Can atheists tell right from wrong?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Moderator note: all posts by (Q) and SAM in this thread have been deleted. I'll go back through them later and see if they all stuck to the trend of insults. If not, perhaps I'll undelete them.
bwahahaha that's Awesome. Play nice or be deleted from existence! I like it.
We can state objectively that death isn't a very good thing because it ends your existence, (do note: in each case I am talking rational - it clearly would not include the delusional fundie types that think there is some godly benefit to be had from self extermination, those suffering from a pain beyond their ability to cope with etc), and survival is priority.
(If you really feel the need to question why survival is so important to living organisms it can be simply stated that any organisms that didn't think survival was important have all died and hence ended up extinct).
We can state objectively that humans have physical needs, mental needs, social needs.
We can state objectively that humans are a communal species, (along with most primates and some other animals).
We can state objectively that humans need other members of their community in order to ensure their own survival.
These things are all as objective as it gets.
From these objective facts we can state objectively that an action detrimental to the needs of the community are wrong, (say, killing one of the group for example). Of course this does depend largely upon circumstance. As I'm sure you will agree, if your neighbour killed one person but in doing so saved 1,000 people you would consider it morally justified but only because it wasn't detrimental but indeed beneficial to the good of the group - a group you, as a communal species, are objectively a part of.
Various communities will differ in various ways regarding what is good for it but you will find that these are not objective matters but specific group matters. Theists are the prime example of this.. E.g:
A christian, (of which you are one today), would contend that 'homosexuality' is bad. There is however nothing objective in this, it is a personal opinion based upon personal needs and values. Indeed far from being detrimental to a group homosexuals can be very beneficial - there are various professions that you'll find are largely filled by homosexuals because they're better at it. Some might argue that a man sticking his willy up another mans bum is detrimental to the group but I don't see how, (unless perhaps they do it in public).
Once again: this is all as objective as it gets. It is in fact the theist that appeals to the subjective in order to persuade others to take on his own subjective personal ideals and opinions - that all work on the basis of some invisible god and his ever changing rules and regs.
Take for instance stoning naughty children or prostitutes to death. There's nothing objective about that and yet this god commanded it. When he commanded it you must contend and argue that it is objective because this god commanded it - and yet we all sit here knowing that it isn't. Nowadays of course, the same believers in this god and his "word" and those objective morals have done a complete 360 and now think it is objectively the opposite, (which it actually is - because of the reasons mentioned earlier).
So, out of interest, why is an objective moral law, (stoning kids/prostitutes and not suffering a witch to live - at the commands of a god), now objectively the complete opposite? Does your god change opinions much or have even theists had to catch up and recognise objective morality for what it really is? Of course that does not stop those theists from hanging on to those subjective morals that aren't actually objective, (homosexuality etc), by the very nature of it not being objective.
Snake
I believe morals are more personal than anything else. People can teach you their morals but you don't have to accept them as valid. I think all people religious or not live by their own set code of morals. If something feels wrong to you then it is as far as your morals are concerned. Your parents can teach you something is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter what, but if you personally don't feel that way then it doesn't go against your moral standards. Anything capable of thought is able to know right from wrong. But what one feels is right obviously does not always coincide with what another feels.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Doesnt that mean that every time you express any form of altruism, friendship and love...you are merely responding to bio-chemical programming?
*groan*
I'm with Enmos. Kick this motherfucker out. He does nothing but troll.
I'm with Enmos. Kick this motherfucker out. He does nothing but troll.
In humans, and probably in a few of the more intelligent animals, non-Darwinian evolutionary patterns are possible in social behaviors.ophiolite said:
Even likely.
More likely than a Darwinian explanation for anything but core morality - the underlying social infrastructure and reactions common to all humans and human societies. These are not necessarily going to look much like the Ten Commandments, say.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
But these patterns are constrained by the inherent (literally) character of the humans, primates, parrots or cetaceans.
Yes. Atheists learn morals the same as everybody else. They learn them from their parents, siblings, interacting with their community and the wider world.
Just like the people who wrote the bible or the Qur'an.
1. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
2. There are plenty of objective facts that bear on morality.
Of course they are.
They would still be held accountable even if free will turned out to be an illusion.
Have I mentioned that this thread is poo?
Thanky. This thread is poo. The idea that atheists are less-than theists in any way is poo. Poo that is decidedly Unhamtastic at that. 
could someone explain this.....first para?