atheism and children

[Catholic_Lady]

Personal morality exists and it's largely based on a social contract. It's objective morality that doesn't exist.

And if that's true then he is only calling God evil on his own moral standard or claiming moral superiority. Quite often I see others judging God and quite plainly they could do better or would do it differently. Pretty bold statements. Anyone here want one of us to be God?  

If you claim no objective morality, there are only three options left. Moral subjectivism, moral relativism and moral nihilism.

In any of those you cannot logically make statements like:

Rape is wrong
Hitler and Stalin were wrong
Kindness is a virtue
Cruelty is a vice
Its wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment

These statements cannot be made sense out of without objective morality or would you care to say these are a matter of opinion or societal norms?

KingPin for president!!

[Kingpin]

You must certainly understand the Christian belief that we live in a fallen world as a direct result of the original sin.

What's more important to point out is that you call God evil. On what basis?  Your own?  You cannot call anything evil without invoking a personal moral authority of which you say does not exist.

We call things evil because of our evolutionary instincts, not anything else. "God", in this case, while still being nothing more but the most unfortunate fictional character in the history of literature, is evil because he's supposed to be omnipotent yet people die and life isn't perfect. It's that easy.

But that would still be by your own definition, opinion or feeling of what is evil. Evolutionary ethics is nothing but pragmatism. Even Darwin admitted that if the philosophical out workings were to be made of his theory the future is nothing short of unbridled violence.

[Exian]

Personal morality exists and it's largely based on a social contract. It's objective morality that doesn't exist.

And if that's true then he is only calling God evil on his own moral standard or claiming moral superiority.

His own moral standard- yes. Claiming moral superiority...that's maybe a stretch. When you think through an issue and come to a moral conclusion, it's because you have decided its the superior option. You don't sit around with your morality, being jealous of the other guy's superior morality, thinking "Why am I stuck with these crumby morals.". That one thinks their morals are best is a given.

Quite often I see others judging God and quite plainly they could do better or would do it differently. Pretty bold statements. Anyone here want one of us to be God?

Having morals is a far cry from playing God. In many cases, all you need is empathy, which evolution has provided.

If you claim no objective morality, there are only three options left. Moral subjectivism, moral relativism and moral nihilism.

In any of those you cannot logically make statements like:

Rape is wrong to me, and especially to the victim, but probably not to the rapist unless the rapist gets caught.
Hitler and Stalin were wrong unless you ask Hilter and Stalin
Kindness is a virtue if you ask me.
Cruelty is a vicein my opinion. Also might be an extreme example of a coping mechanism
Its wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment, there are starving atheists in Africa!

Could probably make the statements I've added though.

These statements cannot be made sense out of without objective morality or would you care to say these are a matter of opinion or societal norms?

I would care to say that some may be a matter of an informed opinion and definitely dependent on the society you grew up in. In some places they may not be the social norms.

[IATIA]

Personal morality exists and it's largely based on a social contract. It's objective morality that doesn't exist.

And if that's true then he is only calling God evil on his own moral standard or claiming moral superiority. Quite often I see others judging God and quite plainly they could do better or would do it differently. Pretty bold statements. Anyone here want one of us to be God?  

If you claim no objective morality, there are only three options left. Moral subjectivism, moral relativism and moral nihilism.

In any of those you cannot logically make statements like:

Rape is wrong
Hitler and Stalin were wrong
Kindness is a virtue
Cruelty is a vice
Its wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment

These statements cannot be made sense out of without objective morality or would you care to say these are a matter of opinion or societal norms?

(my bold)

Of we can make sense out of those statements without "objective morality". It is called "subjective morality". As a society, we have "subjectively" decided that those actions/principles/people are immoral.

Hitler and Stalin "subjectively" decided that their actions were not immoral.

[Catholic_Lady]

And if that's true then he is only calling God evil on his own moral standard or claiming moral superiority. Quite often I see others judging God and quite plainly they could do better or would do it differently. Pretty bold statements. Anyone here want one of us to be God?  

If you claim no objective morality, there are only three options left. Moral subjectivism, moral relativism and moral nihilism.

In any of those you cannot logically make statements like:

Rape is wrong
Hitler and Stalin were wrong
Kindness is a virtue
Cruelty is a vice
Its wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment

These statements cannot be made sense out of without objective morality or would you care to say these are a matter of opinion or societal norms?

(my bold)

Of we can make sense out of those statements without "objective morality".  It is called "subjective morality".  As a society, we have "subjectively" decided that those actions/principles/people are immoral.

Hitler and Stalin "subjectively" decided that their actions were not immoral.

But when you make a definitive statement like "God is evil", you're not really suggesting that there's subjectivity there and that evil doesn't actually exist.

[IATIA]

But when you make a definitive statement like "God is evil", you're not really suggesting that there's subjectivity there and that evil doesn't actually exist.

Evil can only exist if god exists. There is no god, therefore there is no evil. There are some really bad people that we refer to as "evil", but in reality, evil is the opposite of omnibenevolence (i guess omnimalevolent?) and as we do not have one, how can we have the other.

[Exian]

Wouldn't you disagreeing with him be an example of morality being subjective? If morality was objective, would we have the freedom to have differing opinions?

[Catholic_Lady]

But when you make a definitive statement like "God is evil", you're not really suggesting that there's subjectivity there and that evil doesn't actually exist.

Evil can only exist if god exists.  There is no god, therefore there is no evil.  There are some really bad people that we refer to as "evil", but in reality, evil is the opposite of omnibenevolence (i guess omnimalevolent?) and as we do not have one, how can we have the other.

Well I know yall don't think evil exists, and that there is no such thing as good vs bad, objectively, which is why the comment was strange to me.

[Catholic_Lady]

Wouldn't you disagreeing with him be an example of morality being subjective? If morality was objective, would we have the freedom to have differing opinions?

No. Just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us can't be right while the other is wrong.

We would have the freedom to have different beliefs on what is moral, but one of us would be wrong.

[Alex K]

We call things evil because of our evolutionary instincts, not anything else. "God", in this case, while still being nothing more but the most unfortunate fictional character in the history of literature, is evil because he's supposed to be omnipotent yet people die and life isn't perfect. It's that easy.

But that would still be by your own definition, opinion or feeling of what is evil. Evolutionary ethics is nothing but pragmatism. Even Darwin admitted that if the philosophical out workings were to be made of his theory the future is nothing short of unbridled violence.

You are confusing two completely different things which you must never ever confuse: 1. how human nature and the resulting peaceful constructive, but also destructive character traits arose through our evolution by natural selection as a social species, a process which is described by the neodarwinian synthesis (at least in principle), and 2. what it would look like if we were to imitate nature in the planning and construction of our society, something you call "evolutionary ethics" to somehow shift the blame to a scientific theory - which makes no sense - when it is actually simply your God's shameful way of doing business as witnessed by science.

And let me stress that Darwin's theory and its modern versions are not possibly a guide how to behave but a faithful description of how nature around us behaves, in the same way Einsteinian Gravity theory is not an instruction to push your granny down the stairs.

If you have a problem with "the consequences of Darwin", you are having a problem with the cruelty of nature - in that case welcome to the club. The difference between atheists and you is that we can actually acknowledge that nature is an unmitigated disaster, and consequently work on improving the situation, whereas you Christians somehow still have to believe that it's cool the way it is, making excuses for your imagined abusive tyrant who lets his creation suffer. Many atheists feel that nature is cruel and proceed to do something about it. Christians do too, of course, but you guys first have to overcome this sick idea that somehow creation deserves it, as evidenced by the stockholmesque excuses you make for the cruelty of your God upthread, and what reads to me almost like a declaration of ethical bankrupcy.