Atheism creates a moral vacuum which only a religion can fill.
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.
Oh sorry about that... too many posts, so I lost it. By the way, what do you do?
It is on page 2
And you were just to start your main reply after finally establishing what i said in your mind to 2 basic points.
You tried to add an other point which also was partially incorrect.
i fixed it and you haven't replied to it.
The part where somehow 2 different conclusions cannot be better or worse then each other according to my morality method.
Which I showed you that this is absolutely wrong.
Since my method is based on evidence, knowledge and logic whatever conclusion has more in those attributes is usually the better.
It is amusing how many times you avoid answering any of my points especially the ones regarding slavery :P
You are constantly trying to attack my position but offer no defence for yours.
In reality your position for morality is just obedience to an unchanging ORDER.
Since this is not really a morality thing but just obedience you better avoid the subject altogether.
Travez said, "The vast majority of religions are viewed as fictional writing, meant to inspire. Why should I even bother to think Islam is any thing else?"
If this is not generalizing then what is? If I said “All the atheists I met were stupid, therefore, why should I bother even debating with Jeff, because he is bound to be stupid.” Wouldn’t that be a gross generalization?
Secondly, he did not direct a question at me straight. He said, "Why should I even bother to think Islam is anything else?" That’s a rhetoric… which only means emphasis.
Well, now if you want to project that question at me, then let’s start a new debate. I am all game. But I want to settle this question on the ‘method’ of morality.
If this is not generalizing then what is?
"If I said “All the atheists I met were stupid, therefore, why should I bother even debating with Jeff, because he is bound to be stupid.” Wouldn’t that be a gross generalization?
It would be
Again changing what he said
He did not say
"ALL religions are viewed as fictional writing, meant to inspire. Why should I even bother to think Islam is any thing else?"
"The vast majority of religions are viewed as fictional writing, meant to inspire. Why should I even bother to think Islam is any thing else?"
So you are just lying yet again to excuse your previous lies and exaggerations.
"That’s a rhetoric… which only means emphasis."
Might be, because he does not expect you to deliver the evidence or proofs and he guessed right on that one.
You still haven answered in fact.
waiting on the morality reply myself
Fine... that's your take on what Travez said. And what I said was my understanding on what he said. I take that question as a rhetoric, something like "What a beautiful woman?" Nobody would think this is something to answer. Let Travez comes and clarify the point. If that's a question, then I will answer it. No problem.
Hi Jeff, as our thread is getting too narrow. I am posting my replies here. I think we will just post them as new comments, so we don't experience the problem. Here you go.
You said: “Seriously man subjective morality does not mean that one cannot find a better position between 2 positions, what are you drinking?”
Wikipedia defines ‘Subjective’ in the following words: It is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity, which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence.
You can ascertain something only when it is free of any individual influence, in other words ‘Objective.’ Otherwise it is bound to be colored by your background. This is why I keep insisting that what is subjective can never be logically proven or disproven.
If you say that your method of morality can achieve certainty then by definition it is objective.
You said: “It is about find the best between 2 positions, quite the opposite of the nonsense you just said. It is just based on levels of logic, knowledge and evidence instead of an assertion of authority of a dictator like your god.”
Once again, if you can with any degree of certainty find the best between two positions, then it is objective.
You said: “There are cases where one just cannot tell but to say something like; there's really no way to tell which of the two tastes is better" on any scenario like you asserted originally is a very arrogant and stupid claim.”
Therefore you agree that there are AT LEAST a few instances where using your method can’t help you find out what is morally right or wrong. I appreciate that concession.
You said: “Maths is objective, no one said it wasn't. We are talking on Morality and Taste.
No one claimed that Objectivity does not exists but that there is no evidence to suggest that objective morality/Taste exists.”
This is a contradiction. If you can with any degree of certainty ascertain a finding, then by definition it is objective. So, you are actually claiming that morality is objective, but it’s just that you want to call it subjective.
You said: “Don't make me insult you again, you seriously try my patience with your incredibly stupid claims.”
I take your insults as your SUBJECTIVE opinions. So, I don’t attach any importance to them. Go ahead, if you choose to. It only speaks about your culture.
You said: “Here you are saying that when using my method on every scenario when people come up with 2 different positions there is no way to find the one which is more correct. which is completely wrong. There are ways but not always that is why it is subjective. There is a time when there is no way to tell but in most cases there is.”
Once again it’s a partial concession that your method doesn’t work always.
You said: “EG' deciding between killing 1 brother or an other brother is a problematic moral dilemma. but deciding between killing one loving brother or killing 2 murderers is a much more easy choice.”
Why should there be any moral dilemma about killing one of your brothers. It is evidently IMMORAL to kill any of your brothers. The example is not clear.
You said: “Still it is subjective to the person but with the right knowledge, logic and evidence one can agree that saving your brother by killing 2 murderers is a better of 2 evil deeds where no other option is available.”
This is absolutely OBJECTIVE. Killing 2 murderers to save your brother is MORAL. Nobody would disagree on that. Why do you say it’s subjective.
You said: “Like for example, your brother is infected with a disease (will die soon) and if left alive can infect the entire world with a deadly disease. In that case with the new knowledge, the better moral position is to kill your brother then killing some random 2 murderers.(still subjective to the person feelings but the good moral person will most likely take that choice)”
This is also absolutely OBJECTIVE. If anyone disagrees with the killing of such a person, we can give a logical explanation as to why. It is not subjective.
The net outtake of your reply as far as I can understand is this: You are confused between objectivity and subjectivity. And you agree that at least in a few instances your method doesn’t work.
In fact, that’s precisely what I have been trying to prove.
And as to your oft-repeated question: “What do you drink.” I drink green tea :)
Very dishonest reply indeed.
this is my last post to you since you can only cherry pick my replies and keep acting childish and not read my replies but trolling with my replies.
"You can ascertain something only when it is free of any individual influence, in other words ‘Objective.’ "
This is the problem you sprout such nonsense as the base of your argument from start as a fact then you wonder why it does not make sens with what everybody else says.
Please prove this statement true, show me that there exists at east 1 thing which is free from your own influence or knowledge gained.
Everything is depending on YOUR knowledge with regards to YOUR morality.
You keep making very stupid statements and establish them as facts as your basics without providing anything to support them at all.
"If you say that your method of morality can achieve certainty then by definition it is objective."
By your stupid wrong assertion it is objective. By definition means that you actually defind something.
But you just claim something without supporting it.
Just like you claimed that god is love when in reality he show no love at all.
"You said(jeff): “EG' deciding between killing 1 brother or an other brother is a problematic moral dilemma. but deciding between killing one loving brother or killing 2 murderers is a much more easy choice.”
Why should there be any moral dilemma about killing one of your brothers. It is evidently IMMORAL to kill any of your brothers. The example is not clear."
No, the example is clear, it just that you do not want to answer it with you method since you don't have an answer.
If you are in a position that you are forced to kill 1 of your 2 brothers, which one would you kill?
Your method or mine give no real moral position on that dilemma. Both of the choices are equally evil choices and thus we do not have a position for it not because they are evil but because they are EQUALLY evil.
"This is absolutely OBJECTIVE. Killing 2 murderers to save your brother is MORAL. Nobody would disagree on that. Why do you say it’s subjective."
This is why this discussion is over, I replied to you already in the next few lines just after this but you chose to ignore it.:
"There is no objectivity though, there might be a case where with the right knowledge and logic the position of killing your brother might be a better moral position.
Like for example, your brother is infected with a disease (will die soon) and if left alive can infect the entire world with a deadly disease.
In that case with the new knowledge, the better moral position is to kill your brother then killing some random 2 murderers.
(still subjective to the person feelings but the good moral person will most likely take that choice)"
Thus given the SAME situation of choosing between killing your brother vs 2 murderers with this NEW knowledge the moral thing to do changes. New knowledge= subjective to new knowledge or experience.
Proving you yet again are incapable of making a serious discussion because you refuse to understand or even read what the other person is saying.
You are just incapable of making a meaningful debate and you proved it.
You are the one not knowing what subjectivity means and you displayed it in every post you make.
I gave you the definition of 'Subjectivity' taken from wikipedia, and yet you claim i din't define it. As you have not even got your terms right, I think it's meaningless to continue this debate.
Anyways... i had some good exchanges with you. Take care. bye.
At a minimum; for morality to be objective, you would need to be able to list a set of rules. The rules would need to be in a form that anyone could use the rules to determine what is moral in a given situation. Furthermore, the rules would need to have the character that anyone who used them to determine what is moral in a given situation would get the same answer as anyone else who used these rules.
I have never seen such a set of rules, therefore I assume morality is subjective.
Furthermore I'm guessing that no such set of rules is possible.
Finally, I'd bet that even if you had such a set of rules, that everyone could use them to come to the same conclusion, that some people would not agree with the solutions they generated from these rules, which opens a whole new can of worms.
So until further notice I see no reason to treat morality as anything but subjective.
Let’s be clear on what is subjective. Let me present to you two scenarios to explain my point.
Scenario 1: A and B are analyzing a piece of art. A says that it is beautiful. B says it is ugly. However, A and B agree that neither of them can be right of wrong, because it is only a subjective opinion.
Scenario 2: A and B are solving a math puzzle. A and B get two different answers. A says B is wrong. And B says A is wrong, because their answers they think are objective.
In the two given scenarios, both A and B disagree. However, in the first scenario they disagree and yet can’t decide who is right. In the second scenario too they disagree, but they are pretty certain they are right.
Therefore, my point is only this. When you have two people differing over an issue that doesn’t mean it’s subjective, as long as those who are differing are certain that their opinion is correct. It’s very hard to get all the people in the world to agree on something.
To give a real life example: If you believe that killing innocent people is IMMORAL, and a terrorist thinks that killing innocent people is moral, this is not subjective. Your decision is still objective as long as you are firm in it.
Something becomes subjective, only when you hold a position and also agree at the same that the opposite can also be equally true.
Now, in the case of atheists, they draw their morals from reasoning. Reasoning is based on current knowledge. As knowledge grows, our reasoning is also bound to change.
Therefore, as far as an atheist is concerned, he knows that his moral judgments are valid only for the time being. While entertaining a particular position on a moral issue, an atheist has to equally entertain the idea that the opposite can also be true in future.
This is what I mean by subjective morality for atheists.
Now, what is the problem with subjective morality? It makes your moral position very weak. As far as your moral position doesn’t affect you personally, it might be alright to go by that. However, when it starts to cost you personally, then it would be very easy for you to give it up, because on the back of your mind you are also entertaining the idea that the opposite can also be true.
Whereas, as a believer (Muslim), I believe that my morality, as revealed by God, will never change. Hence I will stick to it, no matter what. Even when it costs me personally.
Consider your statement and your comparison of mathematics and morality :
"When you have two people differing over an issue that doesn't mean it’s subjective, as long as those who are differing are certain that their opinion is correct. "
Mathematics is not an opinion. In mathematics when 2 people differ over a solution, it can be clearly shown that at least one of them is incorrect. That is what makes mathematics objective.
When 2 people differ over a moral situation, it can not be clearly shown that one of them is incorrect, which makes morality subjective.
Or to summarize my last post in a different way:
Objective morality might exist/be possible, but I sure as hell have never seen it.
Hi Nyalthorpe, thanks for the reply.
Math is only one of the many examples of OBJECTIVE truth. For example, if we disagree over whether Shakespeare’s Hamlet has a character called Claudius or not, by showing the play to you I can settle the dispute with OBJECTIVE certainty. There is no math there, yet objective certainty can be attained.
In my post, I had argued at length that when two people differ, it doesn’t necessarily mean the issue is subjective. Atheists and Theist differ over the theory of evolution. Does that make it is subjective therefore?
Something is subjective, when you as a person think that two mutually exclusive ideas, both can be true at the same time.
I think we are getting too knotted up in this because the terms (subjective/objective) are a little convoluted. Maybe, we can replace the two words with RELATIVISTIC/ABSOLUTE.
I had also explained in my last post why an atheists idea of morality would be weak.
You may not steal when life is comfortable. But say you are jobless and you are quite desperate, then you would find it easy to throw away this principle of ‘honesty’ and take to stealing. It would be easy to change your position, because you were never certain of its validity in the first place.
The idea that your moral position is not absolute (unchanging) and that it can change anytime in future, will make it weak.
Do you agree with that point? If you do, then I think I have proven my case. If you don’t, then you have to show me why an atheist should adhere to a moral principle even when it works against him or her, when there is a good chance that the principle itself could be wrong.
"If you don’t, then you have to show me why an atheist should adhere to a moral principle even when it works against him or her, when there is a good chance that the principle itself could be wrong."
Well I don't so:
Well there are probably many reasons but a good one for starting purposes is: adhering to the moral principles of the societies which we live in, provides us with benefits.
Then on what ground would you say that a society that practices apartheid, or caste system, or female infanticide (still current in some communities in India) bad? Or do you say that these are okay because societies practiced them?
At best I could only say that the society I live in (USA) feels those things are unacceptable. But even that might be problematic, since the society I live in has a long history of Bantustans, a watered down caste system, murdering its own members, and genital mutilation; just to name a few.
You asked "Does this mean right and wrong are subjective? That what is right for A may be wrong for B."
That is actually exactly the case. I could list countless examples from history where that is exactly the case. But the example that is quickest to my mind is a quick comparison of the American Revolutionary War and The Banana Wars. Let me explain. The revolutionary war was obviously fought by the Americans against the British. What would become the U.S was a British colony, and fought to rid themselves of the british for economic reasons. In the Banana Wars, several colonies the U.S got from Spain in the Spanish-American war, had rebel factions trying to expel American forces because of economic reasons. Ironically we stopped them to protect our interest in the area which were exporting thier agriculture. Hypocritical? You betcha. But eventually we decided that colonialism itself was wrong.
Further more, here's an example of how right and wrong as defined by religion switches. Mathew Hopkins is perhaps one of the most prolific serial killer the world forgot about because, in his time, what he did wasn't considered wrong. But here it is in a nutshell. He hunted "witches", and him and hist assistants in the process, have 324 confirmed registered kills of women. But because not all his victims were registered, speculation puts the number closer to 450. And how he did it is the worse. He would torture them with devices like the "breaking wheel" (a human was tied to a large wheel and spun, while the torturer would swing a hammer to break the victims bones) and the "rack" (a device designed to pull and dislocated the joints, sometimes completely amputating them) to extract confessions. Sometimes if a victim held out, further "tests" could prove they were witches, some of which included throwing them in water to drown or inflicting burns and lacerations to see how they healed. And because the christians considered paganism and witch craft the worst offense transcending human law, these tortures could be carried out publicly in full view of the public. Once a confession was extracted or "proof" of guilt accumulated, the women were often publicly executed as well by burning or hanging.
I know what your thinking. What is the point of this example. It showcases that a long standing moral tradition can be as faulty as anything else. And if you think Islam is safe from this behavior, you only need but do a simple Google search to watch a video of two teenage girls, buried to thier necks, executed by rocks thrown to thier head by thier friends and family. I'll admit, i saw them, and they are graphic and not for the faint of heart. You can witness them crying, and see thier blood spurt and smear in the sand as thier community doles out shariah punishment for the unforgivable crime of "provacative" dancing. But my question is, though these cases are all very horrible... what if the people who wrote the laws allowing such behavior were full of shit. We know most of Hitler's and Stalin's laws were absolute bullshit designed to eliminate political rivals and "undesirables". Knowing full well that the Q'uranium is literally the ideas of Muhammed as penned by a scribe, can you possibly prove that he wasn't just as full of bullshit as the leaders of the early Catholic church who condoned witch hunts, or even Hitler who hunted the Jews? And please for the love any gods who may be out thier, don't say because it is perfectly written. As if spell checking a book written in poetic prose is some proof of divine nature.
Hi Travis, thanks so much for your reply. I really enjoy reading your posts, because your arguments are not emotionally driven, but you try to stick to logic. It’s such a relief to find someone like you to debate. I really am honored to do so.
Coming to some of the very valid points you have raised.
You have fully agreed that morality is subjective, which means that what is right and wrong changes with time, place, the individual’s perception and so on. And you have given many examples to prove this point.
I agree with those examples 100 percent.
However, this is not what I mean by subjective. What you have shown through these examples is that the people of the past have made gross blunders in their moral decisions. But today, you are able to objectively judge them and say they are wrong. You are very certain of their error and your position on that will never change. This is an objective truth as far as you are concerned, now. Colonialism is immoral – this is an objective position that you have taken, and everybody agrees with it.
Or are you trying to say that what you consider as morally correct today will be considered morally wrong tomorrow. Do you see the moral standard as something fluid that will keep changing with passing time? Meaning, even what you hold as correct today will change tomorrow. If you are sincere to that logic, then you should never hold any moral position. You should never say that someone is right or wrong, no matter what. Because you could be wrong in the eyes of your progenies. Just as your forefathers are wrong in your eyes today. In other words, your world would be a world without morality. Because everything becomes acceptable.
What do I mean by SUBJECTIVE? Here is an example. Consider a woman becomes pregnant. In the third or fourth month of her pregnancy, she decides to go for an abortion, because she thinks that will be better for her career. Now depending on from whose side you look at the situation, your moral position will change.
If you look at it from the point of view of the mother, she is right. If you look at it from the point of view of the innocent life in her womb, what the mother is doing could be called murder. This will be subjective, depending on how you look at it. Meaning it can be right and wrong at the same time, and there will be no way to say which of the two perspectives is more correct. That will be a moral dilemma. And this is not some fantasy hypothesis I am putting forth. These things happen in our real world, quite often.
Let me give you another example. What is your position on killing animals for food? How can you justify the killing of a life? After all, man is just an evolved animal, and why should his life be any more important than that of animal’s, which in fact cause much less destruction in the world than man. If you argue that killing animals is okay because they lack the sixth sense, would you then support the killing of mentally retarded humans? This is actually a moral question people duck for the sake of practicality. The only reason people feel okay about killing animals is because it is practical. And that would be a dangerous yardstick, because if killing for practicality becomes acceptable a lot of people would be wiped out from the face of the earth.
This is where I am saying that I will never get into such moral dilemmas or loops of subjectivity. (PLEASE NOTE THAT WHAT I AM DEBATING HERE IS NOT THE CORRECTNESS OF WRONGNESS OF A MORAL RULING. I AM NOT DEBATING WHETHER DEATH SENTENCE IS CORRECT OR WRONG…ETC). I am trying to explore the basis on which you draw those rulings.
My intention here is to show that your basis is fluid and unreliable. It changes with time, place, situations, and perspectives of people. Therefore, weak.
My basis for morality is Islam. What my religion teaches as right is right, and wrong is wrong. Yes, you may have problems with that belief. But it provides a firm objective basis to make moral decisions.
Therefore, no matter when, where or what, my position on morality will be the same. Colonialism is always immoral. Abortions are always immoral. Witch-hunting is always immoral.
Regarding the stoning of the girls. In Islam stoning to death is a punishment for public fornication, for both men and women. And fornication doesn’t mean kissing, hugging etc. It means penetration. People should have witnessed the man and the woman copulating publicly. This is a well-established ruling in Islam. In fact these are basics in Islam. Anybody would know. And if you tell me that two girls were killed because they danced provocatively, either people who carried this out have no idea about Islam, or this information is simply not correct.
If you want to disprove me on this, get me a proof (from Quran or Authentic Hadith) where in it says that provocative dancing (or anything other than public fornication) is deserving of death in Islam.
Now, you might say, even that is so horrible. Stoning to death for public fornication is brutal. However, until you resolve your subjectivity crisis in your moral basis, I am afraid you are not in a position to pass that moral judgment on Islam.
My morality comes from my ability to empathize.
I am not homosexual but what I have in common with homosexuals is the fact that my sexual preference isn't something I chose, just like them, I have no choice in what I am attracted to. When a holy document claims that homosexuality is wrong then it's akin to saying god will castigate those for the very way that god himself made them. Which is far too illogical for me to even contemplate.
Good and evil are subjective. They are concepts that only exist in the human psyche and we all have to deal with them, even if we don't agree with the existence of such. I firmly believe that religious morality has played a very important role in our evolution, but I think it's a product of our evolution, not a product of our creation.
Does a lion consider what is good or evil when it kills a zebra? Is it worried about the life it is taking? Many animals kill their own because they are competition. It is only empathy and governments that prevent us killing our neighbors today. We are all competing for the same things on a daily basis. If it was a choice between killing or dying would you hesitate? I hope not, regardless of empathy or religion or what mood you're in at the time. And if you did hesitate, end of discussion, my time is wasted.
Here are some questions for you.
If your morality comes from empathy, how do you decide on killing and eating of animals? Who do you empathize with? The animal or the hungry person who does the killing?
If homosexuality should be allowed because it is a natural inclination, so are serial raping, pedophilia and other sexual crimes. What should you do with them?
If good and evil are only subjective, then why do you condemn any evil? What is evil for you, is good for someone else. And why should you be right, and someone else be wrong?
At the very least I can say that, aside from how we arrive at the conclusion, i think we agree on many moral rights and wrongs.
I personally don't agree that's sexuality should not be publicly show cased. And for the record, I'm not one hundred percent sure on many of the specifics of the case involving the two teenage girls. Some time has passed since I read the story and viewed the video. All I can really recall from the article is it involved 2 girls dancing in the rain near a river in either Iraq or Afganistan. However, evendors though I may agree with you that public fornication is wrong, I see a hard time definin it. For example, if a couple copulates in a parking lot, there's no way that can be misconstrued. It was their goal to be public about it. But however, let's say a couple decides to have sex in their backyard, and some nosy neighbors decide to look over the fence and witness it. Does that now constitute publicly fornicating? To me it doesn't quite, as they were on the confines of their property, and anyone nosy enough to peer in is breaking their privacy. Or what if a couple in a taller building is witnessed through a window?
To me, obviously not all offenses are the same. If a couple were to engage in privacy and perhaps a person or two happens to witness, is not nearly the same as a couple who decides to go at it in say, a resturant. Nor do I feel that death is really an acceptable punishment in any case. Perhaps a fine for those caught being blatantly crude, and a slap on the wrist for a couple witnessed on their property. If we went solely based on Islam, we would have to kill them all.
Yes, I agree with your point that we agree on a lot of moral rights and wrongs.
In this post you have gotten into the details of moral rulings, while I am still trying to figure out how you can believe in subjective morality and yet be confident about your moral decisions.
If the teenage girls had been killed for dancing in rain, nothing can be farther from Islam than that. No matter who did it.
And regarding the finer points on public sex. The standards are clear in Islam. An act of copulating witnessed by at least 4 witnesses (whose integrity is unquestioned in the community where they live) is public fornication. Therefore, the witnesses have to be respectable members of the community.
And the ruling spells it out in the following words: “They should have witnessed the act like seeing a pen going into the ink pot.” Nothing less than penetration is deserving of the punishment.
What happens in the backyards of houses and in hotel rooms, even if witnessed by four people, these people will not have the guts to report it, because according to Islam this is snooping, which is a punishable offence in itself. Moreover, the fornicators will be not be punished if they are married couples.
Therefore, it is extremely, extremely difficult to actually implement this punishment on someone. Only a society that is extremely degenerate, where unmarried people intentionally fornicate to pander to voyeurs can see this kind of punishment being implemented.
Velyia you are a typical christian. You completely ignore the fact that the biblical god kills and has its followers to do killing in its name. The ancient sacrafices were not excluded from the hebrew god. How is it moral for the hebrew god to kill and not other religious freeks to do so? Jeff is completely right is his arguments. You have gone against your own beliefs in your posts. You have judged. According to the bible judgement of others behaviors and or beliefs are for god alone. Your responsibility as a christian (acording to the bible) is to judge what is right or wrong for you and to spread the word of love and forgiveness period. Morality must come from the individual or it is nothing. Iff a lie hurts another than it will eventually hurt you. That is reality. That is the moral standard to follow. You cannot say that you do not lie nobody can. So how is it any different for a thiest to lie than an athiest? Oh that's right a thiest can say sorry and believe that christ will take that sin from them. That way they can continue to do harm, because if you do not carry your own mistakes you are doomed to repete them. An athiest judges his/her own self and leaves the judgement of others to themselves. That is how we can not say that homosexuality is wrong. As for desieses they are not caused by homosexuality. They are caused by uncleanlyness. For example, if you have ever used the bathroom and not washed, you contribute to the desiese factor. You are not without mistakes and your beliefs are not without mistakes. Judgement of others opens a door to be judged. You do not fully understand the damage that religion morality brings.
But I am a Muslim.
A few posts up, you said, "My intention here is to show that your basis is fluid and unreliable. It changes with time, place, situations, and perspectives of people. Therefore, weak."
You have drawn a conclusion that the basis upon which Travis builds his moral code is weak. That is quite a leap and it is purely opinion. In it, I hear that you consider the moral code by which you live stronger (better?) than that of a non-muslim.
You have said and iterated that the focus of this discussion is not the morality of specific actions, rather that upon which morality is built. But let's consider specifics for a moment. If a non-Muslim agrees with you on the im/morality of definable / describable behaviors, then is your morality stronger because of its source?
You arrived at you moral code via your religion. Someone else arrives there via a different method. You can change your mind as can the other person.
Hypothetical question: if you were to de-convert from islam, would you still think murder is immoral? If not, then I suggest you stay a Muslim :-) If so, then your moral code is something inside rather than outside of yourself. It is something you have decided upon, not something some other entity decided for you.
My conclusion to say that Travez’s morality is weak is not merely an opinion. I have provided a logical explanation for it. As per Travez’s admission, morality is subjective. Meaning, it will differ depending on how you look at it.
Any subjective opinion for that matter is weak. Which is why, you might not like a particular dish at first, but after a few tries, you will love it. This is change of opinion. In other words, the first opinion was weak.
Whereas, if I can show you OBJECTIVELY that fire burns, you will not change that opinion, even if you want to. This is strong opinion.
Therefore, my claim that Travez’s morality is weak (I MEAN NO PERSONAL OFFENCE) is logically sound, not a mere prejudice.
As to your question, “If a non-Muslim agrees with you on the im/morality of definable / describable behaviors, then is your morality stronger because of its source?”
If I have arrived at an OBJECTIVE way of making moral decisions, and whether somebody agrees with it or not, doesn’t make any difference to me. It is strong for the objectivity, not because of someone supporting or rejecting it.
Then you said: “You arrived at you moral code via your religion. Someone else arrives there via a different method. You can change your mind as can the other person.”
If by this question you are implying that I could change my mind about Islam tomorrow… yes definitely that is possible too. But, I will do so, only if someone shows me OBJECTIVELY why Islam is wrong. We have discarded Newton’s equations (mathematical) in favor of Einstein’s. We could prove Newton wrong, because it was based on an OBJECTIVE premise.
However, if Islam gets proven wrong OBJECTIVELY, I would find myself in a huge moral vacuum, and then I would have to simply go by the current norms in the society which 100 years later would be considered immoral, by my great grandchildren.
Your last question was: “Hypothetical question: if you were to de-convert from islam, would you still think murder is immoral? If not, then I suggest you stay a Muslim :-) If so, then your moral code is something inside rather than outside of yourself. It is something you have decided upon, not something some other entity decided for you.”
If you thought, you have been considering murder as immoral based on some innate sense of morality, you are mistaken. It is the result of what you have been taught by your society and culture for ages. Had you been born in an African tribal society that practices cannibalism you would have felt absolutely comfortable to kill and eat humans that don’t belong to your tribe, just as you now kill and eat animals.
There are people in India who think non-vegetarianism extremely immoral, and even consider meat-eaters barbaric. That’s a result of their cultural/traditional upbringing.
As to the hypothetical question, I'm confused by your answer and beg clarification. You have said you get your morals from your book/religion/god. Your book/religion/god days murder is immoral. If you abjure your book/religion/god, would you still find murder immoral?
What I meant by the answer is that if I abjure my book, then murder will be right or wrong depending on where I come from. If I was an African cannibal, I would consider murdering people of other tribes for food as acceptable. If I was a person coming from a village in South India (where they consider girl babies a shame) killing female newborns would be acceptable to me. If I was a career-oriented atheist, then I would consider killing the fetus in my womb for the sake of my career acceptable. I am just trying to drive home the point that humans don’t have any natural moral instinct against murder. People are still doing it in different parts of the world in different forms. Therefore, good that I haven’t abjured my book, because now that I have it no matter where I come from, I would be against murder.
But I'd really like to know if YOU would do so. I know that's a completely personal question and will understand if you decline to answer.
No problem. I can answer it. Given the place and culture I come from, I don't think i will commit murder or consider it right. Now what is you point?