Can an atheist be ethical like theists

[huss88ein]

Drugs and incest? OK, weirdly specific.

Well it seems the discussion is over so I won't worry about these points. I think I made a very strong case as to why atheists are moral/ethical. It's no use pretending that they are not, because you can't understand how they possibly could be. Sure, you can disagree about certain points of morality. Everybody does. That is called subjective morality! If you are argueing against something on the grounds of wellbeing and harm, then that is not religious morality. If you're argueing on the grounds of "my God doesn't want that" then it's irrelevant. And you can't pretend all atheists and all secular communities have the same morality, so you can "prove it wrong". Every individual has their own morality, it is not dictated to them by society. It's the other way around, the morality of a society reflects a general agreement among individuals.

Objective morality, if such a thing exists, is entirely pointless because it's (a) arbitrary and (b) no one knows what it is. Sure, we have millions of people all claiming to know what it is, while disagreeing with each other, and none have any proof. So what use is that? It results once again in subjective morality. Any attempts to enforce religious objective morality ends in horrific situations, any time the moral in question is actually immoral by general secular standards (we only need to look at many countries in the East). And since secular morality improves, this is increasingly likely to be considered the case.

Morality of any meaning is man made, and justified by pointing to books by some people rather than using rational argument. "Nice" religious people increasingly ignore the majority of their holy books.

Well rob first of all I did gave these examples not to be specific but because examples are always easier to adress and understand that's all.

From my discussion with another member we arrived at a point that his mother doing prostitution is ok as long it is in a safe environment and I know that this is a lie being a doctor I know in fact that having multiple sexual partners lead to diseases and cancer but lets assume it's safe how about the psychological effects on him , in simpler words he would feel bad and unhappy.

From that I can deduct that if his father wants to have intercourse with his sister and they both consent then he can't object either.

I dont mean that u or that other member would have to face these problems but others would and these notions didnt come from void these people exist and thats that.

I think that u have a different understanding for morality and ethics from that member as of a matter of fact I think that u dont agree to these things and that's implied in ur argument . I think that's why I asked for ur point of view in the first place u did make a good argument after all but let me respond to it in a good argument as well.

So first for the subjective values in another words values that come from the person well u can have any values that u want but u wont be able to convince other people in it if they're not based on a rational foundation (to an atheist) .
So by example if u say incest is bad but the opposite person doesn't share ur point of view you won't be able to convince him and that will have an effect on u indirectly if that person is a member of ur family .

As for the social pressure point as in a society with a majority of anti incist by example then incest will be refused.

Well that is not accurate actually because a minority should have the right to practice whatever they want even if majority disagree (always from an atheist point of view not mine) so let me give an example from the current events if the majority in the USA are against gay marriage (and they are because of the fact that the majority are christians ) then gay marriage should be prohibited .

Another example if u came to my country with a majority of muslims u wont like to be forced to pray and participate in islamic rituals which is not the case by the way you can do as u please in my country but this is hypothetical.

But u can argue if it's vis versa and the society is an atheist one then why can't we just agree on these things well because u will be hippocrates that simple you can't nip and tuc ur standards as if a majority of christians then minority should have the rights they want if atheists then we force what ever we want that's just a relegion but without a specific name .

So if subjectivity won't work nor would social pressure what is the third option it is objective morality .