what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[GrandizerII]

The problem is you don't. Therefore, an inaccessible/unknowable source of objective morality is pretty much an equivalent of a nonexistent source of objective morality. You have no objective morality there.

I don’t? Simply because you say so? You’ll have to do better than that.

Not really. All I have to say is you don't have the evidence. If I'm really wrong, then you should show me that I am.

So since you don't have access to that source objective morality, you have to rely on your own thoughts and understanding about what constitutes right and wrong, even if they are based on what the Bible says (or, rather, your interpretation of it).

Yes that was absolutely acceptable because God decreed it. The Amalekites were brutal towards the Israelites after they left Egypt and God vowed to destroy them for their sins (Exodus 17), He has the right to use the Israelites to do so.

So it's absolutely objectively right to kill babies? And how do you know it should only be the case when God decrees it? Seems to me you are relying on your interpretation of these passages in coming up with these moral standards.

Let me put it another way:

If another Christian slaughtered some babies as punishment for the wrongdoings of their parents, and he justified this by saying that it's objectively right to do so, then on what objective basis can you argue that he's wrong? From your subjective interpretation of the Bible?

As are God’s decrees in scripture. Why is it an objective fact that 4 is an even integer when there are people of the opinion that it is not? You seem to think that a person’s opinion can affect the facts so why not this fact too?

For one, these decrees in scripture have not been shown to be from God, let alone the fact that his existence has yet to be demonstrated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Reason."

You should not need a cheatsheet for that.

[Zack]

Social principles beneficial to a tribal animal.
Evolved empathy.

Both are displayed in other nonhuman species.

I came across this today. Sorry if it's something everyone has already seen and discussed to no end.

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_d...s#t-181294

Is it possible morality is just one more thing co-opted by religion to suit its needs?

[Statler Waldorf]

That's your claim. You need to logically support this claim, otherwise it can and will continue to be dismissed out of hand.

Negative claims do not have the burden of proof so I do not have to support anything. However, you’ve supported it for me by being incapable of defining any particular act as good or evil without appealing to the existence of YHWH. Thanks again.

Are you capable of presenting an argument to support this?

Whether or not I can is irrelevant because I am not required to do so; negative claims my child…negative claims. I do not have to support the claim that morality cannot exist without God any more than I have to support the claim that pigs cannot naturally fly.

Hint: "Nuuuuh but you dunno whar yur moral come frum an um a geddum frum mah bible" is not good enough.

Tell us how a system of morality can exist in a purely material Universe; I am still waiting for you to support your claim that it is possible. Tell me how a pig can naturally fly.

Social principles beneficial to a tribal animal.

…and you have already been told that this is a descriptive observation of behavior, since it is descriptive in nature it cannot be used to derive a normative system of behavior which is what morality is; so you fail. Can you explain how morality can exist in a purely material universe in a manner that is not illogical?

Evolved empathy.

This in no way demonstrates that humans ought to feel empathy so you have not even begun to deal with morality yet. Humans evolved the ability to kill, rape, enslave steal, lust, and lie as well. Tell us how you know that humans ought to perform any of these evolved behaviors but not all evolved behaviors.

P1 Any behavior that is evolved is morally good.
P2 Rape is an evolved behavior
C. Therefore rape is morally good.

Does anyone believe this is a logically defensible definition of morality? Really?

Both are displayed in other nonhuman species.

Other non-human species rape, kill, and steal as well. Are these therefore morally good behaviors?

You claim these must come from God in humans, but have yet to tell us why you believe this, and support it with a compelling argument backed by evidence.

No, I am saying that in a purely material universe it is impossible to define any act as good or evil. Your argument above supports this beautifully since it can be used to define any evolved act as morally good. That’s even ignoring the fact that you’re committing the naturalistic fallacy by appealing to descriptive claims about nature in order to try and derive a normative system of behavior. It’s like we are a team, I make a claim and then you help support it for me.

Theft, for example, is something that I would not want to have happen to me. Therefore I can reason that it is wrong to take something that belongs to another based on that.

You lost me, how did you get from “I do not want this done to me” to “therefore it is morally wrong”?

I think that's part of it. We are social creatures and we seem to place a great deal of import in fitting in and being accepted into our local community or society. I think that there is at least some level of peer pressure that drives local standards of behavior, which is why otherwise minor social cues (how polite we are, for example) might change the way we are treated from one place to another.

So then the statement, “The entire society went along with the moral atrocities being committed” is impossible? Or even nonsensical?

Have fun in Vegas.

Thanks my friend! I had a great time.

Not really. All I have to say is you don't have the evidence. If I'm really wrong, then you should show me that I am.

The evidence? You were claiming that I do not have access to God’s revealed word but the Bible is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it so obviously that claim is easily refuted.

So since you don't have access to that source objective morality, you have to rely on your own thoughts and understanding about what constitutes right and wrong, even if they are based on what the Bible says (or, rather, your interpretation of it).

I do have access to it though since the Bible has been translated into English for nearly half a millennium now.

So it's absolutely objectively right to kill babies?

Killing is only immoral when it violates God’s decreed will. The example you gave did not violate God’s decreed will.

And how do you know it should only be the case when God decrees it?

Because morality as a normative system derives from God’s character, therefore it’d be impossible for something to be morally good and yet contrary to God’s decree because God’s decrees derive from His character.

Seems to me you are relying on your interpretation of these passages in coming up with these moral standards.

Not at all, the passage explicitly said that the Israelites were commanded to perform the acts by God.

Are you saying that it was morally wrong for the Israelites to do what they did? The other atheists on here are claiming that morals are determined at the societal level which would mean that what the Israelites did was not morally wrong even in the view of atheism because they were doing it to another society. Are the other atheists in this thread wrong?

If another Christian slaughtered some babies as punishment for the wrongdoings of their parents, and he justified this by saying that it's objectively right to do so, then on what objective basis can you argue that he's wrong? From your subjective interpretation of the Bible?

The exact same way I would correct someone who claimed that their math textbook really taught that “2+2=5”, simply show them the passages in question and use proper exegesis to demonstrate that their understanding of the text is in error. You’re committing a non-sequitur by trying to argue that the fact that human knowledge gained through sensory perceptions is fallible somehow means that objective truths cannot exist or be known. We can know what is morally wrong just as well as we can know that 2+2=4. This sort of hyper-skepticism can be raised about any aspect of knowledge and is therefore not a legitimate objection to my position.

For one, these decrees in scripture have not been shown to be from God, let alone the fact that his existence has yet to be demonstrated.

That’s a red herring, God’s existence and direct revelation are presupposed within the Christian conceptual scheme and your claim was that the Christian conceptual scheme does not have an objective definition of morality. This means you need to accurately represent that conceptual scheme and wage an internal criticism against it. Anything else is guilty of begging the question. Show me how Christianity cannot have an objective definition of morality even when granted the truth of its premises for the sake of argument.

"Reason."

You should not need a cheatsheet for that.

How does reason demonstrate that the atheist can have a defensible definition of morality that is consistent with his atheism?

I came across this today. Sorry if it's something everyone has already seen and discussed to no end.

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_d...s#t-181294

Animals kill, feed their young, wage war, practice self-sacrifice, rape, steal, commit infanticide, and so on. How do you know which of these behaviors are morally good and which ones are morally wrong?

[GrandizerII]

The evidence? You were claiming that I do not have access to God’s revealed word but the Bible is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it so obviously that claim is easily refuted.

The Bible is also a fixed book (for exclusively modern moral matters, you cannot rely on such a source) and with several passages open to more than one interpretation (which is evidenced by all these various sects and creeds that purport to be Christian). Pretty much an impossible gateway to objective morality.

So it's absolutely objectively right to kill babies?

Killing is only immoral when it violates God’s decreed will. The example you gave did not violate God’s decreed will.

So killing babies is objectively right, right? Or does it depend on whether or not God decrees it? If the latter, where did you get that rule?

And how do you know it should only be the case when God decrees it?

Because morality as a normative system derives from God’s character, therefore it’d be impossible for something to be morally good and yet contrary to God’s decree because God’s decrees derive from His character.

I meant: How do you know it should only be the case when God [explicitly] decrees it? What if God didn't explicitly say to kill babies, but it wasn't against his will to do so? Who decides the matter then?

Seems to me you are relying on your interpretation of these passages in coming up with these moral standards.

Not at all, the passage explicitly said that the Israelites were commanded to perform the acts by God.

You are still relying on one of infinite interpretations, though. I wasn't questioning, by the way, the interpretation that the Israelites were commanded by Yahweh to do so. I was questioning why the interpretation that it's only right when God decrees it should be the one true interpretation?

Are you saying that it was morally wrong for the Israelites to do what they did? The other atheists on here are claiming that morals are determined at the societal level which would mean that what the Israelites did was not morally wrong even in the view of atheism because they were doing it to another society. Are the other atheists in this thread wrong?

You're asking for an absolute answer when the question is about personal and societal standards. I believe it was morally wrong, but as I said before, moral standards are just a standard, not a set of facts.

If another Christian slaughtered some babies as punishment for the wrongdoings of their parents, and he justified this by saying that it's objectively right to do so, then on what objective basis can you argue that he's wrong? From your subjective interpretation of the Bible?

The exact same way I would correct someone who claimed that their math textbook really taught that “2+2=5”, simply show them the passages in question and use proper exegesis to demonstrate that their understanding of the text is in error.

What's the proper exegesis exactly? How do you know the proper exegesis isn't that it's absolutely ok to kill babies at any time and however you want?

You’re committing a non-sequitur by trying to argue that the fact that human knowledge gained through sensory perceptions is fallible somehow means that objective truths cannot exist or be known.

If it cannot be known whether something is objectively right or wrong, then it's fair to say that morality is rather subjective. You can't give an objective basis that killing babies is wrong. So your moral standards are subjectively based.

We can know what is morally wrong just as well as we can know that 2+2=4. This sort of hyper-skepticism can be raised about any aspect of knowledge and is therefore not a legitimate objection to my position.

2 and 2 are obviously 4. Provided one understands and accepts the basics of what 2 refers to, and what 4 refers to, along with all the other numbers and mathematical operators and such, one can only deduce that 2 + 2 = 4.

With morals, on the other hand, this is not the case. That's why we are much, much more likely to agree that that 2 + 2 =4 but not agree on whether abortion, for example, or smoking, or pornography, is right or wrong.

We also have the matter that a deed may be right at one time but wrong t another time (according to some set of standards). With 2 + 2, it is always going to be 4 (at least within the reality we see ourselves in).

That’s a red herring, God’s existence and direct revelation are presupposed within the Christian conceptual scheme and your claim was that the Christian conceptual scheme does not have an objective definition of morality. This means you need to accurately represent that conceptual scheme and wage an internal criticism against it. Anything else is guilty of begging the question. Show me how Christianity cannot have an objective definition of morality even when granted the truth of its premises for the sake of argument.

Not at all a red herring. You just don't want to see the point I'm making. Even when granted the truth of the biblical premises, you still have Christians disagreeing on what is morally right and wrong. That is why I'm arguing that your standards are not objectively based. You have to rely on one of infinite interpretations regarding each moral matter in the Bible. And this is ignoring all the moral matters that the Bible does not even touch on.

We're both in the same boat with regards to morality, Stantler. That is why we both have to resort to our own personal standards and understanding of what should constitute right or wrong (whether based on past experience, prior knowledge, or even on what an ancient book says about a select range of moral matters).

[Tonus]

You lost me, how did you get from “I do not want this done to me” to “therefore it is morally wrong”?

That would be a combination of empathy and experience. Morals are a standard of behavior, and that would be one way of determining that something was wrong, or that it should not be part of my standard of behavior.

So then the statement, “The entire society went along with the moral atrocities being committed” is impossible? Or even nonsensical?

I think that's definitely possible. Moral standards of behavior may vary from region to region. As I understand it, slavery began to be seen as immoral in Europe years before the northern US states abolished it. And the south did not abolish it out of a belief that it was immoral, so much as they were forced to.

[CindysRain]

Okay well I'm not proud of this, but I am guilty of thinking this way about atheists, when I was a christian. Looking back, I think about how absurd my thought process was.

I think god's abuse towards children, time after fucking time, would be enough to make any adult see that biblical morality is an oxymoron.

And just because I no longer believe in god or his ridiculous bible, a lot of people still do, and are raising their children to believe it. Why would any parent trust their babies to a god who commits genocide, when he's upset with his own kids?

Jesus/god does NOT love the little children. He drowned every single one of them in one story, had a group of them mauled to death by a bear in another, murdered all the first born, because of Pharaoh, allowed the murder of all of Job's children, and never failed to leave them out of the blood-bath slaughters in the OT.

And lets not forget, that according to John 3:16, he gave his "only begotten son" to be crucified. I would fucking die to save my children, not send them to be slaughtered, so WTF god??!!

And he left no child out, when it comes to severe punishment. To quote Richard Dawkins, from the The God Delusion, "What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor?"

Christians need to be questioning where their, supposed god, got his morals, and leave us alone.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Biblical morality = baby rape and genocide.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I am saying that in a purely material universe it is impossible to define any act as good or evil.

Given the fact that humans are discussing an abstraction, your premise is obviously nullified.

The evidence? You were claiming that I do not have access to God’s revealed word but the Bible is readily available to anyone who is interested in reading it so obviously that claim is easily refuted.

Which version of the Bible? Which translation?

Killing is only immoral when it violates God’s decreed will. The example you gave did not violate God’s decreed will.

Don't look now, but you're practicing moral subjectivity.

Because morality as a normative system derives from God’s character, therefore it’d be impossible for something to be morally good and yet contrary to God’s decree because God’s decrees derive from His character.

I have emphasized your bald claim which is bereft of reasonable support.

"Reason."

You should not need a cheatsheet for that.

How does reason demonstrate that the atheist can have a defensible definition of morality that is consistent with his atheism?

By using the Golden Rule and understanding that morality is both relative and subjective. It also requires empathy.

Animals kill, feed their young, wage war, practice self-sacrifice, rape, steal, commit infanticide, and so on. How do you know which of these behaviors are morally good and which ones are morally wrong?

Applying morality to animals which may not have the ability to perform the abstract thought required to arrive at morality doesn't seem very useful, to me, except as a rhetorical device.

I trust my own sense of morality over that described in the Bible, myself. I'm sure you trust your own sense of morality over it, as well.

[naimless]

i think the christians have a point here

from what i can tell most atheists still get their morality from fear of the law or being publicly shamed, a lot of which was originally to do with religious intervention

an example would be murder

i can't really think of a reason not to murder everyone if there wasn't those consequences to it