No belief required Atom, morality very much appears to be precisley that [subjective]. Whether or not an objective morality might one day trot along, I couldn't say. I think Genk (just as one example) feels that such a morality is at least possible, if not existent at present.

(September 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Before we can answer that, it's necessary to know what, precisely, would constitute "an absolute external standard". If you can supply that, the discussion can proceed.

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

No, I understand the individual words; it's merely the definition of their combination I was hoping to clarify. By "external absolute standard", were you referring to some god, the bible/kerrang or similar 'holy' writ, or something else?

So much text... so little attention to precious detail.
Theists claim their book has all the rules of morality.

Everyone else... well, in most of the world, have another book, let's call the "The Law". comprised of The Constitution, the Civil Code, the Penal Code and whatever else.

Inscribed there are all the rules of unacceptable behavior within our society and respective penalties.
This is not a static book, it keeps getting updated to suit the majority's views.... you've heard of democracy, right?

In the opposite corner, you get static religious books with strange rules and respective punishments... .well, maybe they weren't so strange back when they were written, but they are now.

The Law says: do not kill another human being... or you'll go to jail and, in some corners of the world, get killed.
This is where most people's morality comes from. The Law.
Theists like to pick and choose the parts of their holy texts that match The Law, while forgetting the others.

Unfortunately, there are countries where the holy text is The Law.... I'm glad I don't live in such place.

(September 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm)Atom Wrote: Based on the discussion here, is it reasonable to conclude that most of the atheists here believe morality is subjective (based on subjective empathy, culture, personal experiences, each person's genes, etc.) rather than objective (based on an absolute external standard)?

I think before Vinny derailed this discussion thread with his clownish knockabout, we were having an interesting exchange. I believe I have already answered your question here and here.

Yep, I was following the thread of your conversation there. Your conversation with stephenmills1000 was very interesting but started to address a number of questions and I didn't want to derail it by jumping in with my ideas on one of them.

My impression was that most of the people posting were stating that morality is subjective. With around 150 posts so far I can only scan read some of them. We have at least one moral realist, and I hope he'll forgive me for overlooking his objection to address the subjective morality question, which I will inquire about further in my next post.

(September 1, 2012 at 7:04 pm)Atom Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Before we can answer that, it's necessary to know what, precisely, would constitute "an absolute external standard". If you can supply that, the discussion can proceed.

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I think you're trying to re-work the definition of "objective" in order to rig the discussion.

I just looked up the word "objective" and the word "external standard" isn't part of the definition. There are references of "external to the mind" (or of a beings opinions) but not "external standard".

Definition by dictionary.com

Quote:5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

But you want to sneak in "external standard" to the definition so you can say "God is external, ergo any rules he makes up are objective rules for us".

Sorry, but that's not what we're discussing. "Objective morals" need to be independent of ANY being's feelings, thoughts, opinions, values, etc. That's one reason why theistic morality fails to gain any advantage over secular morality.

And I maintain that "objective morals" is an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp", "unnecessary essentials" or "honest politician". Morals are based on values. Values are, by definition, subjective. So "objective morals" translates to "values not based on values".

(September 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: But you want to sneak in "external standard" to the definition so you can say "God is external, ergo any rules he makes up are objective rules for us".

Yes, that's the impression I've been getting, which is why I've been asking Atom to define his terms before I, at, least, even consider the question. Call it my Civil Service background; I'm uneasy with the thought of answering a question that wasn't asked.

(September 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm)Atom Wrote: Based on the discussion here, is it reasonable to conclude that most of the atheists here believe morality is subjective (based on subjective empathy, culture, personal experiences, each person's genes, etc.) rather than objective (based on an absolute external standard)?

No, that's not the difference between atheists and Christians. I can show you that even in Christianity, morality is subjective and changing. How about we engage in a formal debate over this one?

I was supposed to go into a formal debate with someone on this in Christian Forums but I don't want to go back there. CF is a hell hole.

I think most of the people here have argued that morality is subjective and has its origins with individual thinking and evolutionary predispositions. This isn't the result I expected with my OP. I believed most atheists felt that there are overriding moral principles that could be called objective.

I have trouble even writing this first question in a coherent way because the term "better" calls for a subjective judgement, but here it is. If morality is subjective how can one person's view or one group's views be better than another?

If our morality is in a large part defined by evolution, how can we trust ourselves to make a subjective moral judgement. Isn't moral judgement then just the reflexive neural response of an electromechanical ape-like meat machine?

How can anyone claim the right to pass judgement on anyone else, since all morality would seem to have an equal footing?

This should be good to get some friendly discussions going.

(September 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 10:58 am)Red Celt Wrote: Fuck God. Fuck Sauron. Fuck the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

Well. That was easy enough.

Piece of cake isn't it?

Vinny?

Notice something? Vinny changed the subject. Vinny, are you a real atheist. Would you blaspheme God? You can ignore Sauron and the Pied Piper of Hamelin. I suggest you target your abusive blasphemy on ONLY "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit". If you are a true atheist, blasphemy shouldn't be a problem.