Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I’ll be the atheist in this discussion who says that she thinks morality can be considered objective. (Admittedly, how one defines ‘objective’ plays a role in this.)
I think it objective to say that my freedoms end where yours begin. In other words, I have the right and the freedom to drink alcohol to the point of intoxication. However, I do not have the right to do so and then operate a motor vehicle. That would be taking your life into my hands and I think that is immoral.
Another example: Slavery is wrong. It always has been wrong. It always will be wrong. Owning another human is immoral. That seems pretty objective to me.
This being said, there are things *considered* immoral that wax and wane. Is wearing a skirt with a hemline above the knee immoral? Not in the U.S., not today. This sort of thing, though, as Thomas Jefferson would say, neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
CyberLN, I guess what I don't understand is how something like morality can wax and wane. Isn't that part of the definition of morality? It's either good or bad, right or wrong. We may simply disagree here but I would love to hear your opinion on this point.
There are a lot of things that have been considered immoral that no longer are, or behaviors that were considered completely acceptable that are currently seen as immoral.
I provided an example of the former. Styles of clothing over time and across cultures shows us how frequently folks imbue moral standards with that which, IMO, should have nothing to do with morality.
I don't think I will call cultural dress codes morality, would you? I think I am confused on your point here.
YOU may not say dress codes fall on the realm of morality, but plenty of folks have and do.
So what makes them right and me wrong? Don't you see the need for objective standards on morality?
As I’ve said, I do indeed think that there are some aspects of morality that can be considered objective. However, I do not think those things came from any gods. I think it can be considered universal that, for instance, slavery is immoral. That is based on a logical understanding that owning another human is wrong.
Then why at some points in human history has it been generally agreed that slavery is ok? If that is objectively moral, then why did groups of people disagree with it? And unfortunately, a lot of people still would disagree with it!
Well, IMO, I’d say they accepted it because they are selfishly immoral.
As to when and where slavery has been widespread, I’m sure you can get the specifics you’re after with a quick google search.
I didn't ask where and when it was widespread, so i'm not sure i understand the nature of that second comment.
What makes them selfishly immoral? In the US it was generally agreed upon that slavery was acceptable because it served the common good. Public opinion was in favor of slavery and it was not viewed as immoral. We can use that as an example.
What made them wrong and us right? What if we decide again that slavery is ok?
"Then why at some points in human history has it been generally agreed that slavery is ok?"
Most christian slave owners cited the bible, and it's endorsements of slavery. Most Muslims cite the Koran for the same reason. So much for religions claims for superior objective morality.
Morality evolves with the society. Having several wives, or kidnapping a woman to be your wife was (and still is) morally acceptable in some societies. Slavery was morally acceptable (the Bible does not condemn it but gives instructions on how to treat your slaves), killing and torturing children was morally acceptable in other societies. Marrying people of the same sex was and is moral in some societies while not in others, and like in Hawaii, it has gone from being acceptable to be frowned upon (with the introduction of Christianity) to be more accepted today. Dressing rules, which are tightly tied to moral, are very different in different places and clearly change with time. Killing nowadays is moral depending on the situation, the religion and who is the person killed. Lying is moral in some religions (Taqqiya), etc. etc. So, moral is a human construct that evolves and changes with time.
Would you call yourself a moral person? Assuming the answer is yes:
1. How can you know that since morality evolves?
2. Do you always live up to your standards of morality?
3. It not, why not?
4. What if I disagree with you on what is moral?
1. How can you know that since morality evolves?
2. Do you always live up to your standards of morality?
3. It not, why not?
4. What if I disagree with you on what is moral?
---------------------------
1. Because I strive always to be moral.
2. No, hence the word strive.
3. Because I am a fallible evolved primate.
4. I'd be astounded if you didn't.
Neel: You ask questions but do not address the facts offered, so first answer: These facts show that morality changes with the society. Do you agree or not?
We need an objective moral standard or else it is simply your opinion against mine on what is right and wrong.
Please explain your objective moral standard. There is no such thing unless we agree upon it. Your bible says. Thou shall not kill. Your bible says "Treat others as you would have them treat you." Your God then mindlessly butchers millions of innocent men women and children. Where is your objective morality? You worship the God of "Do as I say and not as I do." Please give me one example of objective morality that your god also follows. What in the world do you imagine "Objective Morality" to be?
Cognistic, in order to respond to your claim that God mindlessly butchers millions of innocent men, women, and children, I am going to need to know what specific examples you are talking about. Context helps a lot in these situations.
I would also say that in my worldview, God is the objective standard of morality. He defines right and wrong. That objective standard doesn't become untrue if Christians or anyone else disobeys God's law and does things that God has said not to do. When people break the speed limit, is that a sign that it is not the law anymore? No, it is still the law, people just disobey it.
Objective morality is simply moral standards that are true no matter what. No matter who believes them, who practices them, etc.
"Cognistic, in order to respond to your claim that God mindlessly butchers millions of innocent men, women, and children, I am going to need to know what specific examples you are talking about. Context helps a lot in these situations."
I already answered this, but you have not had the decency to address my answer?
"I would also say that in my worldview, God is the objective standard of morality."
How do you know this? It sounds like a subjective opinion to me, can you demonstrate any objective evidence a deity even exists?
"Objective morality is simply moral standards that are true no matter what. "
Could you give us a couple of examples of things that you claim are objectively immoral? Is there any point in my repeating my request as to how you claim to know this?
Objective morality is simply moral standards that are true no matter what. No matter who believes them, who practices them, etc.
There is no moral foundation for ripping open the stomachs of pregnant women and throwing their babies onto rocks. There is no moral foundation for eternal punishment. There is no moral foundation for the owning of human beings as slaves.
Your Bible is completely immoral and your God would not be exempt from objective morality. You do not get to rationalize situations if morality is in fact OBJECTIVE. Killing is wrong and your God Killes. He kills men, women and Children because he is a pissy bastard,.
what if someone argued with you and said that it was moral to shoot others in a school and said it made the world a better place because those kids were horrible human beings? What would you appeal to? What percentage of people have to agree that something is right or wrong for it to be true?
Can they prove it? Why would they be wrong? You appeal to logic and reason. What rationality can a person have for killing a classroom full of children that makes rational sense? Calling them horrible or evil is something a religious zealot wound do. They were all pagan sinners? That is the rational the church has used in the past for killing pagans, witches and non-believers.
Focusing on well being we know that killing others does not propagate their well being or the well being of their families, the school, or their friends. So, other than religious reasons, how would one justify well being? It is within the context of religion or other delusional states that nice people engage in horrific acts.
Acting irrationally is also not "well being." Once well being is agreed upon for the basis of morality there is a moral response to most issues.
If Christianity is adopted, or Islam, those kids can be killed off for the sin of being horrible non-believers and they have been killed off in the history of both religions. Where is your objective morality now?
Cognistic, the church has done horrible things in its history that I won't defend, because they are indefensible. But, that doesn't make the objective moral standards of God any less true, because by definition objective moral standards don't depend on anything proving them. I would appreciate it if you didn't lump all Christians together because of the actions of a few. You wouldn't want me to do the same with atheists, and I wouldn't, because it would be unfair to do so.
My point about the school shooting is that a person could give a reason for shooting all those kids (I would of course argue against it, as would you) but in a subjective moral system what right do we have to say that they are wrong? How can something like well being ever be agreed upon? It can't.
Let me ask you this as well, you appeal to logic and reason as well. Where do you think the ability to think rationally and argue logically come from? How do we as human beings have the ability to do that?
You already did earlier with your "narrow definition" of atheism.
I was mistaken there and admitted as much. I didn't realize that some atheists believed in God but I was wrong. I am okay with that and am glad I learned otherwise.
Would you be willing to admit the same about lumping Christians together?
Are you smoking crack?
I'm not sure I understand, sorry. Can you help me with where I'm off here?
You just told us that some atheists believe in god. That is kind of crazy pants.
Nyar, I don’t think he understands the difference between someone not believing in god(s) and believing there are no god(s).
Yep, I see it now. He misinterpreted your comment from the previous page and now is running around with a silly definition of atheist. Sheesh! Still crazy pants imo!
I'm not running around with anything. I have admitted my narrow definition, asked for clarification, and asked for clarification again.
"..asked for clarification, and asked for clarification again."
Take notes Nyar lol.
Pages