Why Secular Morality is Superior

[elunico13]

Actually some "scientists" in the areas of historical science think life came from non life.

If thats the case then why does any mutation called "human" have any authority to impose morality on others. How can this blind faith account for morality? It can't.

Is there anyone in this thread that can help Genkaus out?

I wouldn't mind some assistance in understanding this oft repeated non-sequitur (and appeal to consequences, to boot) by Christians that "not consciously created" = "life is meaningless and there is no basis for any kind of morality".

While you're at it, explain to me how if we were consciously created that this god can do with us as it wills, make up any set of rules and magically these whims are transmuted into "objective standards"

How does one conclusion follow at all from the other assumption. If it turned out that we are a fortunate by product of the universe, how does that make us any less conscious, any less able to think or feel, and therefore any less worthy of compassion from our fellow conscious beings?

The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality. The best any atheist can give is a single man's opinion or a group of men's opinion on what is good and what is evil. It's arbitrary. Anyone or group of people can come up with their own morality w/o considering yours.. It is inconsistant of the atheist to think that humanity should adhere to some universal code of behavior. Why would a material world feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?

Where do you get compassion from in a material only world? It is very arbitrary of the atheist to choose some immaterial "urges" like conscience or compassion, laws of logic or immaterial "oughts" for morality and reject the immaterial God that makes these intelligible.

If, on the other hand, we were created by a god, how is that god's opinions and evaluations any less subjective than those of any other beings. Christians like to sneak in "outsider" into the definition of objectivity despite the fact that (1) a personal god who desires our constant adoration and affections is hardly a passionless outside observer and (2) even if this were so, the term "outsider" appears in no definition of "objective" that I'm aware of. Additionally, how, just by creating us, can that god be absolved from any moral responsibility. We certainly don't treat human parents this way, and paternity is often used as a metaphor by Christians to describe our relationship with an alleged celestial father.

Man was made in the biblical God's likeness. We rejct him and so there are consequences to that. It makes sense that we would be held accountable to him. The truth of it isn't subject to your belief nor your understanding. If you reject that then don't impose any immaterial "oughts" or codes of behavior or laws of logic on yourself or anyone else. Be consistant and deal with the material world only.



You say God is absolved by any moral responsibility, but you have no standard to judge this by. You can't claim to know moral responsibiltity unless you know what moral is.

And while I'm asking Christians to explain their reasoning, let's talk about that appeal to consequences (also known as "wishful thinking") that often seems to crop up in their rhetoric when morality is discussed. This whine that "if we're just a bunch of chemicals (or goo or whatever their latest inflammatory-yet-meaningless strawman metaphor for abiogenesis may be) then we have no basis for morality" smacks of the fallacious reasoning "I don't want to believe this because I think that would be bad and therefore I'm going to think it's not true".

Mere opinion is not a basis for morality. Richard dawkins even said that there is no clear line to be drawn between man and animal. Why then can't we act like them too? Why are you even trying to reason with me if this is how I supposedly evovled? You should see it as agenda vs. agenda. But then the problem of arbitrarly choosing one immaterial concept over another arises.

Well, get a grip you whiner. Reality doesn't care what you wish to be true. Reality simply is whatever it is and, as a grown up, you need to face it on those terms instead of what you wish were true.

Notice how whining is exactly what you're doing here.

So what if it turned out there is no such thing as a soul and I am just the by-product of my cranial activity? In the here-and-now I am still a conscious, self-aware being. I think. I feel. And if you prick me, I bleed. I'm not an object and my own compassion leads me to not treat any of my fellow human beings as such. This is why those of us who don't believe in a personal celestial father somehow get through life just fine and still manage to relate to one another in a healthy and compassionate manner, thank you very much.

Self aware, think, feel, compassion? So these immaterial urges you feel compelled to follow? Lots of inconsistancy throughout your entire post.