Can an atheist be ethical like theists

[robvalue]

Drugs and incest? OK, weirdly specific.

Well it seems the discussion is over so I won't worry about these points. I think I made a very strong case as to why atheists are moral/ethical. It's no use pretending that they are not, because you can't understand how they possibly could be. Sure, you can disagree about certain points of morality. Everybody does. That is called subjective morality! If you are argueing against something on the grounds of wellbeing and harm, then that is not religious morality. If you're argueing on the grounds of "my God doesn't want that" then it's irrelevant. And you can't pretend all atheists and all secular communities have the same morality, so you can "prove it wrong". Every individual has their own morality, it is not dictated to them by society. It's the other way around, the morality of a society reflects a general agreement among individuals.

Objective morality, if such a thing exists, is entirely pointless because it's (a) arbitrary and (b) no one knows what it is. Sure, we have millions of people all claiming to know what it is, while disagreeing with each other, and none have any proof. So what use is that? It results once again in subjective morality. Any attempts to enforce religious objective morality ends in horrific situations, any time the moral in question is actually immoral by general secular standards (we only need to look at many countries in the East). And since secular morality improves, this is increasingly likely to be considered the case.

Morality of any meaning is man made, and justified by pointing to books by some people rather than using rational argument. "Nice" religious people increasingly ignore the majority of their holy books.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
Bye for now maybe in a few days or so I'd love to start an argument about homosexuality hope you participate as usual .

You mean - you're going to tell us about your weekend? Great! Can't wait for all the graphic details of your experiences. Have fun and don't forget to use condoms. AIDS is still a thing, you know.

Bye-ee!

[Cato]

Well you can search the word ethics and read in wikipedia by example that ethics came from relegion even in ancient egypt.

You should probably educate yourself. Your brand of ethics is only one particular flavor of deontological ethics; basically what Mohammed said goes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

It would probably do you well to read up on consequentialism and virtue ethics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

The Abrahamic religions are primitive attempts at codifying ethical systems. They all fail miserably by today's standards.

[huss88ein]

Drugs and incest? OK, weirdly specific.

Well it seems the discussion is over so I won't worry about these points. I think I made a very strong case as to why atheists are moral/ethical. It's no use pretending that they are not, because you can't understand how they possibly could be. Sure, you can disagree about certain points of morality. Everybody does. That is called subjective morality! If you are argueing against something on the grounds of wellbeing and harm, then that is not religious morality. If you're argueing on the grounds of "my God doesn't want that" then it's irrelevant. And you can't pretend all atheists and all secular communities have the same morality, so you can "prove it wrong". Every individual has their own morality, it is not dictated to them by society. It's the other way around, the morality of a society reflects a general agreement among individuals.

Objective morality, if such a thing exists, is entirely pointless because it's (a) arbitrary and (b) no one knows what it is. Sure, we have millions of people all claiming to know what it is, while disagreeing with each other, and none have any proof. So what use is that? It results once again in subjective morality. Any attempts to enforce religious objective morality ends in horrific situations, any time the moral in question is actually immoral by general secular standards (we only need to look at many countries in the East). And since secular morality improves, this is increasingly likely to be considered the case.

Morality of any meaning is man made, and justified by pointing to books by some people rather than using rational argument. "Nice" religious people increasingly ignore the majority of their holy books.

Well rob first of all I did gave these examples not to be specific but because examples are always easier to adress and understand that's all.

From my discussion with another member we arrived at a point that his mother doing prostitution is ok as long it is in a safe environment and I know that this is a lie being a doctor I know in fact that having multiple sexual partners lead to diseases and cancer but lets assume it's safe how about the psychological effects on him , in simpler words he would feel bad and unhappy.

From that I can deduct that if his father wants to have intercourse with his sister and they both consent then he can't object either.

I dont mean that u or that other member would have to face these problems but others would and these notions didnt come from void these people exist and thats that.

I think that u have a different understanding for morality and ethics from that member as of a matter of fact I think that u dont agree to these things and that's implied in ur argument . I think that's why I asked for ur point of view in the first place u did make a good argument after all but let me respond to it in a good argument as well.

So first for the subjective values in another words values that come from the person well u can have any values that u want but u wont be able to convince other people in it if they're not based on a rational foundation (to an atheist) .
So by example if u say incest is bad but the opposite person doesn't share ur point of view you won't be able to convince him and that will have an effect on u indirectly if that person is a member of ur family .

As for the social pressure point as in a society with a majority of anti incist by example then incest will be refused.

Well that is not accurate actually because a minority should have the right to practice whatever they want even if majority disagree (always from an atheist point of view not mine) so let me give an example from the current events if the majority in the USA are against gay marriage (and they are because of the fact that the majority are christians ) then gay marriage should be prohibited .

Another example if u came to my country with a majority of muslims u wont like to be forced to pray and participate in islamic rituals which is not the case by the way you can do as u please in my country but this is hypothetical.

But u can argue if it's vis versa and the society is an atheist one then why can't we just agree on these things well because u will be hippocrates that simple you can't nip and tuc ur standards as if a majority of christians then minority should have the rights they want if atheists then we force what ever we want that's just a relegion but without a specific name .

So if subjectivity won't work nor would social pressure what is the third option it is objective morality .

[SofaKingHigh]

Drugs and incest? OK, weirdly specific.

Well it seems the discussion is over so I won't worry about these points. I think I made a very strong case as to why atheists are moral/ethical. It's no use pretending that they are not, because you can't understand how they possibly could be. Sure, you can disagree about certain points of morality. Everybody does. That is called subjective morality! If you are argueing against something on the grounds of wellbeing and harm, then that is not religious morality. If you're argueing on the grounds of "my God doesn't want that" then it's irrelevant. And you can't pretend all atheists and all secular communities have the same morality, so you can "prove it wrong". Every individual has their own morality, it is not dictated to them by society. It's the other way around, the morality of a society reflects a general agreement among individuals.

Objective morality, if such a thing exists, is entirely pointless because it's (a) arbitrary and (b) no one knows what it is. Sure, we have millions of people all claiming to know what it is, while disagreeing with each other, and none have any proof. So what use is that? It results once again in subjective morality. Any attempts to enforce religious objective morality ends in horrific situations, any time the moral in question is actually immoral by general secular standards (we only need to look at many countries in the East). And since secular morality improves, this is increasingly likely to be considered the case.

Morality of any meaning is man made, and justified by pointing to books by some people rather than using rational argument. "Nice" religious people increasingly ignore the majority of their holy books.

Well rob first of all I did gave these examples not to be specific but because examples are always easier to adress and understand that's all.

From my discussion with another member we arrived at a point that his mother doing prostitution is ok as long it is in a safe environment and I know that this is a lie being a doctor I know in fact that having multiple sexual partners lead to diseases and cancer but lets assume it's safe how about the psychological effects on him , in simpler words he would feel  bad and unhappy.

From that I can deduct that if his father wants to have intercourse with his sister and they both consent then he can't object either.

I dont mean that u or that other member would have to face these problems but others would and these notions didnt come from void these people exist and thats that.

I think that u have a different understanding for morality and ethics from that member as of a matter of fact I think that u dont agree to these things and that's implied in ur argument . I think that's why I asked for ur point of view in the first place u did make a good argument after all but let me respond to it in a good argument as well.

So first for the subjective values in another words values that come from the person well u can have any values that u want but u wont be able to convince other people in it if they're not based on a rational foundation (to an atheist) .
So by example if u say incest is bad but the opposite person doesn't share ur point of view you won't be able to convince him and that will have an effect on u indirectly if that person is a member of ur family .

As for the social pressure point as in a society with a majority of anti incist by example then incest will be refused.

Well that is not accurate actually because a minority should have the right to practice whatever they want even if majority disagree (always from an atheist point of view not mine) so let me give an example from the current events if the majority in the USA are against gay marriage (and they are because of the fact that the majority are christians ) then gay marriage should be prohibited .

Another example if u came to my country with a majority of muslims u wont like to be forced to pray and participate in islamic rituals which is not the case by the way you can do as u please in my country but this is hypothetical.

But u can argue if it's vis versa and the society is an atheist one then why can't we just agree on these things well because u will be hippocrates that simple you can't nip and tuc ur standards as if a majority of christians then minority should have the rights they want if atheists then we force what ever we want that's just a relegion but without a specific name .

So if subjectivity won't work nor would social pressure what is the third option it is objective morality .

Hi Huss88ein, what are your views on Paedophilia?

[robvalue]

Thanks for your reply, but I'm afraid I can't understand the points you are making.

What we observe is subjective morality, people do not agree on morality. What is the alternative? Whose objective morality do we use, since everyone has a different idea what it is? Not even those from any one religion agree. So how could it possibly work?

I own my morality as my opinion, yes. I value the wellbeing of people and animals, and I work up from that.

[huss88ein]

Well rob first of all I did gave these examples not to be specific but because examples are always easier to adress and understand that's all.

From my discussion with another member we arrived at a point that his mother doing prostitution is ok as long it is in a safe environment and I know that this is a lie being a doctor I know in fact that having multiple sexual partners lead to diseases and cancer but lets assume it's safe how about the psychological effects on him , in simpler words he would feel  bad and unhappy.

From that I can deduct that if his father wants to have intercourse with his sister and they both consent then he can't object either.

I dont mean that u or that other member would have to face these problems but others would and these notions didnt come from void these people exist and thats that.

I think that u have a different understanding for morality and ethics from that member as of a matter of fact I think that u dont agree to these things and that's implied in ur argument . I think that's why I asked for ur point of view in the first place u did make a good argument after all but let me respond to it in a good argument as well.

So first for the subjective values in another words values that come from the person well u can have any values that u want but u wont be able to convince other people in it if they're not based on a rational foundation (to an atheist) .
So by example if u say incest is bad but the opposite person doesn't share ur point of view you won't be able to convince him and that will have an effect on u indirectly if that person is a member of ur family .

As for the social pressure point as in a society with a majority of anti incist by example then incest will be refused.

Well that is not accurate actually because a minority should have the right to practice whatever they want even if majority disagree (always from an atheist point of view not mine) so let me give an example from the current events if the majority in the USA are against gay marriage (and they are because of the fact that the majority are christians ) then gay marriage should be prohibited .

Another example if u came to my country with a majority of muslims u wont like to be forced to pray and participate in islamic rituals which is not the case by the way you can do as u please in my country but this is hypothetical.

But u can argue if it's vis versa and the society is an atheist one then why can't we just agree on these things well because u will be hippocrates that simple you can't nip and tuc ur standards as if a majority of christians then minority should have the rights they want if atheists then we force what ever we want that's just a relegion but without a specific name .

So if subjectivity won't work nor would social pressure what is the third option it is objective morality .

Hi Huss88ein, what are your views on Paedophilia?

Man I know where ur going with this but it is a big discussion and it won't be fair to the other members not to participate in it especially that they will be occupied in many other points and claims raised in this debate.

So start a new debate about the prophet Muhammad pbuh marrying Aicha

And I will gladly participate.

But please respect my feelings and choose a polite name for the thread you're not forced too it's just courtesy.

Another thing can u make it tomorrow or after because it is aeed ( islamic holiday) and I have to attend to my social duties.

Thank u

---

Well you can search the word ethics and read in wikipedia by example that ethics came from relegion even in ancient egypt.

You should probably educate yourself. Your brand of ethics is only one particular flavor of deontological ethics; basically what Mohammed said goes.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

It would probably do you well to read up on consequentialism and virtue ethics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

The Abrahamic religions are primitive attempts at codifying ethical systems. They all fail miserably by today's standards.

Your assumptions are not facts

And for Plato quotes and articles as if ancient greek was the only society in history most of the other societies had relegions that's a fact and from these relegions had objective modalities in them that's also a fact.

As for the education thing I never mind keep on studying and educating myself would u?

Drugs and incest? OK, weirdly specific.

Well it seems the discussion is over so I won't worry about these points. I think I made a very strong case as to why atheists are moral/ethical. It's no use pretending that they are not, because you can't understand how they possibly could be. Sure, you can disagree about certain points of morality. Everybody does. That is called subjective morality! If you are argueing against something on the grounds of wellbeing and harm, then that is not religious morality. If you're argueing on the grounds of "my God doesn't want that" then it's irrelevant. And you can't pretend all atheists and all secular communities have the same morality, so you can "prove it wrong". Every individual has their own morality, it is not dictated to them by society. It's the other way around, the morality of a society reflects a general agreement among individuals.

Objective morality, if such a thing exists, is entirely pointless because it's (a) arbitrary and (b) no one knows what it is. Sure, we have millions of people all claiming to know what it is, while disagreeing with each other, and none have any proof. So what use is that? It results once again in subjective morality. Any attempts to enforce religious objective morality ends in horrific situations, any time the moral in question is actually immoral by general secular standards (we only need to look at many countries in the East). And since secular morality improves, this is increasingly likely to be considered the case.

Morality of any meaning is man made, and justified by pointing to books by some people rather than using rational argument. "Nice" religious people increasingly ignore the majority of their holy books.

Well rob first of all I did gave these examples not to be specific but because examples are always easier to adress and understand that's all.

From my discussion with another member we arrived at a point that his mother doing prostitution is ok as long it is in a safe environment and I know that this is a lie being a doctor I know in fact that having multiple sexual partners lead to diseases and cancer but lets assume it's safe how about the psychological effects on him , in simpler words he would feel bad and unhappy.

From that I can deduct that if his father wants to have intercourse with his sister and they both consent then he can't object either.

I dont mean that u or that other member would have to face these problems but others would and these notions didnt come from void these people exist and thats that.

I think that u have a different understanding for morality and ethics from that member as of a matter of fact I think that u dont agree to these things and that's implied in ur argument . I think that's why I asked for ur point of view in the first place u did make a good argument after all but let me respond to it in a good argument as well.

So first for the subjective values in another words values that come from the person well u can have any values that u want but u wont be able to convince other people in it if they're not based on a rational foundation (to an atheist) .
So by example if u say incest is bad but the opposite person doesn't share ur point of view you won't be able to convince him and that will have an effect on u indirectly if that person is a member of ur family .

As for the social pressure point as in a society with a majority of anti incist by example then incest will be refused.

Well that is not accurate actually because a minority should have the right to practice whatever they want even if majority disagree (always from an atheist point of view not mine) so let me give an example from the current events if the majority in the USA are against gay marriage (and they are because of the fact that the majority are christians ) then gay marriage should be prohibited .

Another example if u came to my country with a majority of muslims u wont like to be forced to pray and participate in islamic rituals which is not the case by the way you can do as u please in my country but this is hypothetical.

But u can argue if it's vis versa and the society is an atheist one then why can't we just agree on these things well because u will be hippocrates that simple you can't nip and tuc ur standards as if a majority of christians then minority should have the rights they want if atheists then we force what ever we want that's just a relegion but without a specific name .

So if subjectivity won't work nor would social pressure what is the third option it is objective morality .

[SofaKingHigh]

Hi Huss88ein, what are your views on Paedophilia?

Man I know where ur going with this but it is a big discussion and it won't be fair to the other members not to participate in it especially that they will be occupied in many other points and claims raised in this debate.

So start a new debate about the prophet Muhammad pbuh marrying Aicha

And I will gladly participate.

But please respect my feelings and choose a polite name for the thread you're not forced too it's just courtesy.

Another thing can u make it tomorrow or after because it is aeed ( islamic holiday) and I have to attend to my social duties.

Thank u

Oh no, you asked a question on morality, asserting that God is where it comes from.

I ask a very simple question; what are your feelings on Paedophilia?

[huss88ein]

Man I know where ur going with this but it is a big discussion and it won't be fair to the other members not to participate in it especially that they will be occupied in many other points and claims raised in this debate.

So start a new debate about the prophet Muhammad pbuh marrying Aicha

And I will gladly participate.

But please respect my feelings and choose a polite name for the thread you're not forced too it's just courtesy.

Another thing can u make it tomorrow or after because it is aeed ( islamic holiday) and I have to attend to my social duties.

Thank u

Oh no, you asked a question on morality, asserting that God is where it comes from.

I ask a very simple question; what are your feelings on Paedophilia?

Clearly I am against it but the definition differs from an era to another and from community to another by example if u were living in a community where all people's age of marriage is 12 the question is will u be considered a pedophile or a rather normal citizen abiding the laws of ur community.

I told u it is a big debate and needs lots of citations and statistics and I dont have the time today so please make the debate and let others participate as well that would be a better discussion by all means that's why I asked u to make the thread if u don't I will make it but just after the gay debate which I will make soon .

And seriously man no happy holidays or congrats I mean nothing ?????
[emoji19] [emoji19]

[SofaKingHigh]

Didn't your prophet marry a 6 year old and bed her at 9?

How does it sit with you?  Does that not make you against the prophet?

Happy day to you.