Honest Question for Atheists

[Condescending]

I am having a direct discourse with atheists, that's the purpose of the thread. I am well versed on what I am posing and well versed in the emotional vague answers I receive too. So read you link and come back at me, I don't mind a discourse.

I am not hijacking anything if you are hitting a brick wall, then so be it. But don't accuse of hijacking. You're aware of the religious stance, this is an opportunity to be enlightened by the atheist stance, specifically you guys here. That's all mate. No need to get emotional.

I appreciate your nonsense but I wish to point out to you that the thread is about a honest question to atheists.. not you coming in and going 'hmm let me ask you this question of my own' The OP set the premises and even though simple it clearly flew over your head. You had every option to create your own thread and ask your insightful question and add it to the 10+ million search results of the google link I gave you. With the amount of answers out there to your question my point was simply (as has only been made more evident over the pages) that you have no interest in the question as it is.. at least not in a way where you would accept any answers given, instead you wanted to fling aorund a few filosophical words while dismissing any answer given and then try and pull some kind of intellect card. I saw your last post coming a mile away.

Coming in and 'asking a new question' in a thread not your own is hijacking it, should be simple enough to fathom for a man of your wit. The religious stance doesn't interest me, the OP's question did however, a shame someone didn't respect the OP enough to allow his question be the red line to follow through this thread.

[Dr. D]

Interesting replies. Now we are getting some where and I'm only scratching the surface.

My replies to you all will come in an hour or so. I am enjoying this discourse, although I have to admit the levels of understanding by some of you is lacking. It's not disrespectful to you guys, I expected a higher level of intellectualism as atheists claim to be atheist based on their intellect, logical deduction etc. I find that most of you are finding it hard to grasp the philosophical angle i am coming from, I mean could quote humanist professors doctors etc which would put your views in to perspective and correct them, buri rather do it myself first hand.

What you lack in understanding, you certainly compensate with arrogance. To "expect a higher level of intellectualism" is disrespectful since it suggests that you have obtained it and we have yet to witness it.

If we are to believe that subscribing to the concept of a god is intellectualism, then I defy you to show me a verse in the Gospels praising intelligence.

I think Voltaire was an intellectual and he said, "God is a comedian with an audience too afraid to laugh."

Carl Sagan was a great thinker of our time and said, "Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature."

Gregor Kilian, "Atheism is not a religion. It is a personal relationship with reality."

I can only speak for myself but I suspect others would join me in saying that we are not interested in your equating your god to the abstractions of philosophy or the mechanisms of reasonings stolen from the minds of others. If he exists only there then he does not exist at all.

I apologize if I seem a bit harsh but the tone of your comments invited it.

So get back to ya in a bit.

No hurry.

[Cybele]

You misunderstand me. I accept that you say that morality for atheists is defined by society etc. Before I became religious they came from society too. Society still defines it's morals. So where did the moral intuition in us come from, if it's society that developed this intuition then it's subjective and not anchored thus subjective morality is non cohesive non objective.

Therefore society will determine what is right wrong, so inaffect we cannot judge anything to immoral or moral, because it's open to subjective intepretation.

It seems to me that a great deal of our morals developed out of the need to promote cooperation and maintain a stable and safe society. Humans have always relied on cooperation and the support of a larger group in order to survive because, on our own, we are very weak and slow.

While some moral issues may be considered more subjective, there are many which are consistently seen in all cultures, such as aversion to killing those in your own community (the people you rely on and who rely upon you), stealing, cheating, etc. What is considered "moral" tends to promote group cohesion, while "immoral" behavior does the opposite. This is probably in no small part due to evolutionary changes in the way our minds work which arose over the millions of years our ancestors lived as social beings.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Cybele

[Paranormalcy]

I would strongly encourage posters here, pro and "con" atheism, remain civil and polite in here, and that includes the antagonistic attitude. You can ask a question and discuss replies but criticizing the intellectual capacities or understanding in the replies is groundlessly biased and blatantly argumentative. This is a DISCUSSION forum, please keep your judgmentalism to yourself.

[Lion6969]

I would strongly encourage posters here, pro and "con" atheism, remain civil and polite in here, and that includes the antagonistic attitude. You can ask a question and discuss replies but criticizing the intellectual capacities or understanding in the replies is groundlessly biased and blatantly argumentative. This is a DISCUSSION forum, please keep your judgmentalism to yourself.

My sincere apologies members if that's how I came across, maybe I could have worded it better. I was not questioning the intelligence or intellect of people, I was simply surprised at the lack of knowledge of philosophy on this matter, which I has assumed (based on past experience) that's most atheists are well versed in philosophy and the philosophy of science, sociology and psychology. Admittedly I ain't touched on the few latter sciences.

So to everyone I am sorry if your were offended by comments that's was not my intention.

[Lion6969]

Look rather than addressing you all one by one, this post will collectively deal with your points.

My question was where do atheists gets their morals from? 

To which unanimously all of you said society and culture determine our morals and values. Since society is ever changing and evolving along with it so do the morals and values, what is bad morally one day, can be accepted morally the next day as long as that society as whole accepts it. Obviously this is in laymen terms so that you guys understand. 

In addition to this some of you have hinted maybe knowingly or unknowingly have suggested evolution might have had a part to play or a combination of both.

So the first question was answered.

So based on the logic and process of how your morals are derived from social pressures, I posed the question.

If a society follows this logic proposed by you guys not me, that society determines our values. Then how can you objectively label something immoral or moral, when your very morals are determined by social and individual pressures. Thus making them subjective, just as subjective as religious people who offer personal experience as evidence for their god or religion etc. It's no different, yet when you are faced with questions which challenge your subjective moral stance, you offer the same type of evidence based on and built on subjective experiences etc.

I gave an example of a society in Germany which was brainwashed into believing that it is morally acceptable to eliminate Jews! Based on your unanimous answers that society is determining your morals, then on what grounds can you label their actions immoral? You have no objective morality, that german society followed the logic that is proposed by you guys which is, society and culture define our morals, so their morals were defined socially. So following that logic through fully, their actions or immoral acts are rooted in subjective moral outlook, just like yours. Basically, if society determines what's right or wrong, it's always changing, you have no binding morals as some of you claim, their ephemeral and subjective, thus meaningless.

You see secular liberalism is rooted in atomism which is a political and philosophical premise built on the individual which abstracts the individual from society and it's attachments. So with a flawed premise based on the individual, it's all about personal experience personal subjective morality. Anything subjective is not bound in certainty, objectiveness is bound in certainty, hence science requires objective realities and explanations. If your own political outlook and philosophy is built on subjective premises how can you negate or reject the subjective nature of evidence provided by some religions or religious people. Double standards me thinks.

If morality is merely subjective, and applies only to each individual, then you cannot create a society on that basis and have cohesive values and laws. Subjective morality works fine for individuals but not for society. A society must be based in some objective or absolute morality, through which society gains cohesive values and systems. Infact whether atheist or religious we all exercise some objective morality, and we all know where it's derived from and it's not atomism or the individual but binding morality anchored in something which transcends human subjectivity.

Subjective morality poses a problem for individuals too, for example, some one robs your house, or kills a loved one, subjective moralists can say this is wrong only based on their individual subjective morals, but at the same time for the person who committed those acts, it's perfectly moral or right to have committed those acts based on their own personal subjective morality. Subjective morality is irrational too, by this I mean it has no external meaning, the only reason we have for this type of morality is "it feels right", this provides no rational or logical basis for it.

So what am I saying, am I saying humanists or atheists etc are not good, no! They are incapable of doing good, no! They have no morals, no!

I am saying if your atheist you are subjective moralists, and it's flaws have been shown, if the morals are subjective, it leads to a political and philosophical system which is non cohesive, thus actually destroys society as a whole and focuses on the individual (atomism), which is also a flawed premise and can be proven so by modern sociological studies etc. 

Whether you like it or not, based on subjective morality, there is no right or wrong on a social scale only on individual levels where it is still subjective. Absolute morality and objective morality and those who adhere to it, do so and it's actually more logical and rational on a philosophical level, where as the atheistic world view is subjective in it's premise and flawed, thus irrational and illogical. Apply logical deduction to some of these philosophical premises and you will arrive at the conclusion that, morals which are objective and absolute derive from the existence of god and belief in god, which transcends human subjectivity.

I hope this makes sense, it may go over your heads as I have noticed (I am not belittling people, its just in my past experience in discussions with atheists, they are usually familiar with these philosophical premises). 

PS. Sorry for grammer and spelling mistakes, I was a bit rushed!

[shadowhive]

Whether you like it or not, based on subjective morality, there is no right or wrong on a social scale only on individual levels where it is still subjective. Absolute morality and objective morality and those who adhere to it, do so and it's actually more logical and rational on a philosophical level, where as the atheistic world view is subjective in it's premise and flawed, thus irrational and illogical. Apply logical deduction to some of these philosophical premises and you will arrive at the conclusion that, morals which are objective and absolute derive from the existence of god and belief in god, which transcends human subjectivity.

Why exactly do 'objective morals' have to come from god?

On the whole the morals you call objective (ie murder being wrong) have applied for the vast majority of societies for millenia, applying to people who believe in many gods, one god and no god. Yes there are blips, such as Nazi Germany as you mention, but that's all they are, blips. They don't last any significant period of time and just come from dictators that rule by fear, brainwashing or both.

Why are you so intent on making it seem that if you don't believe in god that your morals are essentially meaningless? Why does god have to be the center or any moral system? Your concept of god comes from the Koran. Yet the basic morals you state existed for millenia before your concept of god even existed. Morality based on religion is also subjective.

If you go outside and stab someone to death then you be treated the same as if an athiest did it. Similarly if you saved someone from drowning then you'll be treated the same as well. If you need to stop and think if something is right or wrong, or require a religion to tell you then you have problems. As they say, actions speak louder then words. Religion, or lack thereof, doesn't make you a good or bad person. YOU make you a good or bad person. Not religion, not god, you.

Since atheists don't believe in god then you have to convince them that said morals came from god. As they say the burden of proof is on you.

Edited November 30, 2010 by shadowhive

[Bracket]

Lion6969

Your claim is itself irrational because we all have the same basic morals, religion or no religion.

[Cybele]

To which unanimously all of you said society and culture determine our morals and values. Since society is ever changing and evolving along with it so do the morals and values, what is bad morally one day, can be accepted morally the next day as long as that society as whole accepts it.

Not so, in many cases. As I've said before, there are some things which are pretty consistently condemned or praised. Going around indiscriminately killing and stealing from innocents is always going to be condemned because it prevents society from functioning on a cooperative level.

I gave an example of a society in Germany which was brainwashed into believing that it is morally acceptable to eliminate Jews! Based on your unanimous answers that society is determining your morals, then on what grounds can you label their actions immoral? You have no objective morality, that german society followed the logic that is proposed by you guys which is, society and culture define our morals, so their morals were defined socially. So following that logic through fully, their actions or immoral acts are rooted in subjective moral outlook, just like yours. Basically, if society determines what's right or wrong, it's always changing, you have no binding morals as some of you claim, their ephemeral and subjective, thus meaningless.

On the whole the morals you call objective (ie murder being wrong) have applied for the vast majority of societies for millenia, applying to people who believe in many gods, one god and no god. Yes there are blips, such as Nazi Germany as you mention, but that's all they are, blips. They don't last any significant period of time and just come from dictators that rule by fear, brainwashing or both.

It is not as simple as "killing is wrong".

The political group in power at the time, as well as the general social atmosphere, convinced many Germans that Jews were the enemy, a threat from within their society that needed to be separated and then neutralized. Human cultures often oppose killing when it threatens social cohesion, but when a threat is already perceived from within (or from the outside), that might disrupt this stability and cohesion, killing is often considered justified. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but it's a pretty common trend you tend to see throughout history.

I am saying if your atheist you are subjective moralists, and it's flaws have been shown, if the morals are subjective, it leads to a political and philosophical system which is non cohesive, thus actually destroys society as a whole and focuses on the individual (atomism), which is also a flawed premise and can be proven so by modern sociological studies etc.

This is utter nonsense. Atheists don't just descend into wild hedonism and individualistic, anarchical ideology because they don't have an ancient book telling them what to do. Several people, myself included, have already pointed out that they follow the laws set down by society, their communities and so on and derive their morals from these sources.

morals which are objective and absolute derive from the existence of god and belief in god, which transcends human subjectivity.

Societies use the idea of gods, or create them, rather, as a way to enforce their dogma. They are often derived from a need to maintain cooperation and social cohesion, not because of some supernatural code of behavior written down by invisible beings.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Cybele

[Stellar]

My question was where do atheists gets their morals from?

Why ask specifically where "atheists" get their morals from? Why not ask where does EVERYONE get their morals from, since fundamentally we all, regardless of relgious belief, get our morals from the same place.

A society must be based in some objective or absolute morality

There is no absolute morality. The only thing that comes close is whatever the vast majority can agree upon, such as murder.

[Lion6969]

Why exactly do 'objective morals' have to come from god?

For religious people they derive their moral values from god, who transcends human subjectivity. Thus making them binding morals and anchored thus objective. Where as liberal/atheist/humanistic values and morals are rooted in subjectivity on the premise of atomism (the individual) this makes them subjective. Atheist cannot have objective morals, immoral nature of murder for example derives from religion it defines it as immoral, based on a set of objective binding morals. Subjective moralists adopt this value too, but for them it's premise is subjective, meaning if an individual deems murder to be moral, you have no basis to suggest it's immoral besides what you feel is right. This is because you have no binding morals which transcend human subjectivity. Under your logic society and the individual determine moral values, which consistently change. Most of you seem to be coming from an epistemological perspective. Ontologically subjective morality is hugely flawed.

On the whole the morals you call objective (ie murder being wrong) have applied for the vast majority of societies for millenia, applying to people who believe in many gods, one god and no god. Yes there are blips, such as Nazi Germany as you mention, but that's all they are, blips. They don't last any significant period of time and just come from dictators that rule by fear, brainwashing or both.

Vast majorities of societies have had morals historically and presently rooted in objective morality due to religion ruling their daily lives. Humanism/atheism/liberalism are relatively new ways of life offering an alternative to a religious centred life. Thus your concept is new, murder is morally wrong because it's objectively wrong, due to god saying thou shalt not kill. Most if not all religions have lived by these types of objective morals, due to belief in god/gods etc. Atheism or humanism was a reaction to the rule of the church which supersede science, it's premise is atomism (look in to it) the individual, thus the first premise is flawed as it detaches from society and it's attachments. Ancient civilisations followed religions too, so they had objective morality of some sort, which was binding and more logical on a social level. Subjective morality works individually, but I still showed earlier it still has flaws.

Why are you so intent on making it seem that if you don't believe in god that your morals are essentially meaningless? Why does god have to be the center or any moral system? Your concept of god comes from the Koran. Yet the basic morals you state existed for millenia before your concept of god even existed. Morality based on religion is also subjective.

Irrelevant. A concept of god or gods has existed for millinia and people have formed societies with objective moral codes. God provides the anchor and transcendence from human subjectivity, without god morals are subjective with god morals are objective. Morals you refer to murder, stealing etc, are rooted in religion, which provides objective morality. Atheists philosophy removes god from the equation. This leaves two options where morality is derived from, society or evolution. Most of you have said society. Then scrutinise this philosophically and the conclusion is the morals will be ephemeral and subjective. Even atheist academics admit this. They are not binding morals they change with time and opinion which is centred on atomism the individual.

If you go outside and stab someone to death then you be treated the same as if an athiest did it. Similarly if you saved someone from drowning then you'll be treated the same as well. If you need to stop and think if something is right or wrong, or require a religion to tell you then you have problems. As they say, actions speak louder then words. Religion, or lack thereof, doesn't make you a good or bad person. YOU make you a good or bad person. Not religion, not god, you.

Again what you refer to above is irrelevant, it's epistamological perspective, not ontological foundations. Ofcourse atheists can be good and better than religious people that's not the point. Similar to an example before, if a society can be brainwashed or politically motivated towards an immoral stance (for example the illegal war in Iraq), based on your logic you cannot say it was right or wrong, because the premise is subjective (ie society determined it), you have no binding or objective basis to refute it, as the rights of the individual are a priori (philosophical term), your morals finish where his starts. In the same way based on liberal or humanist world view, you cannot call terrorists immoral or moral, again because of the subjective nature of your morals. Like the famous saying one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, this describes it well.

Since atheists don't believe in god then you have to convince them that said morals came from god. As they say the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not aiming to prove anything merely make you ponder. If I need to I can present an argument to show objective or absolute morality comes from god who transcends human subjectivity. How you judge that information after logicallly deducing it is upto you.

[Lion6969]

Not so, in many cases. As I've said before, there are some things which are pretty consistently condemned or praised. Going around indiscriminately killing and stealing from innocents is always going to be condemned because it prevents society from functioning on a cooperative level.

Ok. Firstly humanism is based on the premise of atomism (the individual) according to academics in the field. Your perspective is from an epistamological view. Killing stealing are objectively immoral, but because humanism says so, humanism is a new alternative, it's objectively wrong because historically societies have functioned with religions in their life thus adopting objective morality due to belief in god. Humanists have adopted these morals too, but that's still makes them subjective in nature from an ontological perspective. You have nothing binding or objective to call it immoral based on the logic that society alone determines morality. You are merely coming from an ephemeral perspective ie it just don't feel right! It does not address the ontological foundations. You say society needs to cooperate but humanism is about the individual, not society. Cooperation and function of society is the epistemological views and explanations, it's not ontological. What makes you cooperate and function objectively, it's illogical to suggest objectivty in this case derived from a subjective premise.

It is not as simple as "killing is wrong".

The political group in power at the time, as well as the general social atmosphere, convinced many Germans that Jews were the enemy, a threat from within their society that needed to be separated and then neutralized. Human cultures often oppose killing when it threatens social cohesion, but when a threat is already perceived from within (or from the outside), that might disrupt this stability and cohesion, killing is often considered justified. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but it's a pretty common trend you tend to see throughout history.

Again an epistemological explanation, I agree. However, objectively we know the holocaust was wrong. But based on the premise that society determines morals, you can then neither call it immoral or moral, because it's becomes subjective in nature. Germans were politicised (politics is a realm of morality, it's to do with how values are implemented in society, ontologically when you look in to humanist political foundations, it's also subjective, so non cohesive), to hate Jews, thus for them it was morally right, subjectively, based on your own subjective morals you cannot say it's immoral. Ontologically if the political foundations are subjective, like the moral values, then the whole premise is flawed, resulting in a non cohesive society, fragmented and competitive, the latter is the main function of a capatilist society, which is based in humanism. With non cohesive values, subjective morality, society will fragment and decay as there is nothing binding objectively, which transcends human subjectivity.

This is utter nonsense. Atheists don't just descend into wild hedonism and individualistic, anarchical ideology because they don't have an ancient book telling them what to do. Several people, myself included, have already pointed out that they follow the laws set down by society, their communities and so on and derive their morals from these sources.

WTF! I know you said society determines the laws and morals, there in is the flawed premise. Atheism has many branches, humanism liberalism are based on atomism. Look in to it, I can quote leading academics in the field to confirm this.

Societies use the idea of gods, or create them, rather, as a way to enforce their dogma. They are often derived from a need to maintain cooperation and social cohesion, not because of some supernatural code of behavior written down by invisible beings.

that's funny all I see is militant atheism imposing secular values and morals on other societies brutally by force. Who is enforcing a dogma on who. If you mean religions cause war, well war is not just a religious monopoly.

Your last point is not addressing the ontological foundations.

[Lion6969]

Why ask specifically where "atheists" get their morals from? Why not ask where does EVERYONE get their morals from, since fundamentally we all, regardless of relgious belief, get our morals from the same place.

Well obviously religious people derive their morals from religion and god. Atheist eliminate god from the equation and say morals come from society or evolution. We are discussing the notion of society determining morals, and it's flawed subjective nature in comparison to the objective nature of religious moralists. They root their morals in something which transcends human subjectivity.

There is no absolute morality. The only thing that comes close is whatever the vast majority can agree upon, such as murder.

I think academics in the field will disagree

[Bracket]

Guys, why do you keep talking to this guy? He's just spinning everything you guys say. I've said it before, he's not looking for an answer. Not to mention the fact that he's hijacked this thread.

[Lion6969]

Guys, why do you keep talking to this guy? He's just spinning everything you guys say. I've said it before, he's not looking for an answer. Not to mention the fact that he's hijacked this thread.

If your hitting a brick wall it does not mean they are

Add something constructive. I ain't spinning anything, if anything some people are not comprehending the philosophical branches I coming from. This no disrespect to them, so I am trying to make my statements as clear as possible, it's not easy since it's philosophical, and that can be hard to understand sometimes.

That a side, I'm sure their enjoying the discourse and some challenging questions

As for answers fella, I have accepted their answers for the first question we moving on to different ground. Unanimously the answer was society, so I moved in deeper to scrutinise the answer, it's called logical deduction.

[Godel]

[Lion6969]

Lol

[Cybele]

First of all, I want to say that I do not wish to debate philosophical terms, as I have not studied philosophy. You appear to be using these terms to obfuscate your posts and/or in an attempt to make yourself seem more authoritative and it is, quite frankly, counterproductive.

Ok. Firstly humanism is based on the premise of atomism (the individual) according to academics in the field. Your perspective is from an epistamological view. Killing stealing are objectively immoral, but because humanism says so, humanism is a new alternative, it's objectively wrong because historically societies have functioned with religions in their life thus adopting objective morality due to belief in god.

I agree with stellar when he said that there is no such thing as absolute morality, thus there is no such thing as objective morality. What is considered right or wrong in our society is determined by the majority, the prevalent views. A few rules seem pretty constant because they help societies to function, not because there is a supernatural code of behavior to be enforced.

Also, morality derived from religion cannot be called objective when different ancient societies have had their gods telling them to do some radically different things. Clearly Jesus would not have approved of the Aztec gods' desire for human sacrifice. And there is no evidence that the God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam is any more real or authoritative than Huitzilopochtli.

Well obviously religious people derive their morals from religion and god.

Really? Do Christian, Jewish and Muslim children derive all their morals from religion? What about what their mother tells them? What their teachers tell them? When the Bible tells you to stone adulterers, repress women and sacrifice sheep to God, do you follow the words of an ancient text over common sense or modern laws?

Atheist eliminate god from the equation and say morals come from society or evolution. We are discussing the notion of society determining morals, and it's flawed subjective nature in comparison to the objective nature of religious moralists. They root their morals in something which transcends human subjectivity.

Oh the irony in that last statement.

It all comes down to what you want to believe, I guess. I personally believe that religious texts were written by mere mortals with political and social agendas, free from inspiration from any invisible forces. Humans use the idea of divine judgment and guidance (in the form of religious texts) to enforce, to give an air of authority to, the values they themselves(humans) created.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Cybele

[Makazradon]

If Jesus had never existed, that'd be a valid point of view, but the fact is he did exist and has to be factored into the big picture.

For a start his arrival was foretold centuries before just as he said, - "All things about me in the law of Moses,the Prophets and the Psalms,must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44)

And when he arrived he didn't skulk in some underground hideout, he travelled all over Israel for 3 long years in front of the people and the occupying Roman garrison, that's a lot of eyewitnesses - “I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)

And "Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25)

And he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)

He said straight out he was the Messiah, the Christ, the Superprophet and the Son of God (John 4:26, Matt 16:17,Mark 14:62)

Even the Koran written some 600 years later dare not deny Jesus was something special:- "Allah.. exalted some messengers above others and gave miracles to Jesus the son of Mary and strengthened him with the holy spirit" (Koran 2:253)

This is exactly the reason why Atheists talk about religion. I'm not really interested in discussing what I believe, but from a non-Christian perspective... this is like trying to prove the Lord of the Rings with... the Lord of the Rings.

[Dr. D]

For religious people they derive their moral values from god, who transcends human subjectivity. Thus making them binding morals and anchored thus objective. Where as liberal/atheist/humanistic values and morals are rooted in subjectivity on the premise of atomism (the individual) this makes them subjective. Atheist cannot have objective morals, immoral nature of murder for example derives from religion it defines it as immoral, based on a set of objective binding morals. Subjective moralists adopt this value too, but for them it's premise is subjective, meaning if an individual deems murder to be moral, you have no basis to suggest it's immoral besides what you feel is right. This is because you have no binding morals which transcend human subjectivity. Under your logic society and the individual determine moral values, which consistently change. Most of you seem to be coming from an epistemological perspective. Ontologically subjective morality is hugely flawed.

We are dealing with a question addressed to atheism and yet, here we find the rather astounding claim that religious people derive their moral values from god. The posture does not consider the possibility that the atheist may be correct and that this god does not exist. In that case the religious person would have received moral instruction from their religion, not a god. The religion would then take on the social character that it does, indeed possess and the religious person would find their inheritance of moral standards being no different from those of the atheist who adheres to morality as taught by his society.

Unless irrefutable evidence of the existence of god is provided, the belief system promoting subjective morality is suspect and based upon the mere hope that what is believed is true. At that point we would find that the religious person would reject a morality formed from knowledge and accept a morality based upon whims and fantasies.

A legitimate rebuttal is obligated to consider all alternatives presented and this obligation has not been met.

Vast majorities of societies have had morals historically and presently rooted in objective morality due to religion ruling their daily lives. Humanism/atheism/liberalism are relatively new ways of life offering an alternative to a religious centred life. Thus your concept is new, murder is morally wrong because it's objectively wrong, due to god saying thou shalt not kill. Most if not all religions have lived by these types of objective morals, due to belief in god/gods etc. Atheism or humanism was a reaction to the rule of the church which supersede science, it's premise is atomism (look in to it) the individual, thus the first premise is flawed as it detaches from society and it's attachments. Ancient civilisations followed religions too, so they had objective morality of some sort, which was binding and more logical on a social level. Subjective morality works individually, but I still showed earlier it still has flaws.

The majority is not always the best example. Because societies become homogenized by religious standards does make them the standard.

It should be remembered that humans have occupied this planet for an estimated 200,000 years and our recorded history of them spans back to a mere 5,000 years. For the 150 generations that we have some record, there are 6,000 generations unrecorded and we cannot responsibly speak of what gods they entertained, what moral structure they developed, the cause of those developments or the structure of their societies. Considering the minute fraction of human existence known to us, it is an insignificant conclusion to analyze it or reach an opinion.

Irrelevant. A concept of god or gods has existed for millinia and people have formed societies with objective moral codes. God provides the anchor and transcendence from human subjectivity, without god morals are subjective with god morals are objective. Morals you refer to murder, stealing etc, are rooted in religion, which provides objective morality. Atheists philosophy removes god from the equation. This leaves two options where morality is derived from, society or evolution. Most of you have said society. Then scrutinise this philosophically and the conclusion is the morals will be ephemeral and subjective. Even atheist academics admit this. They are not binding morals they change with time and opinion which is centred on atomism the individual.

Again, it is equally possible that morality has no relation to a god and that the god may not exist. To this point nothing exists as evidence to his existence. To speak of anchors and transcendence is doing nothing more than revealing your faith and your perceptions but without including the possibility of their error.

Nothing is as concrete and you paint it. Morality can only be derived from society or evolution. You cannot know that nor can anyone else. We do not know the inner programming of a human. Babies enter this world programmed to suck at their mother’s breast without anyone teaching them. They cry to express their needs without being taught. What instincts and knowledge rest within man remains unknown but it cannot be reduced to a limited set of resources that are the only alternative to a god.

Again what you refer to above is irrelevant, it's epistamological perspective, not ontological foundations. Ofcourse atheists can be good and better than religious people that's not the point. Similar to an example before, if a society can be brainwashed or politically motivated towards an immoral stance (for example the illegal war in Iraq), based on your logic you cannot say it was right or wrong, because the premise is subjective (ie society determined it), you have no binding or objective basis to refute it, as the rights of the individual are a priori (philosophical term), your morals finish where his starts. In the same way based on liberal or humanist world view, you cannot call terrorists immoral or moral, again because of the subjective nature of your morals. Like the famous saying one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, this describes it well.

May I remind you that your opinions do not authorize you to declare what is relevant and irrelevant. To the person posting the point may be totally relevant and should be respected.

Your reasoning is flawed because the society did not enter into the Iraq War. Their government did and when the truth had been learned, the society adjusted its collective opinion and rightfully opposed what had been done. The society, therefore, did not “determine it” but it did react morally and oppose the decisions of a corrupt few.

I'm not aiming to prove anything merely make you ponder. If I need to I can present an argument to show objective or absolute morality comes from god who transcends human subjectivity. How you judge that information after logicallly deducing it is upto you.

Are you asking the atheists to pretend there is a god to prove your point?

[Stellar]

Again what you refer to above is irrelevant, it's epistamological perspective, not ontological foundations. Ofcourse atheists can be good and better than religious people that's not the point. Similar to an example before, if a society can be brainwashed or politically motivated towards an immoral stance (for example the illegal war in Iraq), based on your logic you cannot say it was right or wrong,

Its just as easy, if not easier, to brainwash a society into believing a religion whos moral code says its ok to kill Jews... There is no difference. Just because your religion "says so" doesnt make it any more objective than society "says so".

They root their morals in something which transcends human subjectivity.

If there infact is no god, or one that hasnt interfered with society, than religious morals would have had the same origine as atheistic morals, do you not agree? Both originate from society.

Your religious case would be no different than society writing a book called "The Moral Code" or something and following that. No different at all.

[Cybele]

If I need to I can present an argument to show objective or absolute morality comes from god who transcends human subjectivity. How you judge that information after logicallly deducing it is upto you.

Do it!

[The Silver Thong]

Lol

I know a bit of a spin but where do you get your morals from? Serious, as it makes a relevant point. As you seem to think morals come from something other than empathy as Tiggs pointed out. Where did you get your morals from just to present a counter point. I'm curious.

[The Silver Thong]

Do it!

Thank you sorry I'm a slow typer you beat me to it.

[laffing1]

Well obviously religious people derive their morals from religion and god. Atheist eliminate god from the equation and say morals come from society or evolution. We are discussing the notion of society determining morals, and it's flawed subjective nature in comparison to the objective nature of religious moralists. They root their morals in something which transcends human subjectivity.

What is it that transcends human subjectivity? Surely you don't mean the bible?

Religious people derive their morals from a book written by men (no transcendence) 2000 years ago (more or less). A book which condones murder, slavery, adultery, incest, rape, hate, war, racism, self-mutilation and the mutilation of children, animal cruelty, bigotry, lying, stealing, and last but not least the killing of innocent fig trees. And they call that holy.

You can wax philosophical all day long, if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make you sound very intelligent.

Atheists have simply woken up, they can see through all of that BS. They aren't afraid of some god in the sky judging their every move. They know that this life is the only one they get and they want to cherish it and live it to the fullest. Their morals come from the world around them and an innate sense of right and wrong. Something that all of us possess naturally, before we are poisoned by the book.

I'm not an atheist by the way, but I'm close.