Zone1 Morality is natural phenomenon.

[dblack]

I'm not being a dick, this is the logical conclusion of believing morals are human constructs that can be constructed by men to be anything they want.

You're all wrapped up in the Christian boogeyman of "moral relativism". I'm just discussing what morals are, how the come about and how they work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying moral systems develop in communities (human or otherwise) as survival strategies. You're fixated on something else. And you're really being a dick about it. Why?

Because you dare suggest that morality comes from somewhere besides an invisible magical dictator.

 

[ding]

You're all wrapped up in the Christian boogeyman of "moral relativism". I'm just discussing what morals are, how the come about and how they work.

I didn't need Christianity to tell me that moral relativism is idiotic. Socialism was all I needed to know that.

Morals are effectively standards. And like all standards they exist for logical reasons. Which makes them universal in nature and independent of what man might prefer.

 

[buttercup]

It's long been accepted, without critique, that religion is the exclusive source of morality and ethics. This false presumption is used to insist that anyone not falling in line with the various religions, is innately immoral. This claim is utterly unsupported and merely a slur to browbeat people into accepting those religions.

Agreed. Show me a church full of religious folks and I'll show you a mixed bag of very virtuous people down to some real scum. Same result with a bar full of random people.

There's a difference between religion and God.

When you conflate the two, all you have is a straw man. And a very slimy, dishonest straw man at that.

 

[buttercup]

The thread title lays it out. It implies that atheists are amoral. We see threads like this over and over again. Some religious people are insistent that atheists are, by default, bad people.

No one is saying that. That's what YOU took out of it.

What we've been saying is that atheism - as a worldview - has no valid, objective basis for morality. That is NOT the same thing as saying atheists don't have any morals.

As has been stated repeatedly, ALL human beings (believers and nonbelievers) have an innate sense of right and wrong, aka our conscience. Our conscience is God-given. You don't have to agree with that, that's not the point right now. The point is that the argument is not that atheists don't have morals. It's that atheism has no objective basis for morality.

 

[buttercup]

And you guys made me break my break from here.

Ha, jk.

 

[Foxfyre]

... And not a mandate from your "god".



Cooperation and ethics evolved naturally. Because they promote survival.

Morality is either cultural or religious. Ancient people did absolutely ghastly and appalling things to their enemies and each other and no doubt considered themselves moral people by their standards. Slavery, torturing people even to death, having people killed for sport, etc. was often the norm. There was no shame to be had stealing from people who were not your own tribe/people. The people of the Bible were good with The Little Red Hen morality, i.e. let those who will not help/work not eat.

I believe The Holy Spirit teaches those who allow such teaching a better way to discern right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust.

 

[dblack]

I didn't need Christianity to tell me that moral relativism is idiotic.

The problem is you get triggered if someone merely recognizes the fact that different cultures have different moral systems. Then you start screeching about pedophilia or slavery or whatever and derail conversation. Can you please stop?

Morals are effectively standards. And like all standards they exist for logical reasons.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't occur naturally. At doesn't mean all societies will end up with the same morals.

It's fine to argue that some moral systems are better, and some are worse. It's fine to think the that your moral system is the best, and it's fine try to persuade others of that.

Which makes them universal in nature and independent of what man might prefer.

Are you trying to argue here that morals come from a supernatural authority? Because that's where you lose me. Especially if you want to claim that as justification for forcing your morals on others.

 

[ding]

The problem is you get triggered if someone merely recognizes the fact that different cultures have different moral systems. Then you start screeching about pedophilia or slavery or whatever and derail conversation. Can you please stop?

Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't occur naturally. At doesn't mean all societies will end up with the same morals.

It's fine to argue that some moral systems are better, and some are worse. It's fine to think the that your moral system is the best, and it's fine try to persuade others of that.


Are you trying to argue here that morals come from a supernatural authority? Because that's where you lose me. Especially if you want to claim that as justification for forcing your morals on others.

I'm not triggered. I'm trying to explain to you that morals exist for logical reasons which are independent of man. Which effectively makes them universal. I think that triggers you.

 

[dblack]

No one is saying that. That's what YOU took out of it.

That was the trolling intent of that other thread. "Atheists are bad, mkay?"

What we've been saying is that atheism - as a worldview

Atheism isn't a worldview. It isn't a religion. It isn't an ethical system. Of course it doesn't provide an "objective basis for morality". Why should it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was the trolling intent of that other thread. "Artists are bad, mkay?"


Atheism isn't a worldview. It isn't a religion. It isn't an ethical system. Of course it doesn't provide an "objective basis for morality". Why should it?

Exactly. Thank you.

They just can't quite grasp that atheists are just not like them. Atheists generally don't need or use a crutch of a preplanned worldview or paradigm, handed to them by a dusty old book of mythology.

 

[dblack]

I'm not triggered. I'm trying to explain to you that morals exist for logical reasons which are independent of man. Which effectively makes them universal. I think that triggers you.

I'm fine with that claim. And I agree. Most evolved traits exist for logical reasons.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. Thank you.

They just can't quite grasp that atheists are just not like them. Atheist generally don't need or use a crutch of a preplanned worldview or paradigm, handed to them by a dusty old book of mythology.

Lol... Auto correct got me. But they probably think artists are bad too.

 

[ding]

I'm fine with that claim. And I agree. Most evolved traits exist for logical reasons.

Right, and logic is universal. It can't just be what we want it to be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, and logic is universal. It can't just be what we want it to be.

Yep.

And first assuming something as true, THEN manipulating all new information to square with it is about as illogical as it gets.

 

[dblack]

Right, and logic is universal. It can't just be what we want it to be.

When did i ever make suck a claim??? Why do you keep insinuating that I have?

 

[buttercup]

That was the trolling intent of that other thread. "Artists are bad, mkay?"

Did Weatherman say that, or is that just what you assumed he was saying?

From what I read, his point was simply that atheism has no objective basis for morality, which is why most atheists believe morality is subjective.

Again, that's not the same thing as saying atheists are bad people with no morals.

Just that if morality is subjective, then it can change to whatever people want it to be. And ultimately it's meaningless, nonexistent.

Atheism isn't a worldview. It isn't a religion. It isn't an ethical system. Of course it doesn't provide an "objective basis for morality". Why should it?

I didn't say it was an ethical system. You knew what I meant. Your worldview is atheistic in nature. It's an aspect of your worldview.

And if you're agreeing that it has no objective basis for morality, then according to your own position, there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's ultimately anything man says it is.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[ding]

Yep.

And first assuming something as true, THEN manipulating all new information to square with it is about as illogical as it gets.

Such as?

 

[ding]

When did i ever make suck a claim??? Why do you keep insinuating that I have?

Look, if you agree that morals are effectively standards and standards exist for logical reasons and logic is universal and independent to what man might want logic to say, then we are all good.

But when you say morals are human constructs, like you have been saying, then that is incongruent to what you just agreed with because human constructs can be anything man wants to construct them to be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Such as?

Haha, just read the threads. Any apologist parade will do.