Objective Morality and Atheism

StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
You're imagining things.
Click to expand...

I can go back and quote if you like; you said stoning homosexuals was wrong. Then I said that it was wrong only in your eyes and not in his, and then you just said it was wrong no matter what......which means it's objectivley wrong although that's impossible.
 
Cris said:
Norsefire,

There is substantial evidence for the existence of morality. You experience and see it everyday of your life. It is bound into the social fabric of everyone around you and it is taken for granted. For example you do not normally go about your daily life wondering if the person next to you will suddenly murder you. Normal people constrain their behavior around mutually acceptable and reasoned standards of morality. Our society would turn to chaos if this were not so.
Click to expand...
I said objective morality. You're talking about subjective morality, which of course does exist.

Now where do we obtain our standards of moral conduct? The religious assert it is from their deities via their holy books. The non-believers simply use reason. In this case the non-believer position is superior on the grounds that he/she can determine what is correct through reason whereas the religious person has to be told how to behave.
Click to expand...
I disagree because you assume all atheists are alike. Stalin's morality was different than yours although you are both atheists.


There can be no such thing as absolute morality. What is considered good or bad can only be determined by mutually agreed standards within a given social group.
Click to expand...
Correct, which means anything can potentially be OK. Depending on the society. And this is was entirely my argument in the first place; in Iranian society it is OK to stone homosexuals. In the Nazi society it was OK to exterminate Jews

Those societies aren't wrong, they are differnet
 
Enmos said:
To them it is. It's all ready-defined by Gods word.
Click to expand...


If people claim I am the authority on morality, I think you'd say that's not objective. Same thing as claiming God as the authority. Specially since it isn't a matter only of God teaching what is objectively good but it is God deciding what is good.
 
Norsefire said:
I can go back and quote if you like; you said stoning homosexuals was wrong. Then I said that it was wrong only in your eyes and not in his, and then you just said it was wrong no matter what......which means it's objectivley wrong although that's impossible.
Click to expand...


You're not only imagining things, you're twisting things to suit your whim.
Quote all you want. I know better than you what I said.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
If people claim I am the authority on morality, I think you'd say that's not objective. Same thing as claiming God as the authority. Specially since it isn't a matter only of God teaching what is objectively good but it is God deciding what is good.
Click to expand...

To them God is the only authority, and the creator of everything in existence to boot.
What God says/does/is must be objective according to that view.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
You're not only imagining things, you're twisting them to suit your whim.
Quote all you want. I know better than you what I said.
Click to expand...

No, you apparantly don't. You said stoning homosexuals was wrong, which I said was only your opinion and you said it wasn't.

That means you are saying morality is objective.
 
Enmos said:
Yea, so what does that mean ? Armageddon ?
Click to expand...

It means nothing. Americans don't have to stone homosexuals if they don't want to and Iranians can pass laws requiring it if they want to.

Live and let live, except applied to different cultures
 
Enmos said:
So what happens when Iranians start stoning Americans ?
Click to expand...

War, and the superior comes out the victor.

Had Hitler won, would the extermination of Jews have been viewed as bad? I doubt it. It would've been viewed as a necessary good.
 
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
You're not only imagining things, you're twisting them to suit your whim.
Quote all you want. I know better than you what I said. ”


Norsefire said:
No, you apparantly don't. You said stoning homosexuals was wrong, which I said was only your opinion and you said it wasn't.

That means you are saying morality is objective.
Click to expand...


What is apparant to you just isn't so.
Don't attempt to tell me the meaning of what I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top