Where does an atheist draw his moral values from? What is right for an atheist at one place is wrong for another at another place. What is right for an atheist at one time, is wrong at another time. This makes an atheist's moral ground extremely relativistic, and in the process he can justify any deed as good or bad according to his whims. This leads to a world of exploitation because the powerful is always going to find a justification to exploit the weak, and will not feel guilty about it because in their relativistic morality, they are always right.
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.
That's silliness. You actually think that theists live on a moral highground simply because they are theists? That their morality is not relative to their particular brand of theism? That theists do not engage in exploitation? That theists do not hold power over others? That theists do not use their theism to justify their deeds? That only theists feel guilt?
You certainly seem to have a lot to learn.
Valiya:
Your opening post give an excellent argument for subjecitve morality (and perhaps moral relativism) and against objective morality. Oh course the title of the thread implies that religion provides objective morality, which of course it does not. So all in all I agree with pretty much everything you said in the body of the post (not the title though).
Perhaps this video will help define theist morals: http://theveganatheist.com/crazy-shit-the-quran-says-1-the-vegan-atheist/
ImFree; Thanks for the info about some passages of the Koran, they are well put together.
Your welcome Jeff. There is a second installment that covers the bible as well:http://theveganatheist.com/crazy-shit-the-bible-says-2-in-4k-the-vegan-a...
Well. If you drop superstitious nonsense out of the Bible, you end up with a work of fictitious story of a god handing out rewards and punishment. Now, for the sake of arguement, let's just say all holy books are written by people. No divine origin or inspiration.
So where does religion draw it's morality from? Their respective holy books, yes? But if men wrote it, where did they get it from? Is it an inborn sense nature has given us? An interesting observation of how children act would tell us that the assumption we are born with a moralistic sense to be a lie. Children often show no morals in their behavior. They often lie, have no sense of ownership and steal, and often bully and make fun of each other. Some children, are even capable of killing.
So let's explore. If we aren't born with morals, and holy books are written by men, then the only explanation is we made them up. But far from claiming morals and laws to be a completely pointless and relative, they actually in an odd sense developed along evolutionary lines.
Example: killing. Fun subject, point for much philisophical debate. The Ten Commandments of the old testament are clear we should not kill. Hammarabi's code, a mesopotamian set of laws supposedly given to King Hammarabi on stone tablet's from the diety Murdoc 4,000 years before the old testament, also includes a do not kill law. Ironically, some of the other laws following do not kilk laws in both cases, subscribe death as punishment for breaking laws. Some laws prescribe death for believing in other religions even. But the hypocrisy doesn't end there, as both the Mesopotamians and Hebrews were notorious warfaring cultures. So how does this law work exactly if no one seems to follow it? They did to some degree, as they did not kill within their own society people who were following a shared set of beliefs.
They really only killed people's of other faiths and cultures, often carrying out genocide, and walking off with the vanquished's natural resources. This behavior is well documented in the river civilizations. The various tribes often fought over land and resources. However... on the reverse side, unity over time has proven to make societies stronger. So many societies tend to adopt secular and atheistic philosophies, to allow greater liberty and individualism, while also increasing populace. Numbers tend to strengthen society more than adherence to strict, exclusive religion philosophies.
So... if you look at it objectively, atheism has not left a moral hole to be filled by religion. Actually, observing the development of atheist philosophies in societies over time, the strict and exclusive doctrines leave a gaping hole of people who don't adhere to the doctrine, where secular and atheist philosphis tend to take root to unify a broader populace.
Here's and example of religious beleifs evolving into secular beliefs, in turn developing into atheism. Hebrews, originally a a very strict exclusive conglomerate, composed of the small close knit tribes of Jerusalem. Secular beliefs take root, forming Catholocism to include gentiles into the populace. As more secular beliefs take root, Catholicism fractures into the various forms of christianity such as Puritans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans... etc. Set stage for America, where despite Christian fiction of America being a Christian nation, there is a lot of evidence that the founding fathers contained Deists, Agnostics, and Non-Denominational Christian secularists. Over time Atheism developes. Now, we see a development of atheistic population of %9-%12, agnostic or nob-denominational religions compromising %30-%33. And christians shrinking as secularist ideals of individualism become more poular. Compared to a roughly %95 Christian population at the settlement of the continent in the 1500's. Many Europen countries dominated by catholics earlier have followed this developement, including Sweden (atheist population %95), France (atheist pop %45), and Britain (Atheist pop %38). In closing, I draw the conclusion that Atheism and Secularism develope to fill the void of religion. Not as you put it, religion filling a moral void of atheism.
Hi Travis,
I'm new here and I am seeking understanding: I have read your post and the analysis seems pretty thought through. thank you.
One thing i would like to ask though is: what is your own view about Morality? you didn't express that in the post. help me understand because i like to deal with real life issues and there must be a basis from which to live than just a "flurry in the Sky"
You wrote all of that (no I didnt read it) starting from a premise that no religious person is going to accept? What a waste of time.
Nicely put Travis;
"The Ten Commandments of the old testament are clear we should not kill."
Actually the commandment "Not to kill" is a mistranslated done on purpose by the Christians of much later period.
The actual commandment was:
Not to kill thy neighbor.
Thus it can have different meanings like, you can kill others but you cannot kill your neighbor.
Why?
Yahweh was building a military force to capture the promised land.
Thus in a military camp you cannot have people stealing from each other or killing each other.
You need order and discipline which the Jews really sucked at.
At one point in the bible Yahweh had to even show them how to do toilet.
They were shitting next to his encampment, yes they were that stupid and uncivilized.
SO
Do not steal from thy neighbor
Do not kill thy neighbor
Those are the real commandments but you can see how Christians turned the commandments as an absolutes which in the end make no sens for that period and even for today.
Apart from that, the real commandments were different then those 10, Yahweh original commandments were not even 10.
This is how it all went down for who is interested:
http://www.usbible.com/law/ten_commandments_forgotten.htm
The original commandments:
1. Take heed, lest you make covenants with other inhabitants; it will become a snare to you. -Similar to Ex. 23:32.
2. Tear down their altars, pillars and Asherim. -Similar to Ex. 23:24.
3. Do not worship any other god because the Lord is a jealous God. -Similar to the Ten in Gen. 20:5.
4. Make no cast idols. -Similar to the Ten in Gen. 20:4.
7. Keep the feast of unleavened bread by eating unleavened bread for seven days at the time appointed in the month Abib. -Similar to Ex. 23:15.
8. You shall sacrifice your firstborn male livestock, or if you do not sacrifice it you must break its neck. You shall sacrifice your first born sons. -Similar to Gen. 22:29-30. "Redeem" was a euphemism for sacrifice. First born livestock and children were sacrificed.
9. Work for six days and rest on the Sabbath. -Similar to the Ten in Ex. 20:8-10 and 31:14-16.
10. Observe the feast of weeks. -Similar to Ex. 23:16.
11. All males will appear before God three times a year. -Similar to Ex. 23:17.
12. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven. -Similar to Ex. 23:18.
13. You shall bring to the house of the Lord the first of your first fruits of your ground. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. -Similar to Ex. 23:19.
"CONCLUSION
If religious authorities were so concerned about obeying the Ten Commandments with the highest divine authority, they would have parroted Exodus 34:12-26 because they were stored in the Ark of the Covenant. (Special mention goes to Ex. 22:29-30; 34:19-20 which call for child sacrifice.) That they were left to be forgotten shows they were more concerned about what could sell. Taken collectively, they prove that moral order does not come from a deity; it comes from human social instincts."
See you can never filter enough BS from Christians.
Atheists have empathy and sympathy.
Oh yes indeed. Chairman Mao, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, and contemporary atheists on message boards, who incessantly attack non-atheists in the most hateful, most condescending, most despicable manner imaginable. Lying that atheists are of course highly intelligent and always "rational," they/you condemn everyone else as ignorant, stupid, anti-scientific and just plain evil.
Your "empathy and sympathy" are on display to the world.
It is a 2 1/2 year old post.
Necromancy at work!
The commandment that always gives me a chuckle is the one telling people not to work on the sabbath. Isn't working on the sabbath precisely what every preacher is doing?
You must have missed the part about your animal requiring help on the sabbath, and its being entirely appropriate to give assistance, as well as the part about Jesus Christ giving us the Golden Rule. That's in the New Testament.
I always get a chuckle reading about how brilliant and rational and ethical and moral atheists brag about being. That's a real head slapper.
The one which gives the punishment of death if one works on Sunday which every christian follow to the letter.
No hypocrisy there.
The priest does not work, he is just enjoying his hobby. Which include:
Brainwashing, lying and conning the faithful sheep. There is an art to that. :)
Thanks for your responses friends. I think my initial post has not been fully understood. Probably, I should have explained it more clearly. I am not looking at the question of the morality from superficial grounds. I am asking a very deep question. If you ask a religionist, "Why shouldn't I lie?" he would tell you that it's because God told so. Period. That's the premise of his morality. But yes, between religions there are differences, and the moral standard differs. But at the fundamental level, I say something is good or bad, because I firmly believe that God told so. Whereas, I would like to know what an atheist has to say to the question of "Why shouldn't I lie?" And by the same logic, "Is prostitution right or wrong?" "Is homosexuality right or wrong?" I would like to know the premise on which an atheist draws his morals from? Based on the answer to this question, I have some serious follow up questions.
This question has been answered many times over.
Morality comes from an ongoing understanding of reality and not an old assertion of authority.
Morality is subjective to knowledge and the situation.
"Why shouldn't I lie?"
Maybe you should lie given a situation that lying may save lives.
As I said, morality is subjective.
"Is prostitution right or wrong?"
Freedom is freedom, it means that if a woman wants something like that, she is free to do so.
Unless it is forced prostitution, in that case it has nothing to do with freedom.
As I said, morality is subjective.
"Is homosexuality right or wrong?"
There is nothing wrong if someone is homosexual, His sex alignment should not have any bias about his basic human rights.
There should be no discrimination.
We are free to marry a dog if we want to.
That is the concept of being free, theistic free will is a pure lie and an illusion that theists swallowed by sheer repetition every week.
This is not true. We have morality because we are humans not because of our religion. We have choice whether we want to do good deeds or not but we should not based our moral existence due to what religions teaches us.
Firstly, my questions to Jeff Vella. If morality is subjective and depends on our understanding of reality, would you then say that Mayans who were indulging in human sacrifices were justified in doing it because that was their understanding of the world and reality, or say for example, a Nazi who was killing jews because he thought that's the best thing that can happen to the world? A communist believes that the best thing for the world is to overthrow imperialistic governments and bring about a communist regimes. And vice versa. Why should any one understanding of reality be right, if it subjective?
Whereas, when you say that morality is divinely decreed, then I can be confident in making moral decisions. My morality is not subjective, it is absolute. Yes, people might disagree, but my moral decisions become easy for me to make. Whereas, an atheist is continually uncertain about his moral decisions, because there is always this possibility of some new understanding coming and changing his moral paradigm tomorrow. Hope, I have made myself clear. You say homosexuality is fine with you today. What if tomorrow there is a scientific discovery that homosexuality causes a big harm to the individual and society. Then you would have to change your moral position on that yet again.
Lastly, your answer doesn't address my problem fully. You have only given me the basis on which you would like to make your moral decisions. Therefore, let's say you, from your understanding of reality, have come to the conclusion that lying is bad, because it deceives someone. Yet, the question remains, "Why shouldn't you lie?" What if lying hurts someone else. If I can benefit from lying, why should I care about others.
Therefore I want to know two things: 1. when morality is subjective, how can you say any one position is good or bad? 2. Even if you find out what the morally correct position is, why should you live by it?
You seem not to understand the meaning of subjective morality at all.
The Maya followed their religion and that is the reason why they were doing sacrifices, they did not come to their morality from an understanding of reality but from what their priests told them.
An assertion of authority.
That was my main point
"Yes, people might disagree, but my moral decisions become easy for me to make"
Yea if your morality is dictated to you and you do not need to think for yourself then yes it becomes easy since you are shouldering the responsibility on someone else.
Thus loosing touch with reality since all sane people know that only you are responsible for your actions.
You must understand why something is moral and not accept it because it was dictated by god.
This is called maturity.
God is an invention by humans and that is why he is so evil in the bible. God represents the morality of the people who invented him.
The morality that slavery was ok.
"You say homosexuality is fine with you today. What if tomorrow there is a scientific discovery that homosexuality causes a big harm to the individual and society. Then you would have to change your moral position on that yet again."
Yes I would change my mind on that again and I am proud of it.
That shows that in light of new evidence I am able to make the most logical solution to a problem based on my current morals.
You on the other hand are stuck with ancient morals that accept slavery, dominion over woman, anti gay, suppression of sex and pleasure, thought crime, doubting = sin, faith instead of critical thinking.
All things which today are outdated and hinder society and progress.
I might be mistaken on a moral action because I do not have all the information but theists are surly mistaken on many subjects since they have 2000 years more of lack of information then me.
That is the difference.
1. when morality is subjective, how can you say any one position is good or bad?
Are you being stupid? Subjective means that it depends on the situation at hand and your current knowledge.
Every situation is different.
There is not universal rule.
Stop trying to make something which is subjective into something objective.
"2. Even if you find out what the morally correct position is, why should you live by it?"
Since I have chosen it with reason, I would have no doubts about my own choice.
Doubt comes much more if you have to follow someone else orders without the ability to adapt to the situation like objective rules in morality.
(by the time they realized that it was a lie lives are saved)
I would never say: "even if god says do not lie, if I lie now I would surly save lives. Fuck it I cannot lie because god says so."
"Let me give the terrorists the pass code for the nukes just because they asked for it."
"Therefore, let's say you, from your understanding of reality, have come to the conclusion that lying is bad, because it deceives someone. Yet, the question remains, "Why shouldn't you lie?""
Because I "have come to the conclusion that lying is bad""from your understanding of reality" for that particular situation you invented.
Your head is constantly mixing up the meaning of "subjective" and thus you cannot even make sens in you questions and replies.
You answered your question in the sentence before it.
Valiya, if a particular theist behaves decently to fellow human beings and a particular atheist behaves decently, why does it actually matter from where each got their morals to do so?
If theists get their morals from their gods, why do so many ignore so many of them. Doesn't that ignoring of the inconvenient rules of your god make adherence to them completely subjective?
CyberLN: "Valiya, if a particular theist behaves decently to fellow human beings and a particular atheist behaves decently, why does it actually matter from where each got their morals to do so?
If theists get their morals from their gods, why do so many ignore so many of them. Doesn't that ignoring of the inconvenient rules of your god make adherence to them completely subjective?"
_______________________________
1. "Decently" is relative. To atheists, homosexuality is "decent". It is "moral." Unfortunately the statistics show that homosexuals molest children at a horrifying rate. Homosexuals recruit normal people to their evil and demented lifestyle. Homosexuals are unusually violent commiting murders and mass murders with much greater frequency than decent people do.
To atheists, abortion is generally acceptable. Killing babies is "decent" despite the fact that Planned Parenthood was founded by racist Margaret Sanger to murder black babies and eliminate blacks in America. Hillary Clinton is a "great fan of Margaret Sanger."
But then again, Hillary is a lesbian who laughed when she bragged about "getting Thomas Alfred Tayler off with just 10 months in jail" for raping a 12-year-old girl. I'll wager that most "decent" atheists voted for Hillary.
2. Name the most "decent" atheist government on earth. Vladimir Lenin and Chairman Mao were both atheists. Tell us about "where each got their morals".
3. Human beings are weak. We fail again and again. But hopefully we learn from some if not all of our mistakes.
Atheist C.S. Lewis set out to write a book proving that there is no God. His quest resulted in his firm conviction that there most assuredly IS a God. His book, "Mere Christianity" explains much.
absolute nonsense
Thanks once again folks. Here are my objections to each of your posts:
My response to Jeff:
Jeff says that Mayans were doing human sacrifices because of their religious beliefs and not because of their rational understanding. I would like to tell Jeff to put himself in the shoes of those people of antiquity. Their knowledge of reality was severely limited. For them, everything was a great mystery - from the celestial phenomena of stars and sun to the cause of rain, thunder etc. The most rationale explanation they could give it was through religion. Therefore, for them religion was the only lens through which they could understand reality. Based on this understanding they committed excesses like human sacrifice. Now, according to your theory of morality, which is that morality is whatever is right according to your understanding of the world, Mayans can't be accused of being immoral. Had you been a Mayan in those times, you would've been doing those very same atrocities. Yes, the priest might have told them those things, but what other understanding could you have had of these mysterious phenomenon of nature?
And when I say, that moral decisions are easy for me because I simply have to follow God's law - this is not a cop out of any sort. For me to arrive at the conclusion that these are indeed god's laws, I have a lot of reasoning to do. I am a believer, because I have analyzed all the other arguments (not just that of atheists, but also other religions) and finally chose a religion as the only truth. This is based entirely on my rational reasoning. Even according to your logic, you cannot say that I am wrong, because this is my understanding of reality.
You said that would change your mind on issues based on new understandings. Like, if you came to know that homosexuality is harmful to individuals, you would then change your mind. That's precisely my problem. Atheists have changed their positions on so many issues in the last few decades, that their morality is actually a confused medley of rights and wrongs, caught up in grey areas. Take for example homosexuality itself. When findings came out that homosexuality (like prostitution) is a major contributor to the spread of AIDS, many rationalists began shuffling their feet on this issue. A list of diseases are found to be very common among homosexuals including anal cancer, herpes simplex virus, HIV, genital warts, syphilis and many more. These are only physical illnesses. Mental illnesses are also equally common as studies have shown that homosexuals lack commitment and are prone to promiscuity, several times more than among heterosexuals.
The only reason atheists still support homosexuality is because they think it supports individual freedom. That's like saying that someone who speaks out against smoking is attacking individual freedom, because smokers smoke because they choose to.
You said that moral subjectivity means applying moral decisions based on the situation at hand. It's not that simple my friend. I say that atheists' morality is subjective because even in a given situation, you will have two more conflicting view points. Take the example of homosexuality itself: from a medical viewpoint someone can say that it is bad, and from an individual freedom view point someone can argue that it's okay. Therefore, when an atheist is confronted with the question, "should homosexuality be made legal or illegal," there will NOT be much clarity there. Similarly, take issues such as abortion or death penalty. Imagine, you support death penalty based on your understanding of the world today. Tomorrow, with growing knowledge, you realize that it is wrong... how can you make amends for the lives already lost. That's yet another complication in your position - which actually causes dilution in any position you take. At best you would only tend to take a soft approach, so that making amends in future would be easy. But the soft approach in itself could have inherent problems, which other findings might bring to light in future.
In your last point, you said that you wouldn't lie because your rational understanding has made you realize that it is bad. That was not what i was asking. Fine, if you have found out that lying is bad because it hurts another person, WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO HURT THE OTHER PERSON, if it does good for you. When i cheat, i make more money. So why should i care, if someone else is hurt or not. From a believer's point of view, God will punish him and so he will stay away from lying. What about you. Hope the question is clear.
Apart that you ignored 90% of my post, on purpose avoiding the questions my reply raised, you keep mixing different ideas that have nothing to do with morality at all.
What is the current moral thing to do may change tomorrow and there is nothing wrong with that.
"Their knowledge of reality was severely limited."
Yea that is what religion brings with it, lack of knowledge.
So when the priest tell a father to sacrifice his daughter, his morals and love conflict with his dogmatic beliefs but is forced to follow the flow else they would be all killed for blasphemy.
Only a biased person like you can mix this with rational thinking, there is nothing rational with the Mayans morality.
A list of diseases are found to be very common among homosexuals including anal cancer, herpes simplex virus, HIV, genital warts, syphilis and many more."
If you want to claim that homosexuality brings those things support your claim because as far as I know all medical statistics show that those diseases are much, much more common in normal sex between man and woman,
If we follow your reasoning we would not have sex at all.
This type of extremism in thinking is typical of a theist which can only see black or white when the world is in shades of grey.
"there will NOT be much clarity there"
Who told you that life is easy, there are hard and easy choices. Morality helps us to do the right one at that point in time.
Your idea of god forces us to do the decision of what a 2000 your old person morals would do. We want to follow our morals not theirs.
"WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO HURT THE OTHER PERSON, if it does good for you."
Because my morality comes from an understanding of reality, thus if my current understanding says that hurting someone has no value to me and if I was in his place I wouldn't want to be hurt, then the moral thing to do is not to hurt someone.
This is all subjective to the situation, sometimes it is good to hurt someone to save lives etc..
Let me ask you one question then.
I think all theist are hypocrites with themselves and others and this is the reason:
If god appeared to you in the flesh and came to you personally and said:
"I am your god, I have chosen you as the chosen one. I will test your true faith tomorrow.
Take your son to the town square and sacrifice him to me as a sign of your faith."
Would you do it? Only;Yes/No
Good arguments Jeff. Here is my response.
1. Until you spell out your questions clearly (as you did in your latest post) I wouldn’t know which points you are really seeking replies for. So, I was not avoiding any questions on purpose.
2. In your answer about Mayans, you said Mayan’s lacked knowledge because of religious superstition. That’s absurd, because the opposite is more true. It’s because they had no scientific knowledge, they relied on their faith. Humanity was not always invested with our current level of scientific knowledge. Imagine you were living among the Mayans. How would you ever know that religion is a baseless crap (as you now understand)? If you didn’t know about evolution or the big bang and so on, you would have no option but to accept the notion of God. And thus religion for you would be a very rational choice to make. From this understanding of reality, you would indulge in all the deeds that a religion demands of you. Why go all the way back to Mayans, even some of the best brains, scientists in our times, believe in God. If these intellectuals could be deluded (as you claim), how can you blame the Mayans for their beliefs? Therefore, if morality can be decided on one’s understanding of reality, then it can be argued that Mayans were NOT immoral, based on their understanding of reality.
3. Your point on homosexuality. Look Jeff, I know that my claims about homosexual diseases can be contested. While I may produce my proofs, you would have contesting proofs too. My point here is not to prove whether homosexuality is good or bad. My question is about how you can take a moral position on this, when there are all kinds of medical reports on the subject? If you read one report, you would say it’s okay, and you read another one, you would say it’s bad… and you would be oscillating this way and that way. The fundamental point is that you can never make a moral decision based on your understanding of reality…because your understanding can be so slippery and unstable.
4. Your point about “life not having easy choices.” I agree with you. That’s precisely why I feel you need an external moral referral point to start with. If you try defining to me what ‘Morality” is, I think the point would be clear. DEFINE morality to me from your understanding of it, please, and then I can show you how empty your claim is.
5. Your point about religious morals being 2000 years old. Firstly, I am not a Christian, so this dating of 2000 years doesn’t apply to me. However, I get the drift, and I don’t agree with you because you are begging the question. The debate is about morality of religion and morality of atheism – and you can’t present your presuppositions as proof here.
6. Your point about “hurting someone has no value”. According to this argument, you are saying that if a particular thing has no value in it for you, you would abstain from it. Therefore you wouldn’t cheat someone because you don’t see value in it. But what about a person who sees value in it. Because when you cheat or lie, you can make a lot of money. Why do you think the US cooked up all those lies to fight the Iraq war? They saw a lot of value in it – oil. By your logic, the US was doing the right thing by doing all those immoral acts, because there was a lot of value in it.
7. Your point on “subjectivity”. You say that morality is subjective according to situations. I agree that would be the case if you judge morality on benefits. When America attacks Iraq, it is morally right (because the US benefits) and morally wrong for the Iraqi people (because they suffer). See the subjectivity in your morality? That’s really problematic. Whereas, if you say that “sometimes it is good to hurt someone to save lives” - I don’t think this is subjective, because there you have laid out the rules pretty clearly. No matter who, where, when or what – if you are hurting someone to save lives, it is morally right. This can be accepted universally by all morally upright people.
8. Finally, to your question on God asking me to kill my child. You wanted a Yes/No answer. The answer is YES. But I will do it only if God asks me to do so. And you are not God. If you want to know why I don’t accept you as God, or who I accept as God, that is a different topic for debate. For now, I just want to say that my moral locus is God, and hence my morality has a strong foundation, and not fluid like that of an atheist, which keeps changing based on ‘what one perceives as values’ or on situations. You may debate the correctness of my position – but that as I said earlier would be begging the question. Here my moral foundation is solid, that’s the whole point.
9. I have two questions for you: 1. What is the definition of morality? 2. Say I am a criminal who makes a lot of money by killing people. I have big contacts and there is no fear that I would ever be caught or get punished by law. I use the money to get all that I want – women, villas, cars etc. My question is, “Why shouldn’t I live life like this? What do I gain by giving it up?”
1.; when I reply to a point, it is expected that you stay on that point, thus answering the questions my reply raised on that point. You just ignored 90% of the points there.
2. "It’s because they had no scientific knowledge", we can debate this but remember you are the one who made the claim first, support it with evidence. As far as I know the mayia were dogmatic and followed their tradition. They did not reason their way to make sacrifices. An asserion of authority.
You cannot claim such absurd claims and not support them with evidence. You have provided none, thus I will not debate this untill you do.
"If you didn't know about evolution or the big bang and so on, you would have no option but to accept the notion of God."
What are you smoking? We atheists do not believe in the god claim not because of that.
We require evidence to accept a claim that is all. Your religion offers only contradiction on top of division.
4. "I feel you need an external moral referral point to start with." Your "external moral referral point" is not external at all it is just OLD moral referral point. And when I say OLD I mean OUTDATED. I will answer morality later.
5. Yes them being older is evidence that they do not have all the information needed to make a better decision. This has nothing to do with my presuppositions.
You are simply dodging the point here.
6. "By your logic, the US was doing the right thing by doing all those immoral acts, because there was a lot of value in it."
I answered this by just finishing the sentence you quoted:
""hurting someone has no value to me" and if I was in his place I wouldn't want to be hurt"
It is called an understanding of reality, being able to not be egoistic but be a good person and understand the situation of others as if it was your own.
You are misquoting on purpose to find a way to refute or disagree with my answer, which is pathetic.
7. " I agree that would be the case if you judge morality on benefits" OF ALL. Stop transmigrating what I said to make your point more appealing.
8. I never said I am your god. Where did you get that?
Do you know what we do to people that would kill their own child because their invisible friend orders to do so?
Yes, we close them up in a mental hospital until their delusions are cured because they are a DANGER to themselves and others.
"Here my moral foundation is solid, that’s the whole point."
Here is where your point crumbles like a castle build on sand, you foundation is so not solid that Muslims still to this day after a 1000+ years haven't agreed on those foundations.
Same applies to Christians.
But worse of all your foundations look like non changing but in reality they are changed by the people that represent you god. The priests that are free to interpret the word of your god the way they want. Not counting the contradictions like slavery being accepted in those religion which we know from morality that it is wrong.
This is just a type of mind control.
Morality does not come from your god abut your god was made from the morality of ancient dwellers.
9. What is the definition of morality?
Morality is an ongoing understanding of reality and not an assertion of authority.
You start in defining the worst of the worst of all things, like "eternal torture for everybody" and then you build YOUR OWN morality by comparing like that.(funny that the worst thing comes from an action of your god)
I cannot explain it better then that, sorry some people are just too limited to understand the most basic of things.
“Why shouldn't I live life like this? What do I gain by giving it up?”
Answered already in the part you chose to ignore:
"and if I was in his place I wouldn't want to be hurt"
The good feeling you feel when you do something not for yourself does not come from god but from a sens of solidarity among us humans as being all united as a species where we respect one an other as equals.
The reason for it, is because it was there before any religion was invented. You are born with it, before you are mind raped to any religion.
forgot an important one:
7. "if you are hurting someone to save lives, it is morally right. This can be accepted universally by all morally upright people."
NO, IT IS NOT
What may be morally right for me at one point in time may be morally wrong for me at an other point in time.
It is not accepted universally, it depends on your current knowledge of a particular situation
EG
i make someone suffer in some way to save the lives of 10 people, which seems right to me at that time.
Then I learn that those 10 people are infected with a disease and then letting them die a peaceful death would have been a much more moral thing to do.
Thus the suffering of that person was an immoral thing to do since i did not have enough knowledge at the time.
Morality is subjective to knowledge and time.
If it is outdated and old IT IS MORE DANGEROUS then a morality which has more knowledge of the situation.
Further you said "What may be morally right for me at one point in time may be morally wrong for me at another point in time. It is not accepted universally, it depends on your current knowledge of a particular situation.”
What I meant by universal acceptance is that in the example you gave where you destroy a life to save 10 others can be a universally acceptable paradigm. But if you add more details to the story, based on the details, the moral decision might change, but that change would still be universally acceptable. For example, say a terrorist is threatening to kill 10 hostages. Everyone in the world would agree that it is morally correct to kill the terrorist to save the hostages. Now say, some doctor wants to kill a man, so he can use his organs (heart, kidneys, pancreas, liver etc) to save 10 other terminally ill patients. Everybody in the world would say that it would be immoral to kill the innocent man. Hope you get my point.
Pages