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.
Jon, please, do so. I'd say "unnecessary" is what it's not proportional to what it's needed.
for example that abortion would constitute a necessary suffering On the contrary, no suffering for the fetus (since it has no conscience, at least this is provable for the first weeks), but great suffering for the pregnant woman if she's forced to have it against her will... And probably for the fetus when she gives birth, because having a mother who doesn't want you in the first place, I'm sure it could cause suffering to that human being in the future.
Oh. You just said something on abortion which I won’t respond to now just so we stay on topic.
You appeal againt to terms like, “unproportional” and “what’s needed”, which are still need to be measured against something, a standard which I say is an objective morality, which science cannot prove.
I would say the fundamental difference between atheist and theists on this or other topics is
Theist- to god this is wrong end of talk
Atheists- let's talk this out and come to the best decision we can based on facts and evidence.
Through debate, facts and evidence we can be objective and use logic to best determine an answer.
We do not refer to a book written by men that is now obsolete to determine standards of today.
Is not the law of whatever country you live in contained in a book written by men?
@JontheCat.objective morality, which science cannot prove. Sam Harris says Science actually can.
P.S. And I told you, I agree.
Started reading and here are my initial comments.
He mentioned that morality is an undeveloped branch of science. So really, we cannot say categorically that anything is good or evil, right now. We just differ in our opinions about it. And until scientists find out, we’ll be in state where we could be right or wrong. Like any theory in science before it’s proven as fact.
He does talk about well-being which is starting to sound a lot like utilitarianism. I’ll have to read more into it.
Please look up Scientific theory vs how you and I use theory... this is one of my pet peeves with theists.
If God doesn’t exist the Nazis weren’t really wrong. Without an objective source of moral authority outside of self or society morality is nothing more than opinion or preference.
Ok so do you believe that god created Hitler?
@AJ777 "If God doesn’t exist the Nazis weren’t really wrong."
So lacking any innate sense of morality, you are forced to rely on a fictional sky-god?
I don't understand how you can claim your god as an "objective source of moral authority." Not even Christians agree on what god supposedly wants. The Atlantic slave trade and the abolitionist movement were both inspired by the same god. Opposing armies have gone into battle with god on their side, blessed by priests from the same churches. What's objective about that?
Do you agree with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Thousands of innocent children were burned alive or died lingering painful deaths from radiation sickness. Yet the Enola Gay was blessed by a priest, so presumably god wanted those cities burned.
The Nazis didn't pop up out of nowhere. They emerged from a historical context and were the product of broad historical processes that led to imperialism, nationalism, militarism, and fascism. If we write them off as monsters, we risk repeating their mistakes. They were human beings just like us. So were Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot.... Our knowledge of the crimes and mistakes that human beings are capable of is part of our moral structure.
I’m not saying that an atheist can’t know morality apart from god. An atheist can act more morally than a theist, but an atheist cannot justify his or her morality apart from god. It’s just opinion without a moral law giver.
So is god 100% moral without any immoral qualities? In other words can god ever act immoral?
@AJ777: "It’s just opinion without a moral law giver."
And what is your theist "moral law giver" other than opinion? Your version is different from that of the Catholics, the Mormons, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. Which opinion is right? How do you know? Don't you think it's just a little arrogant to claim your version of one religion as the gold standard of morality?
Would you consider Hammurabi to have been a moral law giver? He certainly wasn't a god. Aspects of his code, such as the presumption of innocence, are still part of our modern legal system. What about Confucius? He set down moral codes that are still very influential and was probably the first to formulate the Golden Rule. Was he a moral law giver?
Human morality is the product of human hearts, minds, and logic, refined and codified by society in the form of laws and social norms.
@AJ, to what Algebe said, I'd add:
In your profile you claim to be a Christian, so which version of Christian morality are you following? Which version of the New Testament are you reading? Because this book is different among Roman Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Anglicans, Adventists and their hundreds if not thousands, of different Christian moral codes worldwide.
Even more, do you share every moral of every member of the church you usually attend? Don't you engage in moral discussions with the friends and the relatives who share your religion? Do you have the exact same morals than your grandparents? Are you like robots with the exact same morals programmed?
Come on! You cherry-pick your morals, everybody does. No divine entity needed.
@Algebe Human morality is the product of human hearts, minds, and logic, refined and codified by society in the form of laws and social norms.
Very well said.
(edited, as usual)
The question isn’t what is moral, we all innately know that. The question is where do morals come from. Whose society is right?
@AJ where do morals come from I guess you talk about how do get our morals.
Morals are like language: Every one of us have the innate capacity to learn a language or a moral system (evolutionary reasons lay behind this claim), but we'll only learn words/morals from the ones we get in touch with. At a certain age, we'll be able to cherry-pick which words/morals should apply to every case in a more sophisticated way.
First, you get the input of morals mostly from authority figures (parents, teachers, priests? and other meaningful adults around you), friends, and people on tv. Eventually you'll also read books, magazines, blogs, newspapers... We meet new people and we face different moral challenges during our entire life. Basic principles of morality (killing in peaceful times is morally wrong) are molded by schools, churches, media; in virtue of political agendas, both physolophical (mostly) and religious debates on ethics, economic aspects, etc.
Changes in our social politics, treatment to minorities, and the evolution of our legal systems account for the fluidity of moral values in a society over time.
So morals change in every society or even in you.
PS. And the question is that you tend to avoid my questions, and ask another questions instead. Our interactions could hardly be called debates.
(fixed)
@AJ777: "Whose society is right?"
That's a big question. And I don't think your god's big enough to answer it. Our understanding of a good society and a good life has advanced slowly and in faltering bloody steps in response to great horrors. For example, England began to achieve religious tolerance under Elizabeth I after hundreds of Protestants had been burned by Mary. It took the horrors of the Atlantic slave trade start us on the path to understanding that slavery is wrong.
Call me biased, but in my opinion, the democratic, liberal, industrialized societies of the West are the best social blueprints we've created so far. They are based on the rule of law and the rights of the individual. The United States should be the paragon and trailblazer of that model, but it's tainted by its treatment of minorities and failure to separate church and state effectively.
So perhaps the best example I can point to at present is New Zealand. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant the vote to women, and it has done more than most post-colonial countries to redress past injustices against indigenous people. Its politicians are very accessible, and its political process is a more perfected and inclusive form of democracy than either the American system or the British Westminster system.
You can read a book and deny that there is an author, but without the author there would be no book. In the same way you can know morality, but without god there is no morality. If society or popular vote determines right from wrong the societies with the most power, or the most popular opinion is the determinate of what’s moral. If the nazis had won, would their morality be truly right?
@AJ777: "You can read a book and deny that there is an author, but without the author there would be no book. In the same way you can know morality, but without god there is no morality."
That's a straw man, mixed metaphor, and a non-sequitur. Nobody said that there can be a book without an author. The fact that an author is necessary for a book in no way demonstrates that god is necessary for morality.
Victory for the Nazis would not have proven their morality to be right. The Allies also did immoral things to win World II, so victory didn't make Britain and America moral either. But the experience of World War II taught the Allies, Germany, and Japan some painful lessons about morality. Those lessons didn't come from god or his churches. God was on both sides in that war.
@AJYou can read a book and deny that there is an author Some great French thinkers from the XX century would have claimed that it's more than possible... Check "The death of the author" by Roland Barthes out as an example.
You might want to read about straw man arguments. My example was trying to show you that you can’t have a moral law without a moral law giver. If the law giver for all of human morality exists within humanity then morality is nothing more than the opinion of the strongest or most popular entity. If there is one action that is always objectively wrong like torturing babies for fun then god a moral law giver must exist. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hitchens, seems to agree on this.
@AJ777: "Then god a moral law giver must exist. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hitchens, seems to agree on this."
I think an extraordinary claim like that requires chapter and verse citations, or retraction.
"If the la giver for all of human morality exists within humanity then morality is nothing more than the opinion of the strongest or most popular entity."
Why do you find it easier to believe in god as the source of morality than human nature?
My example was trying to show you that you can’t have a moral law without a moral law giver. Well, you failed.
And You could use some reminder on phallacies as well.
@AJ, Yet not interested in honest debate. It's an exhausting waste of time. Try at least to refute any of our claims in depth. It seems like you're reading our words as you were reading an instructuction manual, searching for the key words...
If society or popular vote determines right from wrong the societies with the most power Several factors are involved, it's not a simple issue and both @Algebe and I have argued why. But in a way, you're right: whoever wins the war or in peaceful times, whoever's got the power, can model morals. Difference in morals between democracies in Westernized countries and dictator-like regimes proves that.
If the nazis had won, would their morality be truly wright? Of course. That's what happened in Spain. A military assault on democracy by Hitler's allies resulted in 39 years of dictatorship. Let's put aside the very true ugliness of a war and a post-war, and retaliation to those who had chosen to defend democracy against a coup d'état. Women were then considered 2nd class citizens for all intents and purposes: they couldn't be single owners of properties or bank accounts, they also need father/brother/husband's permission to work or travel abroad. The religious and political indoctrination was ferocious. My father still keeps some books that could make you cry... Morals are those of the winners.
Life is not fair, kiddo.
P.S. Sorry for the length again. I'm fast-triggered tonight...
P.S.II I should listen to your advice, @Chimp3.
How can anything be fair or unfair in a universe with no objective morality, thanks for being honest and admitting that without god the winner chooses what is moral. Survival of the fittest.
@AJ for being honest and admitting that without god the winner chooses what is moral.
That's historical REALITY, provable by facts! With or without God, who's in power changes morality. You're so freaking DISHONEST, so out of context, that's so not what I'm claiming...
You're so intelectually lazy that you've become the first person in this forum I'm telling this: I'm DONE with you. Farewell, sir.
Ok nice talking to you.
In my EPITAPH, it's written:
"You're dishonest, @AJ, because you mix statements in different threads and seem unable to follow any line of argument... I wrote a very long post on "social darwinism", but you totally misquoted in this thread my argument. By the "straw" example of Spain I was trying to embellish the conclussion to your tricky question which was: YES, in places where Hitler's allies succeeded (or other barbaric regimes), as History keeps proving, UNFORTUNATELY winner's morals become the standard of society, regardless its possible injustice or harmful character, by official propaganda in media and indoctrination in schools. What once was considered immoral in a particular society, over time, becomes ethical. P.S. Are you a "social darwinist" yourself?"
@Algebe's patience is honorable.
P.S. It's not like claiming my uncle's friend told me so... You can easily dig into history of Spain to prove me wrong, if that was the case.
PS.II So God killed Hitler but let Franco rule for 39 years... Interesting. You're claiming Satan and God are the same entity= That's what you do.
I think it’s interesting that some of the atheists on this forum choose to accuse me of lying. If atheism is true why is that wrong or bad? I have not intentionally lied by the way. I’m simply pointing out some illogical statements, and untruths.
Lying and being dishonest in debate is not exactly the same.
Pages