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.
Well he has a larger and more obvious problem that the unassailable fact that atheists are at least as moral as theists by any objective standard.
Namely, he claim humans can't objectively say what is moral rectitude and what is moral turpitude. That moral objectivity can only come from god, but how then does he know what he claims his deity has offered as moral is in fact moral at all, if he can't use his own judgement? .
@AJ777: "Whose society has the correct morals?"
Penguins.
I tend to understand and agree with Breezy ( I refuse to recognize him as an atheist until he is serious about it.). I don't see how behaviors such as morality can be organically programmed into each human.
i also agree with breezy on this I do not think morals can be programmed through evolution, however would an evolutionary trait that allows the progression of our species then turn into moral guidance once recognized? Example:
Killing babies... we see this in a ton of animal species, male lions will kill the cubs of the female in order to mate with her and pass on his genes. Could humans evolved to realize that mass numbers allow us to defend and stay alive? The killing of young allows us to be more vulnerable? Then as we continue to evolve that natural mindset then turns to morals?
If there was a population of humans that did evolve such an ideal, all it would take is one rogue human that didn't, to ruin the progress. Since as you mentioned, it includes killing the babies of the competition, to secure one's own descendants.
At what point in time would this one human have to go rouge? If the idea is mass numbers allow us to thrive and survive, how would one human killing offspring equate to throwing off the whole system?
The rogue individual has the advantage over the passive individuals. Its game theory applied to biology. If you and I choose to cooperate, we both get five dollars. But if you cooperate and I don't, I earn 10 and you lose. Cooperation requires a delicate balance.
You're right and that is the game we all play whether we want to or not Breezy!
Yes but if you try to kill my young in order to sow your seed and it is in me to protect, you die before my child does. So is the act of war. I think we can all agree that the majority of humans will protect their children from enemies with an animalistic type quality. Something that we learned from evolution?
(No threat intended)
Breezy sorry I missed this part of your post "the rouge individual has the advantage over passive individuals"
What makes you think that as soon as humans stop killing babies all of a sudden they would be passive?
We would still have all the traits we have today anger, frustration, ability to defend, hunt, weapons, oh and empathy, so if one man tried to kill the young of another you don't think early humans would join together to kill him? Also you don't think this would be a lesson to other males not to try this? I do not see your logic of one man throwing off this whole process?
Lions have not evolved brains capable of reasoning whether their instincts are morally good or not. It's why we don't view predators as evil, but still baulk when we see them in action. They have no choice...
Now imagine an omniscient and omnipotent being that designed a world with ubiquitous predation, or even one that allowed such a world for any reason, that to me would be the very definition of evil.
HI Sheldon
All the discussions on morality in this thread pretend to give objective reasons for moral values but are actually only presenting subjective worldviews, and no one is truer than the other. Take even the most fundamental notion (as stated by someone in this thread) that it’s all about physical and emotional well being. But why does it have to be so? Why can’t the total annihilation of humankind be the most moral thing to do? What makes us think that mankind’s wellbeing is the most important… that’s nothing more than a human-centric worldview (absolutely subjective). From a bacteria’s point of view it could be the wellbeing of bacteria that’s most essential… how do we even begin to sound objective in a matter that is so entrenched in subjectivity?
Would like to hear your answers… once we lay the ground for moral standards, probably then we can judge god’s morality.
No, valiya s sajjad. I didn't say that morality is objective at all. I state that it is PURELY subjective, that it is created by the society.
Hi mcbok,
I agree with you to a certain extent... let me explain. If you look into history you will know that traditionally morality has come from religions, societies later adapt themselves to it. But today religions have compromised and just toe the line drawn by society. Islam is perhaps the only reason exception. To a lesser degree Judaism. The problem with a society generated morality is that it gives you very little incentive to live by it. A god based morality gives you more reasons to follow it.
@ valiya s sajjad
1) My moniker is "Mykcob4". I don't mistake your moniker as an act of respect.
2) You don't need a god to issue archaic laws to dictate morality.
3) Morality has ALWAYS come from society. Religion just likes to hijack things like patriotism, morality, as if they and they alone have the authority over every human being.
4) All a "god-based morality" gives you is the wishes of people that claim that they are the authority of a god. It's the age-old scam of telling people that you speak for god to force them to obey YOUR wishes. That is slavery.
5) A morality that comes from a SECULAR society is a morality that doesn't have a political agenda and cares for all the people.
Hi Mykcob4
Sorry about getting your moniker wrong.
You said: “You don't need a god to issue archaic laws to dictate morality.”
Without the referral point of God, morality has no basis. Because morality is not merely about doing what is good for you. For example, eating organic food might be good for my health. But eating organic food is not an act of morality. However, morality is about compromising your good for the benefit of another person. It is when you share that food with a poor man that the act becomes morally valid. Without God, moral values will become meaningless. Why should I not tell lies if it benefits me? The fear that you are answerable to God sets the context for morality.
You said: “Morality has ALWAYS come from society. Religion just likes to hijack things like patriotism, morality, as if they and they alone have the authority over every human being.”
I think it’s the other way round. Morality has come from religions, and society just hijacks it. A case in point is Islam. The prophet came with moral values that his society had until then not even recognized as being good or something necessary for the functioning of society. He in fact disrupted the existing order to bring a new order. Once this religion-given morality was in place, then the generations that followed it began to hijack these values for political and other gains… political islam is a case in point.
You said: “All a "god-based morality" gives you is the wishes of people that claim that they are the authority of a god. It's the age-old scam of telling people that you speak for god to force them to obey YOUR wishes. That is slavery.”
This is just your hypothesis… would you like to furnish proofs?
You said: “A morality that comes from a SECULAR society is a morality that doesn't have a political agenda and cares for all the people.”
Didn’t communists have any political agenda when they implemented their moral values such as annihilation of private poverty? I think it’s an inherent human nature that he will hijack any system or principle for his personal benefit… no system (secular or religious) is free from this.
@ valiya s sajjad
It isn't the other way around. Religion has always hijacked principles and claimed them as the authority.
As for proof of a corrupt morality that comes from religion pick any one of the religions. Take ISIL. Is it moral to use women as sex slaves? Is it moral to blow up innocent people in the name of Allah? That is exactly what they do.
If you can't be moral unless you have a god, you aren't moral at all. You need the threat of a punishment from a god ta maintain your morality. That isn't morality. That is obedience. I give to the less fortunate out of an individual sense of what is right and wrong. I don't need a god to tell me that in the first place.
There was morality without god, and there is morality without a god. Every society dictates it's sense of morality.
The problem with religion dictating morality is that each religion has its own agenda, therefore perverting morality. During the crusades, christian decided to murder muslims because they thought their moral duty.
Today almost every religion persecute the LGBT community because they think they have a moral right to do so. Hilter persecuted jews out of a religious sense of morality.
there is nothing more immoral than religion, every religion!
As for communist and property, they are no different than religion. ISIL is invading and taking property. Scientology confiscates personal property as do every religion there has ever been to include Buddhism.
A secular society that respects individual and human rights is by far the most moral of society.
HYG
@ mykcob4
You said: “Religion has always hijacked principles and claimed them as the authority.”
That’s just an assertion. In the same vein I can assert the opposite that societies hijacked religion for its ends.
You said: “As for proof of a corrupt morality that comes from religion pick any one of the religions. Take ISIL.”
I would say that’s a proof in favor of my assertion. What ISIL has done is hijacked religion to suit its diabolic political agenda. That’s why a great majority of muslims (scholars included) have condemned it.
You said: “If you can't be moral unless you have a god, you aren't moral at all. You need the threat of a punishment from a god ta maintain your morality. That isn't morality. That is obedience. I give to the less fortunate out of an individual sense of what is right and wrong.”
Where did you get this standard of morality from? It’s just your subjective opinion. If I do a good deed expecting nothing in return from the society, but only out of fear or love for God, tell me in what way does it qualify the value of that good deed? Whereas, when I base my morality on God, it complements my natural instinct of being a utilitarian (as in doing something for a benefit). Your argument of absolute selflessness is actually a sham. There is no such thing as 100% altruism, because you at least expect to gain a sense of contentment by doing a good deed. Even if you say that you give out of pity there is an element of selfishness there because you are giving in order to quell the emotional pain that feeling pity causes in you. You would have to say that real altruism is when you give not out of pity or any such emotion. And that kind of dead-wood charity totally devoid of any emotion is possible only in one case – if you have lost your mind.
You said: “There was morality without god, and there is morality without a god. Every society dictates it's sense of morality.”
Yes, there is morality without god, I agree. But without god the impetus to put into action what you believe becomes weakened. When push comes to shove, morality is thrown out of the window, if morality stems from a god-less worldview.
You said: “The problem with religion dictating morality is that each religion has its own agenda, therefore perverting morality. During the crusades, christian decided to murder muslims because they thought their moral duty.”
I agree with you that moral standards differ from religion to religion. But I would suggest that instead of classifying it as religions, it would be better to classify it as ideologies.., and in so doing you will be able to compare not just one religion against another but also all the isms such as atheism, communism etc. By doing so, we will be able to eliminate the less-fit ideologies and arrive at the ideology that makes most sense from a moral perspective. My bet is on Islam (however, here I am not arguing for islam, I am just trying to establish that a godless morality is way weaker than one based on god).
"Take even the most fundamental notion (as stated by someone in this thread) that it’s all about physical and emotional well being. But why does it have to be so? Why can’t the total annihilation of humankind be the most moral thing to do? "
Hi, I stated from the offset that this was a subjective claim, but it is obvious that we can make objective moral arguments if we accept this claim. Do you think we should create better societies and a better world, that minimises suffering and maximises emotional and physical well being? Or do you think our morals should not consider whether our behaviour and actions produce suffering?
"What makes us think that mankind’s wellbeing is the most important… that’s nothing more than a human-centric worldview (absolutely subjective)."
I agree and see no problem with humans using human reasoning, what else should I use?
"From a bacteria’s point of view it could be the wellbeing of bacteria that’s most essential… how do we even begin to sound objective in a matter that is so entrenched in subjectivity?"
There is no evidence that bacteria have points of view, nor can they make moral assessments. We may have to start with subjective opinion, but when we agree what the aim of morality is we can then make objective assessments about what is moral using those aims as a basis. It's no less subjective than claiming a particular holy book contains absolute morals, and no one and nothing else can offer any competing moral claims. Do think the suffering of conscious beings is something that ought to concern our moral reasoning? Or should we ignore it? Why are dog fighting or bear baiting illegal now, and considered heinous pursuits? The bible gives us complete dominion over all animal and plant life after all.
Hi Sheldon
You said: “Hi, I stated from the offset that this was a subjective claim, but it is obvious that we cam make objective moral arguments if we accept this claim.”
Can you explain how you can make objective moral arguments?
You said: “Do you think we should create better societies and a better world, that minimises suffering and maximises emotional and physical well being? Or do you think our morals should not consider whether our behaviour and actions produce suffering?”
You are looking at it in broad generalizations. Macroscopically, yes what you are saying may be fine. I want to see a world where things are peaceful and safe. I prefer that because I would be well off in such a society. And I would also like to contribute towards such as society. However, when you zero in on specifics, you get a different picture. Man is inherently driven by the instinct of self-preservation. He does what would benefit him personally. He likes law and order to prevail as long as he stands to benefit from it. But there are so many people for whom breaking the law is more beneficial than to preserve it. That’s the reason we see so many crimes taking place in the world. So, your maxim about suffering is too broad and generalized. Yes, I don’t want suffering so long as I don’t lose anything. But if I stand to benefit by causing others to suffer, then why would I care? Why should I not cheat in business if I can make more profit? Give me an objective explanation without appeal to emotions and empathy, which are subjective.
If you can tell me your objective standard for morality, probably then we can try to measure god’s morality. But appeal to decreasing suffering, as I have shown above, is not an objective standard.
You said: “Hi, I stated from the offset that this was a subjective claim, but it is obvious that we cam make objective moral arguments if we accept this claim.”
Can you explain how you can make objective moral arguments?
By accepting the initial premise we can then make objective moral claims about it, as I have said repeatedly. If you accept the subjective premise that human morality should promote emotional and physical well being and limit suffering then you can make objective moral claims that support this premise.
" Man is inherently driven by the instinct of self-preservation. He does what would benefit him personally."
That seems like a broad generalisation to me tbh, but that aside this does not reflect the premise I mentioned, and I already accepted the initial premise was subjective. Why do you think morality should be an easy quick fix rather than a continuous examination of our behaviour and it's consequences? Just because humans are flawed evolved mammals doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create more moral societies and laws. We already do for the most part anyway.
"But there are so many people for whom breaking the law is more beneficial than to preserve it. That’s the reason we see so many crimes taking place in the world. So, your maxim about suffering is too broad and generalized."
You've lost me sorry, I wasn't offering a blue print for every aspect of all of our lives. The starting point is necessarily going to be a broad assertion, and I have no problem with being subjective, as long it can be reasoned as beneficial to all.
"Yes, I don’t want suffering so long as I don’t lose anything."
What has that to do with morality? That's just naked self interest, and the first claim is just a meaningless platitude if you qualify it like that.
"But if I stand to benefit by causing others to suffer, then why would I care?"
That's for you to say, if you have no interest in improving morality then you probably wouldn't care. Though it should be obvious there is no guarantee your interests will be best protected in such a society. Would you be happy if someone protected their interests at your expense and you suffered as a consequence? Or would you expect there to be laws to protect you from such exploitation in a decent moral society.
"Why should I not cheat in business if I can make more profit?"
Again would you be happy to be cheated, or would you expect there to be laws to protect you?
"If you can tell me your objective standard for morality, probably then we can try to measure god’s morality."
I don't believe a deity exists, so I see no divine morality, only people making subjective claims about what they view as moral and claim divine sanction to lend it some gravitas.quite often that morality can't even be reasoned to be fair, or just.
"But appeal to decreasing suffering, as I have shown above, is not an objective standard."
Not sure why you keep repeating this straw man argument since I stated from the start and have repeated many times it is a subjective claim.It's right there in the first sentence of your post where you quoted me?? Though certainly no more subjective than the claiming you know what a deity thinks is moral without proper evidence, and in defence of cherry picking archaic biblical "morals" that are often barbaric and unjust.
Do you really need religion to accept that things like murder, torture and rape are morally wrong? All of those are condoned in the bible at some point as well btw.
Hi Sheldon
You said: “By accepting the initial premise we can then make objective moral claims about it, as I have said repeatedly.”
Let me give you an example, and you explain to me how you make an objective moral claim after the initial premise (which in itself is so hard to define or quantify as I have shown below). A young lady who is about to make an important progress in her career becomes pregnant. If she has the baby, she may not be able to move up in her career. So, she decides to kill the fetus. Is this morally right or wrong? And tell me how in an objective manner.
You said: "That seems like a broad generalisation to me tbh, but that aside this does not reflect the premise I mentioned, and I already accepted the initial premise was subjective.”
You stated this as a reply to my position that man in inherently driven by the instinct of self-preservation. What I was trying to establish is that even the initial premise is very difficult to define. What exactly do you mean by suffering and wellbeing. Let’s say I am a guy who just manages to make ends meet. I get to eat food every day, but I don’t get to eat a sumptuous four course meal or anything of that sort. I don’t have a car, but I can afford to travel by bus. I have a small-rented apartment with minimal facilities. In this situation, I can look at a Bill Gates and would be quite justified in saying that I am suffering. Whereas for a homeless beggar, this guy is living in luxury. How would you define suffering and wellbeing?
You said: “Why do you think morality should be an easy quick fix rather than a continuous examination of our behaviour and it's consequences?”
I am not asking for a quick fix solution. I want to know what it is that you are striving for. You say towards less suffering and more wellbeing. Do you have clear cut definitions for those terms or are you saying that even those terms have to be understood in a subjective way. Doesn’t that make your case hopelessly subjective? Here is an example to clarify my position. I worked hard and made a lot of money. Now you come and tell me that I have to share a part of that money with a poor man in order to reduce suffering in the society. But I having earned every penny of my wealth through sheer hard work and find it very painful to give it someone else, whose suffering I was not even remotely responsible for. I suffer emotionally when you ask me to give in charity. Now, whose suffering would you want to resolve? What makes you think that physical suffering has to be given more importance than emotional suffering?
You said: “That's for you to say, if you have no interest in improving morality then you probably wouldn't care. Though it should be obvious there is no guarantee your interests will be best protected in such a society. Would you be happy if someone protected their interests at your expense and you suffered as a consequence? Or would you expect there to be laws to protect you from such exploitation in a decent moral society.”
This is the ‘reciprocity’ argument of morality. And it is absolutely baseless. To say that if I exploit others, it would lead to a chaotic society and thereby my own interests would not be protected is just so inane. There are so many crimes taking place in the world, yet, those who are exploiting the weak are well off and don’t face the kind of ‘reciprocity’ you claim. In fact we find them getting more powerful and safer. Do you think George Bush would ever suffer because of the wars he started to support his corporate cronies? I doubt.
You said: “Do you really need religion to accept that things like murder, torture and rape are morally wrong? All of those are condoned in the bible at some point as well btw.”
This is another common mistake that you guys do. We humans do any deed based on a cost-benefit analysis. We wouldn’t normally commit a murder or rob a bank because given the risks involved the benefit is not so high. I would not risk going to jail, losing my good name in the society etc… for the millions I might make if the heist is successful. But the IF is a big if. Whereas, if the risk involved is less and the benefit big, most of humans would easily indulge in it. In a supermarket here in my place, people would eat chocolates and other things while they are shopping and throw the wrapper away and not pay for it. The supermarket found that it’s losing a great deal of money this way. People who were indulging in this kind of theft were everyday normal blokes. Why do the big underworld dons commit murders easily… they have much to gain from those murders and very little to lose, because they have the high connections to evade law. Now, it takes god belief to stop you from committing such immoralities even when the risk is negligible and the benefit huge.
"Let me give you an example, and you explain to me how you make an objective moral claim after the initial premise (which in itself is so hard to define or quantify as I have shown below). A young lady who is about to make an important progress in her career becomes pregnant. If she has the baby, she may not be able to move up in her career. So, she decides to kill the fetus. Is this morally right or wrong? And tell me how in an objective manner."
I think it would be unjust and therefore morally wrong to take away the rights of women to make autonomous decisions about what they do with their own bodies.
try this scenario...If a man had a child in it's twenties that need a kidney transplant to survive, and the only donor was the father and he refused to donate a kidney, would you think it moral to compel that man and use his body to preserve the life of his child against his will? You see in your dichotomy the question of whether I subjectively view the woman's decision as moral is independent of whether I view her having autonomy over her own body as moral.
"I am not asking for a quick fix solution. I want to know what it is that you are striving for. You say towards less suffering and more wellbeing. Do you have clear cut definitions for those terms or are you saying that even those terms have to be understood in a subjective way."
Of course suffering is comparative, so it make sense to start with those we can objectively reason are suffering the most. You're asking me to give you an objective blueprint for all aspects of human morality, If I could do this I wouldn't be on an internet forum, I'd be on Oprah. The basic premise has to be accepted then we can objectively examine what best helps achieve that aim.
"What makes you think that physical suffering has to be given more importance than emotional suffering?"
I have not claimed this, quite the opposite as i included both in my initial premise, so I have no idea why are you are now resorting to misrepresenting what I have said?
"This is another common mistake that you guys do. We humans do any deed based on a cost-benefit analysis. We wouldn’t normally commit a murder or rob a bank because given the risks involved the benefit is not so high. I would not risk going to jail, losing my good name in the society etc… for the millions I might make if the heist is successful. But the IF is a big if. Whereas, if the risk involved is less and the benefit big, most of humans would easily indulge in it."
I don't agree, and you're making a generalisation about most people without any evidence. However this is not what i asked. I asked... "Do you really need religion to accept that things like murder, torture and rape are morally wrong?" Well do you?
"In a supermarket here in my place, people would eat chocolates and other things while they are shopping and throw the wrapper away and not pay for it. The supermarket found that it’s losing a great deal of money this way. People who were indulging in this kind of theft were everyday normal blokes. Why do the big underworld dons commit murders easily… they have much to gain from those murders and very little to lose, because they have the high connections to evade law. Now, it takes god belief to stop you from committing such immoralities even when the risk is negligible and the benefit huge."
No it quite clearly does not, since I have no belief in a deity or afterlife and would not commit such crimes. There are vast amounts of research which show I am not an anomaly here as well. You seem to be suggesting that if you were to stop believing in a deity and the threat of hell you would think it ok to commit crimes like rape, murder and theft, you're not are you?
If someone needs the promise of heaven or the threat of hell to see that rape and murder are wrong then they are shitty human beings in my opinion. If we treat others in ways we would not want them to treat us then we are not behaving morally, and this idea predates Christianity by centuries, Confucius formed this idea centuries before Jesus is alleged to have been born.
If you think only the threat of hell creates a moratorium on heinous, selfish cruelty then obviously that isn't morality, nor is it objective since you seem to think people can only be coerced into desisting from such behaviour with threats, human morality involves human reasoning.
Hi Sheldon
You said: “I think it would be unjust and therefore morally wrong to take away the rights of women to make autonomous decisions about what they do with their own bodies.”
Here you are just asserting a subjective opinion. Your idea that a women’s autonomy over her body is somehow more important than a fetus’ life is just subjective. Why do you value one over the other? So it’s not just your basic premise that is subjective, but it’s subjective all the way.
You said: “try this scenario...If a man had a child in it's twenties that need a kidney transplant to survive, and the only donor was the father and he refused to donate a kidney, would you think it moral to compel that man and use his body to preserve the life of his child against his will?”
Yes I wouldn’t because I come at it from a religious point of view. But without religion, it would just be subjective opinion. Let’s say the father is a useless, uncouth man who is a burden to the society, and the child is a prodigy with the potential to solve many of humanity’s problems… then why not save the child at the expense of the father? The only reason we would let such a genius son to die and a wasteful father live is because of our emotional conditioning… which is absolutely subjective.
You said: “Of course suffering is comparative, so it make sense to start with those we can objectively reason are suffering the most.”
How do you objectively measure suffering? Take a mother bereaving her dead son and a man who hasn’t had food for 2 days… which of these two is suffering more? Take the earlier example of the pregnant lady… she having to compromise her career and her fetus being denied the right to live… which of these two suffering is greater, and why?
You said: "Do you really need religion to accept that things like murder, torture and rape are morally wrong?" Well do you?
What I am saying is that given our normal everyday circumstances we would not indulge in these so called immoral activities. However, when push comes to shove, in situations where committing a murder is hugely beneficial, then a person who doesn’t have an external referral point to morality such as God, it would be very easy for him or her to compromise these moral values. Take a politician whose secret affair with his secretary is about to be leaked in the public domain by a blackmailer. This would bring down his entire political career. In such a situation, if the politician can get rid of the blackmailer then he would do so, without much compunction.
You said: “No it quite clearly does not, since I have no belief in a deity or afterlife and would not commit such crimes. There are vast amounts of research which show I am not an anomaly here as well. You seem to be suggesting that if you were to stop believing in a deity and the threat of hell you would think it ok to commit crimes like rape, murder and theft, you're not are you?”
No, I think you would be an anomaly. Just that the supermarket example is perhaps a little uncommon. How many of us would not tell a lie to our boss if we by telling the truth would have to face his music? A person who tells a truth even in this scenario is definitely an anomaly. The India, the government official who doesn’t take a bribe is a big anomaly.
You said: “If someone needs the promise of heaven or the threat of hell to see that rape and murder are wrong then they are shitty human beings in my opinion.”
Heaven and hell give objectivity to moral values. Without them, you would be fine under normal circumstances… but if push comes to shove, these values will be thrown out. If you were conditioned to think that killing animals is immoral, you wouldn’t do that either. But now you enjoy eating beef and mutton don’t you? DO you have any moral compunction in doing it? That’s just because you are conditioned to accept it as normal. If you had lived among cannibalistic tribes in Africa, you wouldn’t have any issue killing humans from other tribes as food. You are deluding yourself into thinking that these values are somehow ingrained in us naturally. That’s not the case.
@valiya
Guess what? 99% of all convicted criminals believe in god. Since atheists make up about 13 %, that means that atheists are far more moral and law abiding than the people that believe in ANY god!
Morality comes FROM SOCIETY, not any god!
@Mykcob4
At first I liked your statistics but now that I think about it. Seems to me that the Atheist lawbreakers would be smart enough not to get caught.
"Here you are just asserting a subjective opinion. Your idea that a women’s autonomy over her body is somehow more important than a fetus’ life is just subjective. Why do you value one over the other? So it’s not just your basic premise that is subjective, but it’s subjective all the way.."
Well firstly I never said this, you are again misrepresenting me. Secondly you seem to think claiming a deity exists and that you know what that deity wants is not a subjective opinion, but it is of course. Do you think a blastocyst should have more rights than the woman whose body it developing in? That's a subjective opinion as well, and it makes little sense in any objective way.
You answered my scenario about a man refusing to donate a kidney.."Yes I wouldn’t because I come at it from a religious point of view."
Did you mean no you wouldn't or yes you would? Either way you miss the point of the scenario, the child in this instance is a fully developed human being, and no sane person would think it just to force the man to use his body to save the child's life, irrespective of whether we thought the man's refusal to be moral. So why would afford special rights to a foetus or blastocyst we'd deny to a fully formed human? A foetus has the right to live but not to demand the use of teh mothers body to do so fo the woman does not want to let the pregnancy continue. Your extended scenario seems to be bordering on eugenics to me, do we change how we view the value of a human life based on the persons intellectual ability or it's skills, as you seem to be suggesting here?
"How do you objectively measure suffering?"
Objectively.
"You said: "Do you really need religion to accept that things like murder, torture and rape are morally wrong?" Well do you?"
You still have said whether you would or not, you just keep making subjective generalised claims about others? These claims are refuted by a large body of research as well, and most of it shows theists are no less likely than atheists to commit crimes including climes like rape and murder.
"No, I think you would be an anomaly."
You're wrong. Ricky Gervais put it quite well..."If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population"
" Last year, Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were "selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it becomes."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedi...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-mak...
"According to the Pew Research Center, atheists now make up 3.1% of the country. So our presence in prison is significantly lower than what you’d find in the general population."
"Heaven and hell give objectivity to moral values."
Er no, it absolutely doesn't. Does objectivity mean something different in America? How exactly does being threatened or bribed to behave remove personal feelings & opinions from the process? Besides which they're not real, as no one can demonstrate any evidence for them, so the claim itself is subjective.
" If you were conditioned to think that killing animals is immoral, you wouldn’t do that either. But now you enjoy eating beef and mutton don’t you? DO you have any moral compunction in doing it? That’s just because you are conditioned to accept it as normal. If you had lived among cannibalistic tribes in Africa, you wouldn’t have any issue killing humans from other tribes as food. You are deluding yourself into thinking that these values are somehow ingrained in us naturally. That’s not the case."
So you're saying morals are relative to our circumstances? I think you have just destroyed your own argument. The last sentence is yet another straw man you've created as I have neither said not even implied this. For the record I do eat meat, and am an atheist, and I absolutely question whether it is moral to do so, so again you are wrong. However as with all your examples you are oversimplify moral dichotomies in order to create loaded questions. For instance is it equally moral to eat animals that have lived lives of miserable suffering, or that have had relatively happy lives with little or no suffering that are slaughtered in as humane a way as possible? Cannibalism is easily and objectively assessed as immoral if you accept the premise that I would not want myself or those I acre about to be murdered and eaten, so I could not justify allowing this or causing it to happen to others.
HI Sheldon
You said: “Well firstly I never said this, you are again misrepresenting me.”
Here is what you said “…it would be unjust and therefore morally wrong to take away the rights of women to make autonomous decisions about what they do with their own bodies.” Which implies that the woman’s autonomy over her body supersedes that of the right of the fetus, right? That’s what I meant.
You said: “Secondly you seem to think claiming a deity exists and that you know what that deity wants is not a subjective opinion, but it is of course.”
I haven’t yet explained to you how I consider my moral position as being objective. I will explain that if you want, but here I am only trying to undermine your position namely that “after the initial premise the rest of your morality is objective.”
You said: “Do you think a blastocyst should have more rights than the woman whose body it developing in? That's a subjective opinion as well, and it makes little sense in any objective way.”
When you say “that’s subjective opinion as well” looks like you have conceded that your position on the issue is subjective. That’s what I was trying to prove here, and if you accept that, we can call it a day. What remains on my part is to prove the objectivity of my position.
You said: “…the child in this instance is a fully developed human being, and no sane person would think it just to force the man to use his body to save the child's life, irrespective of whether we thought the man's refusal to be moral.”
Once again it’s nothing but your subjectivity speaking here. Saying things like “no sane person would think” etc don’t really help. What was commonsense 100 years ago is insanity now, and today’s commonsense can be viewed in similar light 100 years later.
You said: “So why would afford special rights to a foetus or blastocyst we'd deny to a fully formed human?”
Isn’t that once again your subjectivity? I can extend that same logic and argue that killing a new born baby is less of a sin than a full grown adult, because a baby’s sentient faculties haven’t fully developed yet. What about killing a mentally retarded individual? If a fetus is less valued because it’s not yet a full human… a person with defective faculties can also be considered less of a human, can’t we? I mean where can we draw an objective line?
You said: “Your extended scenario seems to be bordering on eugenics to me, do we change how we view the value of a human life based on the persons intellectual ability or it's skills, as you seem to be suggesting here?”
I am not suggesting anything. I am just trying to make you appreciate the subjectivity of your opinion on these matters. If you can consider a fetus non-human, what’s wrong if someone considers a retard less human. (I am not saying anything like it. In fact I think killing a retard is the most heinous crime that anyone can commit… but I am just trying to make you realize the subjectivity of such ideas.)
You said: "How do you objectively measure suffering?"
Objectively.”
I was expecting you to tell the objective methodology that you employ to measure these things. And not simply beg the question.
You said: “These claims are refuted by a large body of research as well, and most of it shows theists are no less likely than atheists to commit crimes including climes like rape and murder.”
It’s an important point you have raised. This is the reason that mere god belief is not good enough. The concept of god and the religion you follow matter. If you believe in a loving god who simply forgives your sins if you believe in him, then of course it will not deter a sinner. I will explain my concept of God when I explain the objectivity of my morality. Secondly, a person who says that he believes in god (a deity who is watching him and who has the power to punish his sins) and yet commits heinous sins is just a hypocrite. It means he doesn’t really believe. Would such a person commit a crime like theft if he knew there is CCTV around? Then why would he do it if he believes god is watching him? So his belief must be incomplete? Of course there is more to it, but I will explain more when you raise your questions.
You said: “You're wrong. Ricky Gervais put it quite well..."If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population"
We had an entire country run by atheists for 7 long decades… and look what happened at the end. I am talking about Russia. So these stats that you are throwing have to be analyzed more deeply. For example, blacks are in the prisons in far greater proportion than the percentage of their population in the society. Does that mean blacks have some criminal gene in them? No, it has to do with discrimination and a lot of other socio-economic factors. Similarly, you can’t just make a list of atheists and non-atheists in prison and draw conclusions from it. Moreover, atheists are still a small minority in the society. The larger the community the more varied the stats get. A recent poll by Huffington Post showed that atheists were the least charitable in Britain.
You said: “How exactly does being threatened or bribed to behave remove personal feelings & opinions from the process?”
It’s easy. If God is all knowing then what he says to be moral must be moral and what he says is immoral must be immoral. This way there is no room for personal feelings. I may not feel pity for a poor man, but when I know that not helping him is wrong as per the wisdom of god, I would still help him. Get the drift? Here you might want to ask whether God belief is not subjective? That’s not subjective also. There is a logic to that belief. However, since this discussion is not about God belief, I will not get into that discourse right now. But if you are interested I am game.
You said: “For the record I do eat meat, and am an atheist, and I absolutely question whether it is moral to do so, so again you are wrong.”
Just shows that you are confused. You eat meat and question its moral value???? First make up your mind on that and then let’s discuss.
You said: “Cannibalism is easily and objectively assessed as immoral if you accept the premise that I would not want myself or those I acre about to be murdered and eaten, so I could not justify allowing this or causing it to happen to others.”
You first said your premise was ‘Decreasing suffering and increasing wellbeing.” And then you stated ‘reciprocity” and now you are saying something to the effect of ‘Don’t do others what you don’t want to be done unto you.’ I think I have explained why the first two premises don’t work. And now, the third premise also has problems. Do you like yourself or the people you care for to be insulted or hurt emotionally? If no, then what would you do if a believer came and told you that the things you are posting in this forum are deeply hurting him? This is just a small example. In fact you just can’t function in a society on this premise. There is a whole cult in India that “really cares and loves cows” and they are beating to death anyone who eats beef. From your premise, they would be justified.
No it means the rights of the foetus don't take away the right's of a woman over her body. As I pointed out we wouldn't allow an adult human to do this, so why would grant a foetus special rights?
" I am only trying to undermine your position namely that “after the initial premise the rest of your morality is objective.”"
Not what i said, i said we could make objective moral decisions once we accept the initial premise, not that all our morality is objective. Also since religious morality is subjective i fail to see how your claims undermine anything.
"Secondly, a person who says that he believes in god (a deity who is watching him and who has the power to punish his sins) and yet commits heinous sins is just a hypocrite."
That's dangerously close to "The No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. I could as easily say no real atheist would commit crimes and define atheism in such a way as to exclude those that do. The fact is that theists in reality have been well evidenced to be no more moral than atheists.
I'm off out for an evening of hedonistic debauchery now, so will answer the rest tomorrow.
"You said: “…the child in this instance is a fully developed human being, and no sane person would think it just to force the man to use his body to save the child's life, irrespective of whether we thought the man's refusal to be moral.”
Once again it’s nothing but your subjectivity speaking here. "
You think it would be moral to force a man in this scenario to give up a kidney? I'm not often shocked by the moral bankruptcy of theistic indoctrination but I think you may have outdone apologetics here, and not in a good way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said: “So why would afford special rights to a foetus or blastocyst we'd deny to a fully formed human?”
Isn’t that once again your subjectivity?
No it's a question and you have not answered it, twice???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can extend that same logic and argue that killing a new born baby is less of a sin than a full grown adult, because a baby’s sentient faculties haven’t fully developed yet."
Except that's not remotely what I asked, and no a new born baby is not comparable to a blastocyst, as a baby is sentient, and a blastocyst is not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about killing a mentally retarded individual?
A straw man argument as I never mentioned this?? Again you're comparing the termination of an un-viable foetus to murdering a sentient human being.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a fetus is less valued because it’s not yet a full human… "
Please show any post of mine claiming less valued??? You are resorting to mendacious hyperbole. Stick to facts and your arguments might have some validity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"a person with defective faculties can also be considered less of a human,"
I vehemently disagree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “Your extended scenario seems to be bordering on eugenics to me, do we change how we view the value of a human life based on the persons intellectual ability or it's skills, as you seem to be suggesting here?”
I am not suggesting anything."
Yes you were, it;s odd can't understand your own analogy, but that's precisely what you did,, lets take another look...
"If you can consider a fetus non-human, what’s wrong if someone considers a retard less human."
I never said a foetus was "non-human" do you even know what a blastocyst is, or that a foetus is never conscious and can experience no pain? You're use of the word "retard" is shameful, and says a lot about your moral compass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: "How do you objectively measure suffering?"
Objectively.”
I was expecting you to tell the objective methodology that you employ to measure these things. And not simply beg the question."
That's not begging the question??? How else does one objectively measure suffering other than with objectivity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You said: “You're wrong. Ricky Gervais put it quite well..."If all the atheists left America right now, you'd lose 93% of The National Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population"
We had an entire country run by atheists for 7 long decades… and look what happened at the end. I am talking about Russia. So these stats that you are throwing have to be analyzed more deeply."
Well you could start by recognising the stats applied to the USA, I never mentioned Russia, so another straw man argument you have created with this latest non-sequitur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A recent poll by Huffington Post showed that atheists were the least charitable in Britain."
I doubt this, and am not surprised you offer no link to evidence the claim. Though of course I'd also point out that only atheists are truly altruistic as they are not obliged to be charitable by religious dogma. They certainly don't rip gullible people off the way televangelists do in the states.
Howeevr lets take a look at this "research" and where the donations went
"JustGiving said religious charities such as Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief benefited most,"
"Muslims ‘Give Most To Charity’, Ahead Of Christians, Jews And Atheists, Poll Finds"
So Muslims give most to Muslim charities, well quelle surprise, and only 4000 people polled, that speaks for itself.
Here's another headline from the Huffington Post
"Half Of Brits Say Religion Does More Harm Than Good, And Atheists Can Be Just As Moral"
go figure...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It’s easy. If God is all knowing then what he says to be moral must be moral and what he says is immoral must be immoral. "
Demonstrate evidence for the existence of an "all knowing" deity, otherwise that's a subjective opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just shows that you are confused. You eat meat and question its moral value???? First make up your mind on that and then let’s discuss."
Are you saying you don't question the morality of your actions? That says it all about the blind perfunctory automatons that blind faith in religious belief produces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You first said your premise was ‘Decreasing suffering and increasing wellbeing.” And then you stated ‘reciprocity” and now you are saying something to the effect of ‘Don’t do others what you don’t want to be done unto you.’"
Not remotely close to what I said about your absurd straw man involving cannibalism, try again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think I have explained why the first two premises don’t work. "
No, you have not. please explain, and can I ask for brevity as your posts are getting more and more convoluted and I am finding it more and more difficult to fathom your point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Do you like yourself or the people you care for to be insulted or hurt emotionally? If no, then what would you do if a believer came and told you that the things you are posting in this forum are deeply hurting him?"
I'd point out the rather obvious fact that they are not obliged to seek out atheist forums in order to feign offence. I might also point out that atheist don't build churches to preach to theists that they are doomed to everlasting torture, that atheists don't insist their views are validated by an absolute creator deity, and donlt threaten to blow up, those who disagree with them, or condemn people because they happen to be born gay. just off the top of my head....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a whole cult in India that “really cares and loves cows” and they are beating to death anyone who eats beef. From your premise, they would be justified."
What a truly asinine and mendacious thing to say, i am wondering if you can be this obtuse by accident? Since my premise was to reduce suffering and promote well being, just how does "beating someone to death" for having a different viewpoint satisfy that criteria? It can't surely have escaped anyone's attention that these are also theists who are doing this???
Your moral position is less clear than ever, and you have offered nothing to suggest it is just, fair or even cogent, and of course it is entirely subjective.
Pages