Morality

[stromboli]

So your inference is we get our morals from god? Which God? Yahweh/Jehovah? Allah? K'laam the Almighty?

Uh uh.

First, define it:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms:   ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"


Yes, morality is subjective. All the good Nazis condemning Jews were all good Christians. Hitler was Catholic and was highly superstitious in his beliefs. The fundamentalist Christians today are condemning gays and atheists wholesale. 50 years ago in the South they were condemning blacks and making them sit in the back of the bus.

Good Christians, every one.

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabians are beheading atheists and ISIS is throwing men accused of being gay off of buildings and kidnapping and raping teenage girls.

Highly religious, every one.

We on the other hand, godless heathens all of us, accept gay rights, LGBT rights, the rights of all people who legitimately deserve it, to live their lives as they see fit. And we condemn those who disadvantage women and keep them from their choice of life as they see fit

Bunch of godless heathens, every one.

Some religions and cultures accepted homosexuality. Many don't. Which god would you prefer?

The Codex Ur Mammu and the Codex Hammurabi, the first texts known that prescribe a system of laws, both predate the earliest writings of Judea and the 10 commandments. The commandments, which bear a striking resemblance to the Codex Hammurabi.

By the way, your 10 commandments doesn't condemn rape or slavery. Oops.

By all means, educate us about your morality.

[stromboli]

To say that there is an objective morality is to first determine what your moral goals are. From the definitions given above, there IS NOT ONE INDICATION THAT MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. So if you make the claim for objective morality, you have to first give us the criteria for that objectivity.

Belief in god? Which god?

Don't kill? Don't kill who and for what reason? OK to kill people who don't believe what you do?

Don't rape? Bible says you can rape as long as you pay the father the bride price.

Don't steal? Islam says you can take from whoever they see as an infidel.

The bible condemns people to stoning for skipping the sabbath. Better send some righteous to drag out a christian from his house on Sunday because he preferred to watch a football game.

Get the point? Probably not.

[Brian37]

Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

First off, not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. No label will automatically make an individual do good or bad. Our behavior as a species is in our evolution, not the labels we assign ourselves or others. "Atheist" is the "off" position on one claim. It is not a moral code, loyalty oath, political party or economic view. "Atheist" simply means "off" when it comes to claims of a god or gods. I have run into other atheists over the years who have other superstitions and conspiracies, and even others who hold economic views I do not find moral.

Human behavior evolutionary wise is simple to understand. We seek patterns, what we call moral is subjective, we see anything that gains us support and or resources as good, and anything that may be perceived as a threat as bad.

Outside that we are pretty universal in a range of behaviors. Friend and foe alike no matter the country have prisons and traffic lights. We value family and friends. We seek shelter and food. We don't like to have our families threatened, especially children. We don't like violence to our person or property. We like to defend ourselves from those threats.

We see the same behaviors in other primates and mammals. It is why you sometimes see a cat nursing puppies. But that morality also reflects the dark side of evolution. A male lion sometimes seeks out and kills rival cubs not of it's loins.

So it isn't so much a good think go ask atheists where they get their morals from because that varies from individual to individual. It would simply be better to ask the individual where they get them from. Ultimately our species in it's entire history has gotten it's morality from evolution, both in the morals we used to justify cruelty and compassion.

[GSOgymrat]

My values are based on Humanism. A Humanist would never support the Nazis.

Christians put God first, Humanists put people first.

[aitm]

Don't you love the apologist? God does the same horrific stuff that man does and it is "we cannot understand gods ultimate plan"…despite god himself saying that he made man in his image…. and they blame man for mirroring gods action by their own horrific actions because they mirror gods as immoral. Ah, god gets to rape and plunder and murder and made us in his image and them bitches and whines that we do as he does…kinda like the dad bitching about his son being too much like himself. Reminds me of a Ahhhnold line in "True Lies" when Jamie asks him if he has ever killed anyone: "Yes, but they were all bad people"…

LOL xians are fucking retarded.

[JohnnyB1993]

Explain to me, as someone whose native language isn't english and is therefor lost to subtle nuances and semantics, how you can claim that god's unchangeable word on absolute morality can apparently change from time to time and culture to culture and thus no longer apply though it needs to always apply if it is to be an absolute truth?

This is a great question, its cool to see that there are some people who use logic to come up with these rebuttals.  Here's my answer:  God's law never actually changed.  Most scholars argue that the whole point of the Old Testament was to show just how impossible it was for man to follow God's rule.  The unfortunate truth is that no matter how hard humans try, they will never be able to live up to the standard of God.  This would indicate the reason to why Jesus had to come into the world.  However, I am sure your more interested in the laws about slavery, and stoning non-virgin women as seen in the OT.  One possible answer is that God never condoned slavery, but simply 'allowed' these behaviors because they were so hard-driven into the culture of the people of that specific time.   Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

[JohnnyB1993]

First off, not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. No label will automatically make an individual do good or bad. Our behavior as a species is in our evolution, not the labels we assign ourselves or others. "Atheist" is the "off" position on one claim. It is not a moral code, loyalty oath, political party or economic view. "Atheist" simply means "off" when it comes to claims of a god or gods. I have run into other atheists over the years who have other superstitions and conspiracies, and even others who hold economic views I do not find moral.

Human behavior evolutionary wise is simple to understand. We seek patterns, what we call moral is subjective, we see anything that gains us support and or resources as good, and anything that may be perceived as a threat as bad.

Outside that we are pretty universal in a range of behaviors. Friend and foe alike no matter the country have prisons and traffic lights. We value family and friends. We seek shelter and food. We don't like to have our families threatened, especially children. We don't like violence to our person or property. We like to defend ourselves from those threats.

So it isn't so much a good think go ask atheists where they get their morals from because that varies from individual to individual. It would simply be better to ask the individual where they get them from. Ultimately our species in it's entire history has gotten it's morality from evolution, both in the morals we used to justify cruelty and compassion.

First, I do not think I implied that a 'label' makes an individual do good or bad.  All theists and atheists are capable of doing good and bad.  My question was specifically for people who hold the worldview of atheism since I was curious on where an atheist believes he or she gets their morals from.  However, you seem to say that 'what we call moral is subjective', it varies from individual to individual.   So far I completely understand you.  For an individual who holds an atheistic worldview, it should be correct for that individual to say that morals are subjective by nature.  In that sense, morality does not objectively exist.  As humans die and new humans are born, morality may change throughout the years.  Thus it those new morals that will become what is right or wrong for the individual.

[JohnnyB1993]

To say that there is an objective morality is to first determine what your moral goals are. From the definitions given above, there IS NOT ONE INDICATION THAT MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. So if you make the claim for objective morality, you have to first give us the criteria for that objectivity.

Belief in god? Which god?

Couldn't help but reply to this one.  Notice how I deleted the other half of what you wrote?  We are talking about the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. NOT about questionable teachings in the Bible.  In due time this may come up again, but I want to get at the heart of the nature of morality.  Notice how my original question was simply, "Where do atheists get there morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?".   You have perfectly answered that question by stating that morality is subjective and not objective.  'Right and wrong' do not actually exist, they just depend on whatever the human is thinking.  So I will ask another question:
Lets say hypothetically, that Germany won WWII and was able to brainwash the entire population that the Holocaust was actually a good thing.  The Germans would teach that in order to get rid of the filthy Jewish people, it was morally right to set up the concentration camps.  Now, in this hypothetical world we see that every human being believes that the Holocaust was a perfectly acceptable moral thing to do.  My question is, that since you think morality is subjective, you would agree that there is nothing wrong to this hypothetical world, right?

[Solomon Zorn]

 

Jesus actually attempts to answer your question in Matthew 19.  Of course Jesus is talking about divorce in this passage but lets take Matthew 19:8 and switch it with 'holding slaves'.  It may read: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to hold slaves; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Bad scholarship.

[Solomon Zorn]

Couldn't help but reply to this one.

You quoted Stromboli's question, but didn't answer it.

"Where do atheists get there morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?".   You have perfectly answered that question by stating that morality is subjective and not objective.  'Right and wrong' do not actually exist, they just depend on whatever the human is thinking.

It is an evolved sensibility, not "whatever the human is thinking."

So I will ask another question:
Lets say hypothetically... that every human being believes that the Holocaust was a perfectly acceptable moral thing to do.  My question is, that since you think morality is subjective, you would agree that there is nothing wrong to this hypothetical world, right?

Wrong. I would not agree, because my evolved sensibility tells me the Holocaust is not right. Not because God said so. And your hypothetical world will never be, because most others have evolved along similar paths, and have come to similar conclusions about the Holocaust.

Face the fact that morality is human, not divine. It needs to be free to adapt to a changing world and therefore cannot be codified into absolutes.

Also go back and answer my earlier post if you can. It's at the bottom of Page 2.

[stromboli]

don't quote the bible. It is a work of fiction.

Hypothetically you are a lizard and this is the planet Urania. Don't talk hypothetically.

The question is whether morality is subjective or objective. It is subjective. There has been more than enough presented here to prove the point.

Your god doesn't exist, so any argument for or about your god is automatically void; btw, since you claim god exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove his/its existence. No one has ever done that, so you lose.

The bible is fiction
https://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

You are assuming any argument from a position that is wrong from the beginning.

You cannot prove the basis for your belief set is true.

So any argument you make is automatically invalid. Until you can prove the basis for your belief set, anything you say is questionable and to be disregarded.

[the_antithesis]

Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

Morality comes from the fact that human beings are pack animals.

[Johan]

  You have no objective standard of morality.  You simply just belief that the Holocaust was wrong.  So I do not need God to know that the holocaust was wrong, but I DO need God to know that the Holocaust was truly and objectively wrong.

And how exactly do you know with such certainty what god says is moral and what god says is not moral?

[Mermaid]

It frightens me to the core that this is such a common question from believers.

Is the Bible seriously the only thing that prevents you from committing genocide?

[leo]

It frightens me to the core that this is such a common question from believers.

Is the Bible seriously the only thing that prevents you from committing genocide?

But genocide is okay in the bible when god commands it.