RE: Objective/subjective morals
February 12, 2018 at 9:42 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2018 at 9:45 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 12, 2018 at 1:57 am)pool the matey Wrote:Simon Moon Wrote:I am an atheist that believes that secular morality does not have to be subjective
How confidently can you say every other atheist in this world share your exact moral standards? See, atheism is just "absence of belief", that's just it, there is no 'good atheist' or 'bad atheist' there's just 'atheist' but hey look there's a 'good Christian' that follows the word of God and then there's a 'bad Christian' that doesn't follow the word of God. Atheism isn't like that because there's no guidelines to follow, you just have to not believe. It is only when you not not believe you become a 'bad atheist', some pinnacle of behavioral standard that. Why isn't a atheist rapist not called a "bad atheist" but a Christian rapist is called a "bad Christian" it's precisely because atheist doesn't carry any other meaning other than 'I don't believe'. There's an implication that all behaviors whether good or bad is acceptable within the atheism realms. So where are your morals? You will of course say such and such are my morals and those will be good morals as well I have no doubt but what about every other atheist on the planet, do they share your exact same morals? A Christian is going to be a Christian whether he is in Russia, Japan, Germany or France, you can trust a Christian to be a Christian but you can't trust a atheist to be a atheist because there is nothing to trust.
YOu are correct. There are no "good atheist" or "bad atheist". But there are "good people" and "bad people".
I can't be sure that every person, no matter if they believe in gods or not, will share my moral standards? Funny thing is, the countries in the world with the highest percentage of atheists (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and others), have the most moral societies, ie; lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, better education rates, more freedoms, etc.
So, when Christians in Africa kill people because they are 'witches' (Exodus 22:18), are they being good Christians or bad Christians? Ort if a Christian decides to kill infidels (Deuteronomy 17, Deuteronomy 15), are they being good Christians, or bad Christians?
Quote:I have the ability to see the big picture. I still see no evidence of a god.
Quote:You see no evidence because there is none. There is no equation that leads to God, there is no chemical formula, there's no special glasses through which you look and suddenly discover God. God is in our hearts.
Well, that is pretty poor planning of your god then. And if he punishes those of us that are not gullible enough to believe without evidence, then it is really immoral, also.
The thing is, there are many, many examples of your god giving plenty of direct evidence of his existence all over the Bible. If the stories are true (I have no reason to believe they are), those people did have evidence. Why did your god hide himself to us?
Why did he create me, with a mind that understands standards of evidence, knowing that I wouldn't be convinced of his existence without evidence, and withhold the evidence that would convince me?
If a Damascus road experience is good enough for Paul, why not me?
Quote:So, you claim it is mostly feelings. Is it possible that feelings could be wrong? Please explain how feelings are a reliable path to ruth?
Quote:What is truth? The very limited access to information we have and suddenly we declare it the truth ™. Kind of naive and arrogant don't you think? An ant probably thinks it's perception of the world is the truth ™ as well, I can only call that attitude "cute". Like I said, broaden your mind and at least try to see the bigger picture because you declare you can just fine.
I shouldn't have used the word "truth", I should have said something like, "that which comports to observed reality". I wasn't referring to any absolute truth.
So, let me ask again, why do you believe your feelings actually comport with reality? Again, 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1 billion Hindus also believe their feelings comport with reality, yet their feeling lead them to a completely different god beliefs. So, if feelings can lead to incorrect conclusions, how are they reliable? How do you know your feelings have lead you to the correct conclusions, and the other 4+ billion people on the planet, with equally strong feelings, have been lead to the wrong conclusions?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
