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.
I made no ad hominem comment, and you started a thread asking people's opinion on morality, so asking why you should care about those opinions when people take the time to respond is a pretty stupid question as well. Are you going to offer anything substantive to the responses people have made, or were you just wasting everyone's time?
Sheldon, he is not taking a stand on anything, he is just being slippery and evasive.
"he is not taking a stand on anything, he is just being slippery and evasive."
That's pretty much how I remember his contributions from before. You'll notice he asks a question or makes a claim, either ignores the answer completely it immediately misrepresents it back to his own beliefs.
Count how many times he's been shown the definition of atheism and morality already. Then watch him assert that atheism is a belief or that it makes claims. Or assert that something isn't immoral, just an action, as if actions somehow can't be immoral.
He has relentlessly claimed morality can't exist without an objective source, but ignores all requests to evidence this claim.
@ Sheldon
Pretty much par for the course for the latest crop of theists passing through these threads.
It seems all of them have second occupations as corkscrews.
@ Sheldon & David
Completely concur. That is something all Religious Absolutists are taught, how to more slippery than an eel. Confirmation bias, presupposed assumptions, believable lies, shifting the burden, etc., etc.
rmfr
Ok Sheldon, my point in asking you why I should care about yours or anyone else’s opinion for that matter was that if morality is subjective then preferring charity to murder is no different than preferring chocolate over vanilla. Unless you can point to an objective standard of morality, truth in morality does not exist. “If morality is subjective then nothing is objectively wrong” is as you stated a “pretty stupid tautology”. Then your are agreeing it is a true statement. If that is your position then murder, rape, child torture are not right or wrong, they are just actions. Do you honestly believe this corresponds with reality?
WHERE IN THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF PRETENDING YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT MORALITY?
Please cite ONE objective moral principal that your God does not violate. (Richard Dawkins ) “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, and a capriciously malevolent bully.” who comes to earth disguised as his own son to sacrafice himself to himself to change rules that he clearly denies changing (Matthew 5:17 ) and bring peace while threatening to kill (Matthew 10:34). YOUR GOD IS A COMPLETE ASSHOLE AND AN IMORAL BSTRD.
@AJ777: If that is your position then murder, rape, child torture are not right or wrong, they are just actions
Legal sanctions and social censure against those behaviors are most clearly and consistently expressed in the "subjective" morality of secular societies. The "objective" morality of theistic religions depends on whether or not the people being murdered, raped, or tortured are members of one's own sect.
Perhaps the most appalling single episode of murder, rape, and child torture in history was perpetrated by Christian Crusaders after the fall of Constantinople. The "objective morality" of the Pope gave them absolution from every crime committed while crusading.
@AJ777
"why I should care about yours or anyone else’s opinion for that matter was that if morality is subjective then preferring charity to murder is no different than preferring chocolate over vanilla."
If you can not understand the difference, then please remain within your religion because you do not know right from wrong.
So now you're asking my opinion again, having twice ignore it, and then asked why you should care?
"if morality is subjective then preferring charity to murder is no different than preferring chocolate over vanilla. "
As I said, there is no if about it, unless you can offer objective evidence for a deity, and that you know what it wants, and that what it wants is objectively moral. If you really think choosing to commit murder is no different to choosing between two flavours of ice cream, and only desist from murder because you believe a fictional deity insists you must then you must be a pretty shitty human being, and I can only hope you never lose your delusion in that deity.
"Unless you can point to an objective standard of morality, truth in morality does not exist."
Nonsense, it is you who must provide objective evidence for your assertion objective morality exists, otherwise your claim is meaningless. I am not claiming objective morality exists quite the contrary, since choices between right and wrong are necessarily based on human opinion I find the claim absurd. I just have a bit more respect and empathy for the rights and suffering of other conscious beings than you apparently.
"Then your are agreeing it is a true statement."
That something that is subjective can't be objective, are you being serious?
" If that is your position then murder, rape, child torture are not right or wrong, they are just actions."
No what an absurdly stupid lie.As I already told you morality is defined as principles governing right and wrong behaviours. So an action can be immoral, and I don't need a fictional deity or a real one to tell me not to do those things, I can laready see they're deeply pernicious behaviours, and so already think they're wrong.
Are you seriously saying you would not know whether those actions were immoral unless a deity told you? Again all I can say is I hope you never lose your delusion in a deity then. Do you not care if your actions cause suffering in others?
You still haven't answered my question...
Are you saying you don't think acts like genocide, rapine, murder, slavery, homophobia, misogyny, and torture are all immoral and or evil? Since the bible condones them all.
Sheldon, when did I claim that an objective standard of morality exists? I stated unless one exists morality is relative, and your belief that murdering is wrong is mere opinion. Cognostic, again the atheist claim that God does not exist seems to imply that the immoral acts and commands you disagree with were not invented and carried out by Him. Because obviously if He does not exist He cannot do or say anything immoral. And if an objective moral standard does not exist how can anything be truly immoral? So what is there to complain about exactly?
Labeling something as moral or immoral has no factual value in itself. But that does not mean that acts cannot be quantifiably be said to be good or bad things, by some objective measure.
"when did I claim that an objective standard of morality exists?"
In your OP as I told you last time you asked this question. Here it is again then...
"Where does this idea of good or evil come from apart from ***morality as revealed in religion***?"
"your belief that murdering is wrong is mere opinion. "
Not mere opinion, but certainly a subjective opinion, so is yours. Or are you claiming you don't know whether it is wrong unless you're told by a deity? I did ask the last time you posted this claim and you ignored my question the as well. Do you believe murder is immoral, or do you just desist because you think a deity wants you to? If it's the latter then that's not morality, that is just an amoral automaton blindly obeying rules he claims not to understand. If it's the former then a) why do you need a deity to tell you it's wrong, and b) how is that any different from my believing it is wrong?
Again since you ignored my follow up question, do you care whether your actions are pernicious and cause suffering?
" the atheist claim that God does not exist"
Atheism isn't a claim or a belief, it is the lack or absence of a belief in a deity or deities.
"God does not exist seems to imply that the immoral acts and commands you disagree with were not invented and carried out by Him. "
As I have told you three times now, you asked why people consider religions evil, no deity has to be real for me to perceive the actions of the deity depicted in the bible to be evil, and if they condone pernicious human behaviour, which they certainly do, then I that is also a pernicious idea that is therefore immoral, and or evil, see my previous list of examples of immorality condoned in the bible.
"And if an objective moral standard does not exist how can anything be truly immoral? "
Are you going to keep asking this and pretending it hasn't been answered several ties by several people? Morality is a human concept, if you have evidence it comes from any other source then demonstrate it, otherwise religious " morality" is no more objective than secular morality.
Even if you could objectively evidence a deity, and that you know what it wants, how do you know what it wants is moral if you have no means to reason what is and is not moral? If you do possess that ability then again it's asinine to keep implying atheists can't be just as moral as theists, and there is mountains of research at both national and domestic level showing that atheists are at least as moral as theists.
"So what is there to complain about exactly?"
No one complained ffs, you came here and asked our opinion, can you really be this obtuse?
Sheldon I think we’re on the same page here. I believe unjustified murder is immoral. I believe atheists can be just as or more moral than theists. The question is where does morality come from? If atheism is merely a lack of belief then it’s just a statement about your state of mind. “He who is a skeptic of one set of beliefs is a true believer of another set of beliefs”. If this definition of atheism is correct in that it is merely a lack of belief, then it’s logical that a god or God could exist despite your lack of belief.
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Nothing about that definition is a logical argument for any deity, so you've lost me there.
"I believe unjustified murder is immoral."
Is that "mere opinion"? If you're claiming it's not then we clearly are not "on the same page".
Sheldon, I I meant to say God could exist despite what your belief is. Unless an objective moral standard exists my views on murder can not be anything other than opinion.
@AJ777
Morality comes from people, and it is not universal, we all have our own moral codes, fortunately there is many morality codes we most all can agree on.
In a sense you are right, murder being wrong is subjective, most people agree murder is wrong in most all cases, however, lots of countries/states do the death penalty, (which is a form of murder,) or do allow war where soldiers are allowed to kill even in other peoples lands/homes. There is obviously no universal force that makes murder objectively bad or good, no god comes down and strikes down a murder or stops a would be murder, again all opinion.
So yes, your views on murder is an opinion. Fortunately we have laws that means your opinion on it does not really matter in a justice system.
Yep your god, the flying spaghetti monster, the rainbow pooping unicorn god all could exist despite what any of us believe, but really that is not saying much at all. That is like me saying you owe me 1 million dollars, sure you might, and you cannot disprove it, but are you about to send me 1 million bucks just because I came up with the idea and you can not instantly disprove it?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
" God could exist despite what your belief is."
Again atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of one single belief. Nor is it a contrary claim to the theistic claim a deity exists. I don't know whether a deity could exist, I don't believe the theistic claim for any deity as no one can demonstrate objective evidence for it. As for your claim it could exist quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
"Unless an objective moral standard exists my views on murder can not be anything other than opinion."
I know that, I asked if you believed it to be true? If you don't, then we are not as you claimed "on the same page". If you do believe it to be true then this thread seems rather pointless.
@AJ777
"Unless an objective moral standard exists my views on murder can not be anything other than opinion."
Yes, definitely yes, and I hope you grasp this concept. Morals are just opinions.
The opinions on morality should be carefully thought through and all relevant factors weighed in the final decision. But in the end, our moral decisions and opinions are just that, opinions.
And if you choose to disagree, here is food for thought. Only a fundamentalist lives by everything in the bible. If not, they are picking and choosing to suit their personal agenda and opinions. So if you do not advocate stoning unruly children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) at this moment, you are not a fundamentalist and therefore you just pick and choose what suits you. You are exercising your opinion on religious matters.
No one believes an action they consider unjustified is moral. Your statement is just empty words.
@AJ777
"then it’s logical that a god or God could exist despite your lack of belief."
I fully agree with this statement.
But we could also switch words to make the comment ...
"then it’s logical that an invisible giant pink bunny rabbit could exist despite your lack of belief."
And that too is also logical and rational. But just like the invisible giant pink bunny rabbit and your deity, zero empirical proof exists. Thus because of the lack of evidence, I lack belief.
@aj777
Do you think morals are objective? Do you think morals come from your god?
If morals come from your god, then they are subjective, coming from your god's mind.
Sheldon, my opinion regarding the morality of events described in a book is just that, opinion. Unless an objective moral standard can be found. If I support or condemn the book, who cares if there is no such thing as right or wrong. I prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla carries the same moral weight in this view. Does this correspond with reality?
@AJ777
"Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Sheldon, my opinion regarding the morality of events described in a book is just that, opinion. "
Obviously, but I never asked that, I asked if you think genocide is immoral, it's a simple question? I'll be more specific then, is there any context in which genocide could be morally justified? How about slavery, is there any context in which you think that can be morally justified?
For clarity I do not believe either genocide or slavery is ever morally justifiable. Please don't waste any more time telling me my opinion is opinion.
While it is true that murder, rape, slavery, and torture are recognized as contrary to international law as defined by the United Nations, it is also true that past dogma such as that in the bible considered such acts morally acceptable.
What acts are determined to be beneficial or harmful varies from person to person, thus morality is inherently subjective.
However, concerning torture: the bible for example says that most of humanity will be tortured for eternity. If the torture was not harmful to each of those individuals, it would obviously not constitute torture. Personally, if I had the choice between death and an eternity of pain, I would choose death. Thus it is difficult for me to see eternal torture as anything other than the "greatest bad" if such an act is possible. I think it is only possible to meaningful say an act is evil rather than bad if you know for a fact that it is objectively bad. But even a being that is objective can only say their morality is personal choice. There are many millions of people currently alive who believe that to suffer is desirable, and that eternal torture of an individual is morally acceptable. Thus it is not even possible to say without contradiction that harm is categorically a bad thing that the universe would be better without.
Sapporo, if you’re referring to the Christian concept of Hell the Christian view as I understand it is that the unbeliever is tormented forever and ever due to their own free will choice to be apart from God. Notice torment is different than torture. Torture is something done externally, torment is an internal state of suffering. Sometimes we inflict harm in order to heal, such as a surgery. Or we endure the suffering of marathon running in order to strengthen our bodies. Harm is not always a thing to be avoided. You’re right sir, how can one define what is harmful without an objective standard? Doesn’t the Christian Bible have a commandment forbidding murder?
The bible refers to "much wailing and gnashing of teeth", and an eternal fire. If you believe that a person would freely choose to be tortured, you are deluded.
If we lived in an ideal world, pain would not exist. Therefore, it is difficult for me to see pain as anything as anything other than bad. That it sometimes prevents greater bads with even greater pain does not make pain good in itself.
You are saying that people "choose" to believe and not believe, that they "choose" to be tortured. You are saying that people "choose" to find torture moral or immoral. This is not the case: they follow their own natural inclination, based on their own experience.
The bible has a commandment "You shall not kill.", but then permits the killing of other beings, and is allegedly said by a being that would be the biggest killer in history if your religious dogma is true.
You shall not murder, is the commandment. If the Christian worldview is true and human souls cannot die, then killing the body merely results in the souls changing location to either be with God or apart from God. If one does not want God now, it would be unloving of a God to force a creature with freewill such as yourself into his presence against their will. The fire is a metaphor for something far worse which we cannot imagine, the absence of all good.
Why the metaphor? Why can they not speak plainly and simply on the issue, why the vagueness?
Is it perhaps because humans wrote, edited, translated, printed, copied, plagiarized, and all this x100 times or more that is vague, or is it because this all powerful "god" idea likes to be vague on the one of the extremely rare times this "god" idea tries to communicate to humans?
Pages