Objective Morality and Atheism
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And why is that ?
I should restate it: atheists that believe in objective morality make me laugh.
And the reason is because they betray their own reason; after all, god and morality both have no evidence to support their existence. Further, without heaven, why bother being good? All you're doing is allowing the same institution, the same artificial creation, to control you.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Objective morality doesn't exist. So why pick on atheists ?
They're believing in something without evidence.........you just said it:bugeye:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They do. Although they don't claim to be rational. Atheists do.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, atheists just do not claim that God exists. Nothing more to it.
Merely your silly opinion based on emotion.
Yes, they do not claim that god exists on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence.......then why do they claim that morality exists without evidence, and then proceed to defend it with such blind faith? It strikes me as hypocritical (yes I know I spelled that wrong)
-=-
You spelled that correctly.
You spelled that correctly.
Morality doesn't assume the existence of anything. It's just a suggested way to live based on our best guess about what sort of actions would benefit society as a whole.
I agree, but that isn't objective then. I'm talking about the belief that there is one single moral code that objectively exists as some aspect of the physical universe....
...which assumes existence and requires evidence
-=-
Who claims that???
Who claims that???
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
Religious fundamentalists are the only group I can think of. To them morality is objective.
You and a number of other people in the homosexuality thread. You said stoning homosexuals is objectively bad; I said it was subjectively bad in your opinion dependent on your values.
-=-
They may say so or even think it but they claim morality comes from God & any thing & every thing God wants is good morals & any thing contrary to God's desires is bad morals.
That's not objective.
They may say so or even think it but they claim morality comes from God & any thing & every thing God wants is good morals & any thing contrary to God's desires is bad morals.
That's not objective.
Norsefire,
Now where do we obtain our standards of moral conduct? The religious assert it is from their deities via their holy books. The non-believers simply use reason. In this case the non-believer position is superior on the grounds that he/she can determine what is correct through reason whereas the religious person has to be told how to behave.
It is interesting to note that statistics of prison inmates shows a higher proportion of religious adherents compared to non-believers than is usual in the outside world.
The problem with religious guidelines from holy books is that the rules were written for ancient times and where societies had very different needs than the modern day. This further supports the need for a dynamically adjustable set of moral standards based on reason that can change as society changes. There can be no such thing as absolute morality. What is considered good or bad can only be determined by mutually agreed standards within a given social group.
There is substantial evidence for the existence of morality. You experience and see it everyday of your life. It is bound into the social fabric of everyone around you and it is taken for granted. For example you do not normally go about your daily life wondering if the person next to you will suddenly murder you. Normal people constrain their behavior around mutually acceptable and reasoned standards of morality. Our society would turn to chaos if this were not so.
Now where do we obtain our standards of moral conduct? The religious assert it is from their deities via their holy books. The non-believers simply use reason. In this case the non-believer position is superior on the grounds that he/she can determine what is correct through reason whereas the religious person has to be told how to behave.
It is interesting to note that statistics of prison inmates shows a higher proportion of religious adherents compared to non-believers than is usual in the outside world.
The problem with religious guidelines from holy books is that the rules were written for ancient times and where societies had very different needs than the modern day. This further supports the need for a dynamically adjustable set of moral standards based on reason that can change as society changes. There can be no such thing as absolute morality. What is considered good or bad can only be determined by mutually agreed standards within a given social group.