Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

So much moral outrage from those who say that morality is subjective!

[GrandizerII]

So much moral outrage from those who say that morality is subjective!

Yep, just as I thought. You're not ready to address the other just as relevant points being made. I'll be waiting here in case you finally opt to address my points.

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, that most people have an inane sense of objective morality, makes me believe it’s true. In fact it’s difficult not to behave as if morals are objective.

And yet you apparently behave otherwise. You believe morality stems from God, but that's not objective morality. That's arbitrary "morality" (if you can even call it morality). That's obeying decrees and commandments.

It's clear you have a set of scripted answers to some remarks made by us atheists that you have learned from Sunday school and by watching William Lane Craig debates, but for some reason, you still are unable to address certain arguments made by some of us with regards to divine morality. You are all too happy to criticize objective morality in the absence of your god, but fail to acknowledge the issues with divine morality itself.

You do not seem to be using objective in the same sense that I’m discussing. If where not talking about the same thing (as in what the way the moral argument is meant), then we are having different discussions, and not going to get very far.

We can get to your other topics another time (I’m heading out for vacation tomorrow sorry ). However if we can’t agree on the objective nature of morality it seems pointless, as you don’t have any grounding for complaints really. And I’m sorry, if you don’t like my avoidance of bouncing around to a side topics and focusing on the discussion at hand.

[GrandizerII]

And yet you apparently behave otherwise. You believe morality stems from God, but that's not objective morality. That's arbitrary "morality" (if you can even call it morality). That's obeying decrees and commandments.

It's clear you have a set of scripted answers to some remarks made by us atheists that you have learned from Sunday school and by watching William Lane Craig debates, but for some reason, you still are unable to address certain arguments made by some of us with regards to divine morality. You are all too happy to criticize objective morality in the absence of your god, but fail to acknowledge the issues with divine morality itself.

You do not seem to be using objective in the same sense that I’m discussing. If where not talking about the same thing (as in what the way the moral argument is meant), then we are having different discussions, and not going to get very far.

That's irrelevant, dude. The argument is that the morality that you call "objective" isn't worth having because it really is arbitrary. You can call it "objective" all day, and I'll be happy to grant you that all you want, but it's not a meaningful kind of morality.

It's basically the Euthyphro dilemma I'm describing. Nothing too advanced. But not surprised if you're not ready to address it. So whatever, you do your thing. Dodge away, and have a good vacation.

[RoadRunner79]

As I said, that most people have an inane sense of objective morality, makes me believe it’s true. In fact it’s difficult not to behave as if morals are objective.

And yet you apparently behave otherwise. You believe morality stems from God, but that's not objective morality. That's arbitrary "morality" (if you can even call it morality). That's obeying decrees and commandments.

It's clear you have a set of scripted answers to some remarks made by us atheists that you have learned from Sunday school and by watching William Lane Craig debates, but for some reason, you still are unable to address certain arguments made by some of us with regards to divine morality. You are all too happy to criticize objective morality in the absence of your god, but fail to acknowledge the issues with divine morality itself.

I apologize that I don’t have time to switch topics on your whim. If you want to call that a dodge, then so be it. Perhaps we can have the conversation another time. I don’t think that calling it arbitrary is means anything more than calling physics arbitrary and you still have to deal with the consequences of an objective vs subjective morality which you have been avoiding.

It’s also not my view that morality arbitrary.

[Abaddon_ire]

Agree,but it does start off simple and then one gets to the not so simple. Take, for example, "Thou shalt not kill." Seems simple enough, but then the exceptions start getting lobbed in like the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Home invasion? Shoot the perp. That's moral.
War? Shoot the enemy. That's moral.
Different nation? Genocide them. That's moral.
And so on. 

Theists always end up trying and failing to defend their immoral god.

If any written religion in our species history were required for life to create new generations then judging by their claim we cant survive without their holy book, we should have gone extinct a long time ago.

It's called "intercourse". No religion required.

Guess how many people I have murdered in my life? NONE! And I don't need Islam or Hinduism or Jewish or Buddhism either.

But murder, paedophilia, genocide, slavery and so forth are moral according to the plethora of holy books. Who would have thunk.

But religion is great at creating tribalism.

Funny that.

---

I apologize that I don’t have time to switch topics on your whim. If you want to call that a dodge, then so be it.  Perhaps we can have the conversation another time.  I don’t think that calling it arbitrary is means anything more than calling physics arbitrary and you still have to deal with the consequences of an objective vs subjective morality which you have been avoiding.

It’s also not my view that morality arbitrary.

Yes, you do believe morality is arbitrary. You believe that your deity of choice hands out great steaming ladels of morality based on some arbitrary whim of the moment, and that even if you find it personally immoral, your deity of choice overides your personal morallity.

That alone is an immoral position.

[polymath257]

---

Your question seems strange and ill-posed to me. You ask for a subject or person that is the basis of morality. The closest I can answer this strange question is that morality is the common feeling we have because we are a social species saying that certain behaviors are to be done or not to be done. It is common because of our ancestry. In that sense, it is part of being human.

But I don't think there is anything *objective* about the structure of the universe that makes certain behaviors wrong or right.  It isn't a matter of the structure of the universe, but the structure of humans and what it takes to make human societies. An act isn't immoral only if it is not caught (although there may not be consequences if it isn't). It is immoral because of the way behaviors need to be for societies of humans to function towards human (the relevant species) well being.

A different species would have different moral rules. In that sense, morality is NOT objective. But, since this is a human society and because humans are the way they are, there are certain types of behavior that promote well being and certain types that do not. This includes both physical and mental well being (both of which are objective). 

I don't think that morality in general is objective. In fact, I think it is quite society dependent. There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society. On the other hand, it is universal that killing another without proper cause is condemned. Again, I think the reason, from a survival viewpoint, is clear. Pretty universally, beating one's wife until she dies has been condemned (although way too much violence has been approved).

I also think that we are getting better at morality. The basic principles of fairness and compassion are more widely applied, no longer to just a tribe, but to all people. Because we have moved away from religious superstitions, we are far more likely to condemn the sorts of torture that were common only 500 years ago. We have grown to see religious differences with compassion instead of hatred. We no longer support slavery, another form of stifling human well being that was common not so long ago and accepted by almost all religious scholars as normal. But compassion and a sense of fairness have shown such behaviors to be wrong.

For me, morality is axiomatic: it is defined by fairness and compassion (and also consideration--thought is crucial also). It consists of rules of behavior that produce societies that are more fulfilling of their members and survive.

---

I don't think that refusing to shake hands with someone is akin to beating ones wife to death.  And it is wrong and should be condemned; even if the structure of the society allows it.  And by generalizing moral obligations into a category of compassion (which I don't necessarily disagree with; we ought to be compassionate) your not solving the problem, but just pushing it back a little farther.

So you ignore the rest of what I wrote? About the basic moral rules being good for survival? And that is the 'objective' quality that distinguishes them *for humans*? That religion has absolutely no lock on morality; if anything it is *less* moral because it tends to denigrate compassion when it is towards unbelievers? That morality isn't part of the structure of the universe, but 'merely' part of how humans are?

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that refusing to shake hands with someone is akin to beating ones wife to death.  And it is wrong and should be condemned; even if the structure of the society allows it.  And by generalizing moral obligations into a category of compassion (which I don't necessarily disagree with; we ought to be compassionate) your not solving the problem, but just pushing it back a little farther.

So you ignore the rest of what I wrote? About the basic moral rules being good for survival? And that is the 'objective' quality that distinguishes them *for humans*? That religion has absolutely no lock on morality; if anything it is *less* moral because it tends to denigrate compassion when it is towards unbelievers? That morality isn't part of the structure of the universe, but 'merely' part of how humans are?

So then survival or more specifically propagating DNA is the basis of morality?    This "just so" story, doesn't tell you what ought to be, but only what was most successful in furthering their genetic line. I don't think that you can equate morality to survival of the fittest, and sometimes that includes the immoral.

[polymath257]

So you ignore the rest of what I wrote? About the basic moral rules being good for survival? And that is the 'objective' quality that distinguishes them *for humans*? That religion has absolutely no lock on morality; if anything it is *less* moral because it tends to denigrate compassion when it is towards unbelievers? That morality isn't part of the structure of the universe, but 'merely' part of how humans are?

So then survival or more specifically propagating DNA is the basis of morality?    This "just so" story, doesn't tell you what ought to be, but only what was most successful in furthering their genetic line. I don't think that you can equate morality to survival of the fittest, and sometimes that includes the immoral.

Once again, I didn't say that. I said that our moral sense is because that sense increased our survival. Do you see the difference?

[RoadRunner79]

So then survival or more specifically propagating DNA is the basis of morality?    This "just so" story, doesn't tell you what ought to be, but only what was most successful in furthering their genetic line. I don't think that you can equate morality to survival of the fittest, and sometimes that includes the immoral.

Once again, I didn't say that. I said that our moral sense is because that sense increased our survival. Do you see the difference?

So morality is separate and apart from what helps us survive.... I would agree to that.   I don't understand why you keep bringing up evolution though if it's not relevant to the ontology of morality.