So... Every time the subject of morality is discussed here the theist, thinking he has backed the atheist in a corner says:
"But WHY do you follow moral codes?????"... "Because you know, MY favorite god is the sole birther of this morality, you see the OBJECTIVE one."
I want to ask, if it ever was such a thing as objective morality, why must it proceed from a deity? I will go further, a god, by definition is a subject, a person, so his opinion is as subjective as those of everyone else.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I'd add the question:
If god is real, and is the source (or whatever) of morality; how could you tell if this morality was objective?
Exactly, they tend to put that under the carpet.
"If god is real, and is the source (or whatever) of morality; how could you tell if this morality was objective?"
Precisely, and a point I have made each time theists make this claim on here. How could they tell it is moral at all? Either they possess the ability to reason what it is moral or they do not, if they can then a moral arbiter is redundant, if they can't then it is axiomatic they can have no idea if the claims assigned that deity are moral in either bible or koran.
Let's not forget the theists who make this claim on here:
SFT (Muslim) > Can't tell us it is ever moral for a 50+ year old man to rape a nine year old child?
AJ777 Christian > Can't tell us why it is immoral to torture a child?
Royism (Mulim) > Can't tell us it is ever moral for a 50+ year old man to rape a nine year old child?
What kind of moral worldview doesn't know / can't answer why the torture or rape of children is immoral?
If you need a diety to convince you that robbing, killing, and rape is not good... then I am sorry for you.
To quantify: if you are against things that cause people to suffer not because of your own empathy and reasoning, but ONLY because you think those actions will keep you out of "heaven", you are a shitty person and I feel sorry for you. Sorry that indoctrination has made you that selfish and clueless.
Yes, but if the only reason they don’t commit heinous acts is because of them r god(s), then by all means, I would prefer they keep believing!
I have posted it many times here. So I'll post it again.
No religion has ever had any morality whatsoever. There is no such thing as Objective Morality, for ALL morality is subjective, regardless of what any person may believe. Even if ANY religion presupposes that their deity dictated Objective Morality, then they are a liar since that supposed Objective Morality is actually subjective to their deity and are no longer Objective Morality, rather being totalitarian tyrannical edicts.
And it does nothing but astonish me how theists can be so naive and foolish as to not ascertain and deduce that simple true and absolute fact.
rmfr
The magic of actually understanding what words mean and a grasp of logic... Wonderful.
It may interest several here to know, that there is a growing body of scientific research, pointing to the origin of our capacity for ethical thought, and the manifestations thereof, both being a product of evolutionary biology. The neuroscience literature invoking evolutionary mechanisms for the emergence of ethical behaviours is now substantial.
Calilasseia,
"The neuroscience literature invoking evolutionary mechanisms for the emergence of ethical behaviours is now substantial."
I doubt if that is true. There have been countless socities throughout history that have engaged in all sorts of unethical behaviors as their normal standard. Some still exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
Calilasseia: The neuroscience literature invoking evolutionary mechanisms for the emergence of ethical behaviours is now substantial.
There were certainly obvious evolutionary advantages for what are considered moral behavior, such as altruism, protection of children, and giving value for value.
I think sociology may provide some insights as well. Before modern communications and mass travel, societies could cobble together their own "moral" concepts in isolation from each other. Free from concern about their international images, societies were able to build "moralities" that included some disgusting practices, such as child genital mutilation and forced marriage. Now we are acutely aware of what's happening in societies on the other side of the world, and we are increasingly seeing the emergence of global standards of morality.
Just last week, the Japanese were shocked to be on the receiving end of criticism from the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child over inept responses to child abuse, the awful pressures of their education system, and rising youth suicide levels. I'm sure that the shame of that criticism will be more effective than domestic pressures in mitigating these problems.
While the UN itself lives in a glass house and isn't really qualified to throw stones, I think that the pressures that result when societies rub up against other and look in each other's windows will eventually polish our morality into something that approaches objectivity and universality. That morality will be far superior to the misogynistic, hate-filled, baby-cutting, insecurity-driven commandments of the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic sky-fairies.