral code fails to live up to what it is supposed to do)

Nonsense. Evolution-based-morality requires that all members of a community be held to the same standard. Atheists are every bit as much in favor of equal application of the law as any other group. In fact, it could be argued that many of us are more in favor of equal application of the law, since lots of religious leaders get "special treatment" from their fellow-believers when it comes to moral trangressions.

#12 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

What, pray tell, is a 'social species' and who determined such a designation?


"A social animal is a loosely defined term for an organism that is highly interactive with other members of its species to the point of having a recognizable and distinct society. All mammals (and birds) are social to the extent that mothers and offspring bond. The term "social animal" is usually only applied when there is a level of social organization that goes beyond this, with permanent groups of adults living together, and relationships between individuals that endure from one encounter to another." (wikipedia)

More about social species


What is selfishness in terms of survival of the fittest and why is it a bad thing?

Selfishness has nothing specific to do with "survival of the fittest." Selfishness in a social context means serving one's own needs at the expense of others in the community. In a social species, selfishness is a negative trait, as it works against the group instead of for it.

What is sociopathic behavior and likewise, why is it a bad thing?

A sociopath is an individual who does not bond emotionally with others, or feel empathy. Bonding and empathy are essential traits in social species.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 November 2012 - 04:49 PM

Nonsense. Evolution-based-morality requires that all members of a community be held to the same standard. Atheists are every bit as much in favor of equal application of the law as any other group. In fact, it could be argued that many of us are more in favor of equal application of the law, since lots of religious leaders get "special treatment" from their fellow-believers when it comes to moral trangressions.


Huh? How does that relate to what I was talking about? I never discussed laws nor did I discuss equal treatment, so you've waffled on topics which I never spoke about..

What happens to the billionare who has no reason to treat people good, he has the money so even if he was such a ##### he'd still be socially acceptable? There is no obligation for such people to act good, ergo there is no foundation for them. Why should he be morrally good, what is gis obligation?


Additionally how would you define the foundation of atheist morals? What is it based on? How does it determine what is "good" and what is "evil"?

#14 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:45 PM

Huh? How does that relate to what I was talking about? I never discussed laws nor did I discuss equal treatment, so you've waffled on topics which I never spoke about..


You said that there is no accountability for the people at the top in atheist morality. You are wrong. There is legal accountability.

There is, however, no accountability for god in theistic morality.


What happens to the billionare who has no reason to treat people good, he has the money so even if he was such a ##### he'd still be socially acceptable? There is no obligation for such people to act good, ergo there is no foundation for them. Why should he be morrally good, what is gis obligation?

It depends on how you define "morality." If you define it as following the golden rule, then a millionaire has the same motivation as anyone else. If he wants to be liked - loved, even - for who is is, rather than for what he has, then he cannot go around treating others badly.

Additionally how would you define the foundation of atheist morals? What is it based on?

Treat other people the way you youself wish to be treated. There is a reason that this rule exists in every culture. It's logical and practical.

How does it determine what is "good" and what is "evil"?

It doesn't. Good and evil are human constructs, not objective realities. Non-theistic morality is concerned with creating a societal framework which provides the greatest possible advantage to the greatest possible number of people, without exploiting anyone in the process. It's about making the world a decent place to live, both for us and our children.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:56 PM

1.You said that there is no accountability for the people at the top in atheist morality. You are wrong. There is legal accountability.

2. There is, however, no accountability for god in theistic morality.

3. It depends on how you define "morality." If you define it as following the golden rule, then a millionaire has the same motivation as anyone else. If he wants to be liked - loved, even - for who is is, rather than for what he has, then he cannot go around treating others badly. Treat other people the way you youself wish to be treated. There is a reason that this rule exists in every culture. It's logical and practical. It doesn't.

4. Good and evil are human constructs, not objective realities.

5. Non-theistic morality is concerned with creating a societal framework which provides the greatest possible advantage to the greatest possible number of people, without exploiting anyone in the process. It's about making the world a decent place to live, both for us and our children.


1. Legal rules are not moral rules. Hitler made his own laws... Using your logic Hitler was doing moral good since he was following the laws he made.... Try again.

2. How so? Evidence please.

3. I define morality as objective, in that there are moral truths that cannot be compromised via subjective circumstances or trivial justification, which inevitability leads to what is the foundation of the objectivity of morals. Or are you claiming morals are subjective, since it seems that you are.

4. Ah so you are claiming morality as subjective.. Therefore if morality is subjective would it be "evil" of me to murder you and your family and then go and torture some babies?

5. But as I said, what is this based on, and on what authority does it hold over others, why should people regard it as anything?

#16 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:27 PM

[More about social species Selfishness has nothing specific to do with "survival of the fittest." Selfishness in a social context means serving one's own needs at the expense of others in the community.

What if I decide that there is no such thing as 'selfishness' and I kill my neighbor for food to survive. Who is to say I am wrong? After all, my 'evolutionary cousins' (i.e. lions, tigers, & bears, Posted Image ) do it all the time and they feel no conscience about it. Tell me why such action is wrong. Why should I have any more of a conscience than they do.

#17 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:21 PM

1. Legal rules are not moral rules. Hitler made his own laws... Using your logic Hitler was doing moral good since he was following the laws he made.... Try again.


Legal rules can be based on moral rules. Atheistic morality includes codifying basic human decency into law, just as theistic morality does. Just because there is no eternal reward or punishment for breaking rules, that doesn't mean that there is no accountability.

2. How so? Evidence please.

Who holds god to account? Nobody. God can do whatever he pelases, and it is "good" by default, because gid says so. The god of the Bible has commmitted acts every bit as horrific as Hitler, but it is considered "good" because god said so, and who are you to say otherwise?

Like I said, there is no accuntability for god.


3. I define morality as objective, in that there are moral truths that cannot be compromised via subjective circumstances or trivial justification, which inevitability leads to what is the foundation of the objectivity of morals. Or are you claiming morals are subjective, since it seems that you are.

4. Ah so you are claiming morality as subjective.. Therefore if morality is subjective would it be "evil" of me to murder you and your family and then go and torture some babies?

No, it would be ugly and antisocial and 'wrong' in the sense that it would be abhorrent behavior which causes uneccessary suffering.

5. But as I said, what is this based on, and on what authority does it hold over others, why should people regard it as anything?

It's based on logic and experience, and people do regard it as something, because people want to be liked and accepted. We are social creatures, and the acceptance of our peers is important to us.

#18 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:27 PM

What if I decide that there is no such thing as 'selfishness' and I kill my neighbor for food to survive. Who is to say I am wrong?

The rest of the society in which you live. Because none of us want to be killed and eaten, we would eliminate you from society as a dangerous threat. It may not be "wrong" in any objective sense, but it is undesireable behavior.

After all, my 'evolutionary cousins' (i.e. lions, tigers, & bears, Posted Image ) do it all the time and they feel no conscience about it. Tell me why such action is wrong. Why should I have any more of a conscience than they do.

What do you think a conscience is? Why do you think that one person feels guilty and ashamed for eating a cheeseburger, while another gladly eats the cheeseburger but feels guilty about a BLT? Both of these people are dealing with a guilty conscience - but why?

Conscience is not some innate radar that tells us what objective right and wrong are. It's a social construct that causes us to feel shame when we violate social norms. A drug dealer feels no pangs of conscience selling crack, but would struggle mightily with reporting another dealer to the police. Every social group has its own rules, and our 'conscience' is really our conditioning, telling us that we have trangressed those rules.

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5305 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:09 AM

1. Legal rules can be based on moral rules.

2. Atheistic morality includes codifying basic human decency into law, just as theistic morality does.

3. Just because there is no eternal reward or punishment for breaking rules, that doesn't mean that there is no accountability.

4. Who holds god to account? Nobody.

5. God can do whatever he pelases,

6. and it is "good" by default, because gid says so.

7. The god of the Bible has commmitted acts every bit as horrific as Hitler, but it is considered "good" because god said so, and who are you to say otherwise?

8. No, it would be ugly and antisocial and 'wrong' in the sense that it would be abhorrent behavior which causes uneccessary suffering. It's based on logic and experience, and people do regard it as something, because people want to be liked and accepted. We are social creatures, and the acceptance of our peers is important to us.


1. And? I just demonstrated to you that using your logic Hitler was morally good because he was obeying the law, (they laws he made), therefore whilst some laws may be based on moral behaviour it does nothing to explain the foundation of morals and its objectivity... Since as you said some of the laws are based on morals therefore to use law as a foundation would be exercising circular logic. Ergo try again.

2. You are just doing the above, claiming that laws come from morals and then atheistic morals come from the law... Its like a game of hot potato, the foundation keeps on jumping everywhere.

3. Really... So what about the people who steal / lie / cheat their way to success and do not get caught out... How are they held accountable? (Pro-tip: They aren't caught out so there is no person to hold them accountable)... This could extend to those with whom people know have done the wrong thing, but legal issues, (diplomatic immunity, a stacked deck of lawyers, bribes, etc), ensure that they cannot be reprimanded... How are they held accountable?

4. God has stated who he is and if he deviates from that character people wouldn't believe the Bible. Therefore his own claims about himself holds himself accountable to himself since to do anything other than what he says he is would be hypocritial and then people wouldn't believe in a hypocritical God. In short God holds himself accountable.

5. He can, but only what is in line with his character. For example I could go and drink some alcohol however that wouldn't fit with my character as I don't like to drink alcohol.

6. Why not? How else can we claim otherwise except from God describing himself?

7. I'd like you to perhaps list some examples and show how they are as horrific as you claim.

Also here is a funny video that kinda covers this topic ;)/>






8. Ah so you don't agree with a subjective view of morality :)/> that is great. Now consider that what you have told me is exactly what would be said for subjective morality... If morals are based on laws and the laws are made by us then they are subjective, if we use our own feelings about wanting to be nice to each other that is also subjective therefore from where does the objectivity of morality come from if you do not have God as the anchor?

#20 Kristof

Kristof

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:Art, Video Games, Basketball.
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 30 November 2012 - 04:20 AM

Xanifre, you don't understand the difference between morals defined by God and morals defined by man.

Without God, we only have subjective morality. Just because a certain set of moral codes is well thought out to benefit humanity, doesn't mean there won't be people who violate said code and get away with it. On the other hand, nobody can get away with violating God's command.

you confuse moral preferences of atheistic individuals with what atheism as an ideology claims about morals.
Atheism is only a lack of belief in God, and does not make any claims on how humans ought to behave.

You are free to believe helping humanity to achieve the greater good is "morally good", but that is as subjective as liking the color green.
And just because certain moral codes are universally popular, doesn't make it objectively good.
For example, just because rice is a popular food across the world, doesn't mean it is objectively delicious.

Theists, OTOH, appear to believe that if there were no God watching them 24/7, they would immediately run out tosteal, kill, rape and pillage.

This is a straw man. We assert that without God, there can be no objective morality. We do not claim only the fear of God can keep society functional to a certain degree.
  • gilbo12345 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users