Does atheistic morality make any sense?
Side Score: 29
Side Score: 41
where in the Bible do you find that ?? ....... ye shall do no murder ...
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him ... 1 john 3:15
btw .... how many murdered babies in the womb did you clap for today ??
Murder of who? People sacrificing their children to the devil by cooking them alive? I'm assuming you found the Atheist apologetics sites on Deuteronomy and Leviticus. I know, they never tell you that part or tell you just how bad their quote mining is. The next attack is always "God condones rape". I get a laugh out of that one every time...
"But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die." DEUTERNOMY 22:25
Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death." DEUTERONOMY 22:26
I always laugh when religious people snatch at this argument with gleeful little eyes, grubby little hands and smug little minds. I laugh because religious people are convicted by the utterly stupid notion that their morality is objective. What part of choosing to believe in the myths and stories of shepherds from thousands of years ago, is objective? What part of choosing to believe there's an unprovable, unseeable, unnecessary, all encompassing conscious figure managing the daily affairs of a species of apes on a planet in one solar system in one galaxy of billions, is objective?
Those are all subjective choices. And any morality derived thereof, is just as subjective as the morality of anybody else.
The only major difference between the atheist's morality and the religious' morality, is that the morality of the atheist is open for revision. We draw moral conclusions from evidence, conscience, the needs of humanity, our understanding of psychology, philosophy and science, and of course from our empathy.
And it has in fact turned out rather well by comparison to the societies' adopting a strict religious interpretation of morals. For instance, all democratic countries with atheists as a majority of their populations, have lower violent crime, lower theft, lower homicide, higher standards of living, and higher standards of education, than countries which are made of mostly religious citizens.
Look around the world at the most violent places: Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Central Africa. What do they all have in common Well, they have low incomes, poor educations, high rates of violent crime, barbaric laws, and extremely high percentages of religious citizens. And most if not all of their violence problems, emanate from the religious feuds within those nations and the lack of sensible secular laws and equal rights for minorities and women, that are themselves a product of religious tenets that breed stupid, stupid tribalism and segregation.
Recent studies carried out in universities across the world have likewise shown that atheist children tend to be considerably more compassionate, open-minded, caring, altruistic and empathetic than religious children.
Take a look at societies run by secular governments, and you see standards of rights for every citizen far superior to those countries run by religious governments (in fact, in the US, it is precisely BECAUSE of your secular government that you are afforded the rights you have).
Morality is always subjective, it's just that atheists prefer to work it out using evidence, information and thought regarding a plethora of different aspects of human life, not just one book, written by unknown authors, from word-of-mouth stories from the most violent and barbaric region of the world at the time.
Nope. It makes no sense. One Atheist's version of morality is nothing like the next Atheist's version of morality. It's why Liberals rarely make any sense on any single issue. It's strange that Atheist's, in general, are the quickest to condemn behavior that they deem "immoral". Atheists have become the new religious zealots.
The guy thinks he is describing atheists, but he isn't. He is describing every single person in the world. Everybody decides to do what they think is right. Christians do the same thing. The difference with atheists and Christians is that Christians say they believe in a set of rules they don't follow.
Someone just labeled 2.6 billion people as being identical.
Are you talking about me? There are way more than 2.6 billion people on the planet, and I wasn't calling them identical. Were you trying to talk about me?
False assertion much?
If I said that every human on Earth was human would you claim that is a false assertion?
The Cult of Liberalism claims a law of morality that it doesn't follow.
1)THOU SHALT NOT BE RACIST.
Condemns the entire white race.
2)THOU SHALT BE TOLERANT.
Doesn't tolerate anything on the right.
3)THOU SHALT NOT BE SEXIST.
Atheism is ridden with misogyny, and the left support Islam politically, despite it being the most misogynistic system on Earth.
4)THOU SHALT NOT BE A BIGOT.
Attacks Christianity every chance it gets.
Christians and Atheists have a set of rules they do not always follow well. The difference is... we admit it, and have an intercessor.
I watched the video. The two main arguments he seems to make is: Atheists can not argue that their morality is any more superior to any one else because it has no authority and that atheists derive morality from society. First, how would God's morality be any greater than mine? Why should I value someone else's morality just because they have more power than me? Second, he groups and straw man's atheists by saying they derive morals from society. Name one group of people that doesn't do this. I know this may seem like a confused rant, but we are talking about morality, which can be a confusing subject. Anyway, here is a video I have for you.
As the bearded dude explained it, the answer would seem to be NO. The implication of his arguments is that believers should not destroy an ant hill because God made ants. Moral preference, either personal or Societal, must remain unchanged because God made everything, including morals. Then somehow believers in god, who also held slaves, were moral in the eyes of God. ----- At the time!
Here's the deal. People create morals. People create societies. People create gods. People can change all of these things. Whatever morals are currently believed to be correct, are attributed to the currently revered God. This explains the evolution of both societal morals and gods that support them.
I couldn't watch the full 5 minutes of this bearded goon he started out by spouting nonsense and I doubt it improved .
I'm not surprised.
Morality comes from us and is heavily influenced by our societies and environments
Okay, so slavery was justifiable back then in the Civil War in the United States, and so was when Hitler commanded the Germans to enslave the Jews in training camps?
Good I'm glad someone agrees he was a bearded goon
We justified slavery back then because it was deemed socially and morally acceptable just as it was in the time of Jesus , Hitler branded the Jews an inferior race many Germans agreed with him and felt it was morally correct , just the very same as many Americans thought it morally acceptable to demonise blacks up the 1950s as in widespread discrimination .
Why is it so hard for you to believe that people collectively want to be good to each other? Why is the only explanation for morality that you can accept simply you have to be good or else god will send you to hell? And if that's the only reason you're good then aren't you really NOT good at your core?
I'm not sure what you mean by "atheistic morality" no more than I would understand "theistic morality". Neither atheism nor theism offer a moral code to go by, it's just simply a non-belief or a belief in a god. Theists get their morals from their brand of religion, whereas atheists often get their morals from the idea of Humanism; doing what's best for mankind and to further our species.
Morals from a deity are like rules from your parents. They don't necessarily make sense, but you listen because that's what you were told to do and don't want to get in trouble. Some teach it's immoral to eat pork, wear a cotton blend, show your face if you're a woman, say certain words because, reasons. When asked why the only answer is, "because insert god here said so". Ask an atheist why they do or don't do certain things and the answers make more sense, such as not wanting to cause pain to someone else.
Okay first off, I claim to be a Christian and I am a creationist, say what you want. However I don´t see why atheists can´t be moral even if you are from my point of view. It is not that Christians just automatically upgrade unto a new level of goodness when they start to follow Christ, it just means that they are striving to become more like him. I believe that Christ is perfect and I want to be more like that, however in the meantime I will constantly fall short. There are plenty of good men and women that are atheists and their are plenty of people that are Christians who are pretty jacked up. I mean if you look at it from my perspective God made us all with freewill so that we will be able to choose to love him, so that we can choose good. But how can people be free if they cant choose to be bad or good? God is the ultimate source of goodness but that does not mean atheists can not be good. Atheistic morality makes total sense.
Objective morality is really what makes no sense. If theres an objective morality its completely and utterly useless to the point where it might as well not even exist. Because ive had moral disagreements with people. The fact that we dont agree on morality proves objective morality doesnt exist. What christians or religious folk say is objective morality really isnt objective morality. Its god's subjective morality. He is the one who made it up. And the only reason its objective is not because everyone follows it but because god has authority over everyone. Which is essentially "might makes right". Sure i cant impose my morality on god but only because i lack the power to do so. But that doesnt make my morality any less legitimate. Furthermore even if there was an objective morality that were all accountable to its clear that we also have our own subjective moralities which we use on a day to day basis. And they are apparently much more useful to us than the objective standard that nobody can agree on and that has no enforcement mechanism in this lifetime. Also the guy in the debate completely discounts society as a whole. We are able to make moral agreements as a society. So yes, my personal morality may differ from a rapists morality, but then again, the vast majority of people agree with me and not with him. So i have the full brunt of society with me to the point where i can make that person conform with my reality. This societal morality really stems from evolutionary theory. Empathy is really the key to our morality as humans. We are able to make moral calculations about our actions and predict what will happen and how it will affect others because we are able to envision ourselves in thier shoes.
Our brains evolved this capacity for empathy because it had to, otherwise we wouldve died out as a species. Our greatest strength and tool in the wild was our strength in numbers and our ability to coordinate group action. If we had no concept of morality then communal society would never work. If i didnt understand the concept that when i kill someone's mother they dont like that, then i would kill their mom and they would hate me and they would kill me or my family because they dont understand morality either. And everyone would just do what they selfishly wanted to and society breaks down completely. But if im able to think to myself how someone killing MY mom would make me feel, it makes me far less likely to do it.
If we humans couldnt work together we would just die out. Were squishy little water sacs with no inherent defense system. No fangs, no claws, no venom, no physical strength in relation to other predators out there. The only thing we ever had going for us was our strength in numbers. Put one man out in the bush and hes dead in a few days. Put a dozen men out in the bush and they take down a mammoth and feast like kings.
there is a very clear and apparent evolutionary basis for morality or the mechanisms by which we can have the capacity for moral judgement
Objective morality cannot even be agreed upon and is essentially useless even if it does exist, and if it does then it still doesnt mean we dont follow our own subjective moralities which we obviously do.
You are confusing atheism with evolution. They are different.
Per those terms, if Darwinism is right, to have morals in an evolutionary flaw to domination and survival, thus is actually stupid and thus, not useful to even have them...
False. People who have no morals are more likely to be punished by those with morals and are less likely to survive.
And yet Atheists openly admit that "if someone was a real Christian", they'd act "good', meaning they admit that a "real Christian" has moral high ground. Nevertheless, you're goodness is meaningless to God because He sees your badness, knows your thoughts, and knows your heart.
And yet Atheists openly admit that "if someone was a real Christian", they'd act "good', meaning they admit that a "real Christian" has moral high ground.
No, it means that Jesus was an atheist.
Nevertheless, you're goodness is meaningless to God because He sees your badness, knows your thoughts, and knows your heart.
That doesn't cause you to act like a good person, why would it cause me to act like a good person?