Subjective Morals and Societal Whims

[InteresedUser]

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. 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.

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.

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

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?

Curious what you think?

[Aroura]

First, please tell me how God's law is objective and hasn't changed over time.
For instance. Was slavery ever Ok?
How about killing people just to take their land?  Was that ever acceptable?
Taking the female virgins of the tribe you killed to use as sex slave (aka, second wives, against their will), was that an acceptable behavior?
Stoning a child to death for being disobedient, how about that behavior?  A-ok?
And if any of those were ever permissible, are they still moral?

First, you must establish that any religion follows an objective, unchanging moral law, since it seems to be your claim.

[Silver]

Morality came into existence quite easily.

Shall we begin there?

Morality came into existence when primitive people with low birth rates realized that it would do no good to kill someone in their own clan for any reason.

They realized that for survival, everyone was needed.

The one concept that reasonably explains morality better than anything else is the following:

A religious individual needs a belief in god to do good whereas an atheist does good because it is the right thing to do, no god needed.

[Amarok]

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

1. This assumes such transcendent laws exist in reality

2. Naturalism isn't opposed to objective morality this is shear ignorance

3. Belief in transcendence has never stopped pedophilia (depending on what you mean by pedophilia )

4. Even if you could point to some transcendent idea floating in some magic ether somewhere why should a pedophile care?

5.  Things happen weather there good or bad in theism too

6. Your conflating atheism with naturalism

7. It dose not follow that a product of nature can't be wrong

8. Atheism does not create morals because atheism is not an ideology

The OP is not very bright

[brewer]

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. 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.

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.

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

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?

Curious what you think?

A Welcome Woof.

I've got lots of questions before I respond, if you don't mind.

Can you give examples of the "youtubes on atheism"? Did they have an agenda (i,e, religious)?

Why do you think atheism = naturalism? I can assure you it does not, but I'll give you the chance to state why it does. 

What modern cultures consider pedophilia acceptable? You can exclude the catholic church if you like.

Morals are subjective/relative. You have not provided sufficient argument for me to consider that pedophilia is objectively wrong under all circumstances and in all conditions. Stanford can support my position better than I can (the written word is not my forte): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

[Ravenshire]

Curious what you think?

I think the search feature is your friend. This topic of objective vs. subjective morality has been beaten to death around here.

[Whateverist]

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. 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.

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.

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

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?

Curious what you think?

More than happy to tell you what I think about this just as soon as you respond to some of those who've already done so. We get a lot of one-post wonders who copy pasta shit without putting any of their own thought into it. No point if that is what you're doing.

[Alex K]

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. 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.

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.

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

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?

Curious what you think?

Since when is wishful thinking an argument for anything?

[InteresedUser]

Morality came into existence quite easily.

Shall we begin there?

Morality came into existence when primitive people with low birth rates realized that it would do no good to kill someone in their own clan for any reason.

They realized that for survival, everyone was needed.

The one concept that reasonably explains morality better than anything else is the following:

A religious individual needs a belief in god to do good whereas an atheist does good because it is the right thing to do, no god needed.

But different societies have different morals. Some say pedophilia is moral, others not. There is no unifying objective moral code as it keeps changing in atheism based on societal whims, and over time you would expect pedophilia to be appropriate for you also as circumstances change and you change your beliefs also, all part and parcel of atheism.

---

First, please tell me how God's law is objective and hasn't changed over time.
For instance. Was slavery ever Ok?
How about killing people just to take their land?  Was that ever acceptable?
Taking the female virgins of the tribe you killed to use as sex slave (aka, second wives, against their will), was that an acceptable behavior?
Stoning a child to death for being disobedient, how about that behavior?  A-ok?
And if any of those were ever permissible, are they still moral?

First, you must establish that any religion follows an objective, unchanging moral law, since it seems to be your claim.

I think religions try to maintain an objective code, and you might be misunderstanding them. For example, if a group of people kept sacrificing their children, and they refuse to stop, I think you are perfectly right to end their lives. Let's say they come to your door and require your child be thrown into the fiery mouth of Molech or wanted to use your child as a mass suicide bomber. Would you just stand back since you think it is wrong to kill those perpetrators to stop their heinous crime. I would see you as a coward. Who said it? The worse thing a person can do is do nothing in the face of evil.

---

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

1. This assumes such transcendent laws exist in reality

2. Naturalism isn't opposed to objective morality this is shear ignorance

3. Belief in transcendence has never stopped pedophilia (depending on what you mean by pedophilia )

4. Even if you could point to some transcendent idea floating in some magic ether somewhere why should a pedophile care?

5.  Things happen weather there good or bad in theism too

6. Your conflating atheism with naturalism

7. It dose not follow that a product of nature can't be wrong

8. Atheism does not create morals because atheism is not an ideology

The OP is not very bright

If God is shown it shows God has transcendent laws.

If atheism has objective morals the why do some atheists favor pedophilia and others not?

Transcendence does stop pedophilia since no Christian has ever committed pedophilia.

Atheism is naturalism since the later doesn't have an uncreated Creator either.

How can a product of nature being wrong since it is part of nature and necessarily occurred already?

Atheism is an ideology claiming God does not exist.

I don't think you are bright.

---

I've been watching lots of YouTube videos on atheism. 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.

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.

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

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?

Curious what you think?

A Welcome Woof.

I've got lots of questions before I respond, if you don't mind.

Can you give examples of the "youtubes on atheism"? Did they have an agenda (i,e, religious)?

Why do you think atheism = naturalism? I can assure you it does not, but I'll give you the chance to state why it does. 

What modern cultures consider pedophilia acceptable? You can exclude the catholic church if you like.

Morals are subjective/relative. You have not provided sufficient argument for me to consider that pedophilia is objectively wrong under all circumstances and in all conditions. Stanford can support my position better than I can (the written word is not my forte): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

No theists are naturalists, but all atheists are naturalists.

You are point and case when you said, "Morals are subjective/relative. You have not provided sufficient argument for me to consider that pedophilia is objectively wrong under all circumstances and in all conditions."

You are open to Add to dictionary. No Christian is open to Pedophilia. You are similar to Muslims who also allow pedophilia since Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl.

---

Curious what you think?

I think the search feature is your friend. This topic of objective vs. subjective morality has been beaten to death around here.

"Since when is wishful thinking an argument for anything?"

[Aroura]

Atheism liwrally has nothing to do with morals. Neither does theism.

Morals change with society, correct, no matter if that society is religious or not, because morals come from societies, ans societies constantly change.
People agree what is or is not moral, then test it. Often times after testing, people will change their views on a moral code, based on personal or group observations, and then attempt to convince others of the new view.

Morals exist. They change constantly. Therefore they are subjective. No objective moral code has ever existed nor been handed down intact through generations.
You didnt answer, just dodged.

Also, as someone else said, use the search funtion. There are many threads on this topic already. Join one of those, and say hello first! Hello.

---

Dude, I just read your full response, and it is just full of wrong. Sorry.

Some atheists believe in the supernatural, just not in god. There are plenty of theists who think god is natural part of the universe, too. Christianity and Islam arent the only theistic religions, you know.

It's like you are saying a lot of words but don't really know what any of them mean.

Well, welcome anyway.