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.
@Cognistic
Morality. We appear to agree. Different groups have different moralities. This is what we would expect if there were no magical being in the sky dictating morality.
And how would you know which of those moralities of different groups is the right one?
What makes you think there is a right one?
"Well being" is the measuring stick of secular morality. Does the action lead to well being. Do you want to live in a world where people murder one another? It has nothing at all to do with your magical flying sky daddy. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions and there will always be moral dilemmas. The difference is obvious. Morality has evolved with the human psyche. It is not dictated to anyone by magical beings. What is moral today was not the same thing that was moral 100 years ago. God's moral dictates are unchanging and that is why we pay them no attention at all. They are outdated and useless.
According to God's morality... * Secular Morality
Working on the Sabbath - Death *We don't care
Curse your father or mother - Death *Try not to do it. Family counseling
Adultery - death *Counseling, Divorce
Lie with your father's wife - Death *Gross - Counseling / Divorce
Lie with your daughter in law - Death *Family Problems for sure - not illegal.
Homosexuality - Death *Cruel to deny people their rights. Not illegal.
Marrying a Woman and her mother - Death *I suppose it could happen.
Bestiality - Death * Prison, counseling.
Incest - Death *Prison, counseling.
Sex during demonstration - death * Completely legal
Witches, Mediums - death - Completely legal
Whores - Death - *Arrest but legal in many places.
Adultery - Death - * Not illegal but leads to marriage breakup unless both partners are consenting adults.
Sodomy - Death - *Illegal in some states but never enforced. Legal.
Secular morality beats religious morality hands down every time. If it were not for the evolution of morals you would still be buying slaves and beating your wife and kids. Jesus warns you clearly...
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17
Hebrews 13:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Morality Evolves with human consciousness and intellect. It did not come from your ancient mythical flying sky myths/
@Cognostic
You said: “Morality Evolves with human consciousness and intellect. It did not come from your ancient mythical flying sky myths/”
Morality does NOT evolve with human consciousness and intellect. You think so because you are confusing morality with the mechanisms to achieve moral ends. Morality precedes intellect. Over time we have invented very effective ways of saving human life. But that has happened because of the moral dictum that human life is precious. Morality comes first and how best we can deliver on that dictum follows it and evolves with time. Hope it’s clear.
"And how would you know which of those moralities of different groups is the right one?"
The same way we got them in the first place by using our evolved ability to reason, we have nothing else.
@Sheldon
You said: "And how would you know which of those moralities of different groups is the right one?" The same way we got them in the first place by using our evolved ability to reason, we have nothing else.
Reasoning does not provide moral values. Can you demonstrate otherwise with an example?
Theologically the purpose of life is to serve God by serving the society and doing good as defined by Him. Those that live a good life are rewarded with paradise and those that live a bad life are punished with hellfire.
PROVE IT. You can not possibly be moral under such a system /Go back and read the previous post. A god that dictates morality. promising rewards and punishments can not be moral and neither can his followers.
@Cognistic
PROVE IT. You can not possibly be moral under such a system /Go back and read the previous post. A god that dictates morality. promising rewards and punishments can not be moral and neither can his followers.
And based on what yardstick are you saying that the God-based morality cannot be moral? Are you not begging the question here?
1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. There are no Abrahamic Gods that know the difference between right and wrong. (To get them from the Bible or the Quaran you must cherry pick. There are more immoral actions by Gods and immoral dictates than there are moral dictated in both books. )
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
The very definition I gave you. NOTE: 'HELD BY A PERSON OR SOCIETY'
A DICTATE IS NOT A MORAL. Morality can not be dictated to you. (HERE WE GO AGAIN) If you are promised heaven for being good and then you are good, YOU ARE NOT MORAL. If you are threatened with eternal damnation and then you act in a moral way, YOU ARE NOT MORAL. As long as you are threatened with eternal punishment or eternal reward there is an EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL over your moral behavior.. There is no morality when morality is dictated on penalty of eternal damnation or pleasing god and getting a reward.
Any atheist on the street is more of a moral being than a theist. When atheists are nice or behave morally with regards to others, it is because they are nice moral people. Not because they are afraid of your boogieman god and not because they are trying to earn their way into a lifetime of cake and ice cream. Theologies inhibit actual moral behavior.
That’s exactly why I say science does not provide us answers to questions of value, morality or purpose of life.
You are wrong again. You are ascribing a purpose to life that no one share and that you can not justify.
You are ascribing morality to people with no evidence what so ever.
Secular morality is far superior to Theistic morality which is only a dictate from an asshole god.
Because there is a secular way of objectifying morality based on "Well Being" does not mean everyone shares it. There is just Objective Morality based on Well being. If you think science has nothing to do with morality you need to start listening to Sam Harris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
or
matt dilahaunty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjbdWGre370
You need to keep up on current trends in science/
@Cognistic
You said: “Because there is a secular way of objectifying morality based on "Well Being" does not mean everyone shares it. There is just Objective Morality based on Well being. If you think science has nothing to do with morality you need to start listening to Sam Harris.”
I have heard him and he is just begging the question again. The question is why should well-being ever be a moral standard? And why isn’t the animal well-being part of that scheme? Why is it human-centric and why should such a self-centered system ever be moral?
Science can only tell how to achieve a moral goal once we decide what it is. Science can tell how to save a human life or annihilate one – but it can’t tell you anything about the value of such deeds.
"The question is why should well-being ever be a moral standard?" It shouldn't. Go ahead and create your own moral standard. That is what you are doing anyway by cherry picking the Bible or the Quaran.
You missed the point. Science can explore and does have something to say about morality. Science is the reason you are not burning people at the stake any longer, sacrificing children to your god or cutting the heads off of chickens and goats.
"And why isn’t the animal well-being part of that scheme?"
What made you think animal well being is not a part of it? We no longer allow animal sacrifice. We demand animals be killed humanely. We don't allow people to treat dogs, cats, or other pets poorly. All of this completely contradicts Theologies.
@ Cognostic
You said: We demand animals be killed humanely.
LOL! Kill humanely???? Can I do that to humans too. Where do you get these moral principles from about killing humanely?
"The question is why should well-being ever be a moral standard?"
1. It can be applied universally to all humans, and to a lesser degree to all sentient beings.
2. It creates a fairer better society / world than behaviours that don't prioritise collective well being.
3. The basic principle though subjective, can offer objective morals once we accept it is a good basis for morality.
4. It doesn't have to offend reason, not deny science or logic.
5. It doesn't require delusional beliefs in non existent deities.
6. Most importantly it doesn't require anyone to become an amoral automaton, blindly following ancient bigoted and pernicious dogma.
"And why isn’t the animal well-being part of that scheme? Why is it human-centric and why should such a self-centered system ever be moral?"
Because we are human, so devising a moral system that prioritises the well being of cockroaches and rats over humans isn't very practical.
"Science can only tell how to achieve a moral goal once we decide what it is. "
Correct, the same way religious morals can only be objective if you can demonstrate objective evidence that a deity exists, that you know what it wants, and that you demonstrate objectively that what it wants is moral - which is a catch 22 scenario that requires circular reasoning, such as god is goo because god can't be bad. Or anything go does is good, thus god only does good things.
"Science can tell how to save a human life or annihilate one – but it can’t tell you anything about the value of such deeds."
Neither can a fictional deity.
@Sheldon
You said: “Because we are human, so devising a moral system that prioritises the well being of cockroaches and rats over humans isn't very practical.”
So, practicality is your yardstick. Well, for a mafia don a lot of things may not be practical in his scheme of things. Like for example, sparing whistleblowers, and he may have his own devices of dealing with them. I guess that must be fine as per your standard.
@ ROYISM
"From what you are saying, morality is a mechanism for better survival of the species. So anything that helps us survive better must be moral. I can take the logic further and argue that what makes me survive better in this world must be morally right."
You cannot replace "species" and "us" with "me" and have the same argument hold up. Your logic breaks down because at times there are individuals who act against the better of the group/species and must be either put down or incarcerated.
"We" does not equal "me"
@David Killens
You cannot replace "species" and "us" with "me" and have the same argument hold up. Your logic breaks down because at times there are individuals who act against the better of the group/species and must be either put down or incarcerated.
Why should the group be more important than the individual? Where do you get these ideas from? You are just preaching and not giving me a proper standard with which to measure morality.
Theism doesn't explain anything. It just rejects the laws of nature. Theists feel the universe revolves around them, and thus create "Why?" questions to make their preconceived answers seem profound.
@Sapporo
“Theism doesn't explain anything. It just rejects the laws of nature. Theists feel the universe revolves around them, and thus create "Why?" questions to make their preconceived answers seem profound.”
Do you mean to say that you don’t consider the universe to revolve around you? Do you see the killing of humans and animals in the same vein? If no, then are you not being human centric? Where did you get that worldview from?
Your questions are subjective, not scientific questions.
@Sapporo
You said: “Your questions are subjective, not scientific questions.”
My questions are not scientific, because that’s exactly what I am trying to prove i.e. that science can’t answer ‘why’ questions. I don’t understand what you mean by saying the questions are subjective. Whatever way you look at it, these are VERY important questions that all of us try to find answers for. Without those answers, you will have no values to live by. I am sure you consider murder to be morally wrong. That shows that you have values. Where did you get them from? And if you searched within yourself, you will see that at the root of these values are the ‘why’ questions. So it’s not questions that religions created simply to seem profound… but these are indeed profound questions.
Science can only answer questions about the phenomenal world. All other questions are aesthetic in nature.
As a subjective individual, I have my own opinions. They come from being self-aware and being prone to biases based on my experience.
One of the definitions from the satirical work The Devil's Dictionary is as follows:
@Sapporo
You said: Science can only answer questions about the phenomenal world. All other questions are aesthetic in nature.
Are questions of morality merely aesthetic for you?
You said: As a subjective individual, I have my own opinions. They come from being self-aware and being prone to biases based on my experience
Do you mean to say that moral values are subjective and that each one can adhere to their own set of values. If I indulge in human sacrifice would you not stop me? If yes, wouldn’t that be you imposing your subjective views on me?
@ royism
I answered the question for you about all morals being subjective and collective in another thread. Guess you still believe that bullshit of objective immorality of your version of "The Desert-Dwelling Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe, Life, and Everything?"
rmfr
Questions of morality are aesthetic in nature. To say they are merely aesthetic would be an aesthetic judgment. I don't think adding such an attribute as "merely" adds anything to my worldview.
Moral values are indeed subjective. As individuals, how one decides to act is up to each person. If a person carries out an action that I deem harmful, I will act if I believe intervention would do more good than harm. If I was to act in the manner you suggested in your scenario, then yes, you would not have full autonomy.
@Sapporo
Moral values are indeed subjective
Then you should stop preaching, or asserting that I am wrong. There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective.
“ There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective.”
Why not?
@CyberLN
“There can’t be rights and wrongs on things that are subjective.”
Why not?
Because subjective things are based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions and not something that can be established using external factors or commonly acceptable standards. So, by saying that morality is subjective you are conceding that your morality is based on your personal feelings and is not any more correct than my morality based on my personal feelings. If you like pink, you can’t force me to like it as well.
I find rape, for instance, subjectively and personally offensive. My opinion about it is that it is wrong. I suspect that there are millions of people who have that same opinion. Do you? If so, do you have that opinion only because your god says it’s wrong (assuming you think your god says that)?
@CyberLN
You said: “I find rape, for instance, subjectively and personally offensive. My opinion about it is that it is wrong. I suspect that there are millions of people who have that same opinion. Do you? If so, do you have that opinion only because your god says it’s wrong (assuming you think your god says that)?
First of all, just because a majority agrees on something doesn’t make it moral. Or you would have to say that slavery was moral at one point of time because the majority agreed with it. Second of all, you are right. I take my morality from religion and think anything is wrong or right because of what religion tells me. Now, you tell me where you get your morality from?
Pages