Subjective Morals and Societal Whims

[Zenith]

The argument I like lately why I disagree with Atheism has to do with morality. In naturalism, or a natural only world, everything that happens no matter how good or bad is simply a product of nature so it cannot be said to be moral or immoral. It is amoral. But we human beings consider morality vital to our being. So that seems to be a problem. Not sure you claim there is free will in that case but that is a side point.

That's because we human beings have gone beyond mere "nature" and for a long time have been social creatures who live in large communities. If you live alone among beasts in the jungle, then whatever you do no one will consider "moral" or "immoral". But if you live in a society, that's a totally different situation.

Morality is vital not to our beings as individuals but vital for our living in a society. "Thou shalt not kill!" is not a commandment that God gave and that people respect because "God said so" but because you can't form a society where anybody can kill everybody at any moment. Everybody needs a sense of security and reliance on the other people in the community, that's why we have rules & laws.

So if in nature all the bad stuff that happens is just a product of nature, including bad religion and bad faiths, then can any of it really be considered wrong even if it is contradictory with other world-views, religions or faiths since it is all naturally induced? That would be my question. When someone is a contradiction I have to reject that world-view.

These sentences don't make much sense to me. "Someone is a contradiction" -- really?

If I happened to understand what you actually meant: If you seek for an entity or essence called "evil", I don't believe in such a thing. If you talk about "good or bad", "right or wrong", then you have to consider the context. Killing another human being may not be "bad" for you but it is for the society. And if you realize that the society will respond to your killing someone then you may call it "bad" for yourself too.

For example, a societal whim in some cultures considers pedophilia acceptable even necessary to preserve the population. Who is to say even though an atheist may claim he rejects pedophilia now would not be justified in his mind to condone it after a significant time has passed even though he may not commit it?

The reason why fucking a child is bad is because it does harm to the child.

Whereas a non-subjective objective law transcends and would never allow pedophilia under any circumstances.

A non-subjective law given by... whom? A priest, a religious community, a subjective-minded guy who wrote a book in the Bible?

btw, I don't remember ANY verse in the Bible to say that screwing with children is bad. NOT ONE. And people used to do it back then.

This is why I believe in objective morals and not subjective relativism based on societal whims. Where then can we find objective morals since atheism doesn't provide it for us?

Religion is a societal whim. It is the ancient "wisdom of the elders" transmitted from generations to generations up to the present, now when they are more harmful than they do good. It is subjective wisdom of ancient people, not objective.