Morality

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, I wish theists would be more specific and give examples of situations where atheists need that supposed biblical/ god's morality, but then again vagueness is their game.

[The Grand Nudger]

They don't know what it is, but they're pretty sure goddidit.

[Fake Messiah]

I really do wish he would explain his position more because when I hear terms like "absolute morality" it sounds like they don't know what they are talking about.

Is the behavior of an individual not of his surroundings? Do you not notice how some kids and thus adults behave differently depending on which family they come from? Multiply that on many families and you get a whole region of people that we call culture. Yes, people's behavior and sense of morality come from the rules of the culture. And yes, culture does change, and no, it is not by whims that culture changes.

This is so evident because just a few centuries ago it was ok and common in the Christian world to torture people in public, frequently until they died, but today that is wrong. So where was this "absolute morality" for all these centuries when torture and slavery were ok?

[Kingpin]

@emjay I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, purely taking the logic to its outcome. That's all. I'm not implying, suggesting that non-believers cannot be moral. That's not true at all. I believe quite a few could be more moral than myself. I will say I'm a bit disappointed in seeing so many replies taking offense to "don't tell me what I believe". The irony in that statement when throughout this entire forum is telling theists what we believe. When at the same time you know we are all individuals and have our own beliefs. Unity of belief does not necessitate uniformity. Not all that proclaim to be atheists believe the same things. So I apologize if I painted with any broad brush as there was no intent to do so.

@Fake Messiah your points are well taken. Yes cultural acceptance of acts is of course subjective to the surroundings, the time, etc. But the fact that what you describe is no longer accepted, did it make it "right" before but wrong now? I will fully admit there are dilemma's like would you steal food so your family doesn't starve or the Anne Frank dilemma of lying to save the lives of others.

I will never espouse to have answers to all the questions. I simply look for civil discourse of those that do not share my worldview. To be challenged in my belief.

My position is as such. Making a moral judgment against the God of the Bible, while maintaining a worldview that there are no objective morals, is nothing more than opining on personal preference. But what I see in others making moral judgments against God is the presupposition that the judgment is objectively true, while denying objective morals existence. Nietzsche was a quack we can all agree, but on this he was right. The judgments being made against God borrow from the Christian view of morals, while denying those morals are correct.

[Kingpin]

Further, I'm not on any "crusade". I honestly believed this to be a place that encouraged discussion and thought because I believe (like I think some of you believe) these are big questions and require meaningful conversation. If I will just be vilified, for trying to provoke discussion, then I was wrong in my assumption and I will see myself out.

Wish you all the best.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nominal (and committed) subjectivists often make moral pronouncements as though they are facts, sure. It's either a tick of language or a disparity between apprehension and reality.

What I think you'll find difficult to communicate, is how they would be borrowing (either linguistically or conceptually) from some christian morality, rather than an objective morality - by using objectivist language or employing objectivist assertions.

Ultimately "how subjectivists talk" is not a determinative metaethical question, though. No matter how they talk, the claim that the nature of morality is subjective, that it is a description of items based exclusively on the state or nature of a given subject, is either true or false. You don't disagree with atheist subjectivists on the nature of morality. You disagree with them on the existence of a god. You make the same fact-pretending comments while espousing a subjectivist moral understanding. If you wanted to talk about other moral systems, like objectivist moral systems, we can do that?

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for all the responses folks.  The point I was trying to make is I see a LOT of atheists making moral judgments against theistic Gods and some go as far as saying that is WHY there cannot be a God.  But how can one justify that judgment as matter of fact if morality as a whole is subjective to self and society?  It cannot be fact if it's relative and subjective.  So making moral judgment about God as factual wrong is to borrow from theistic morality to deny theism.  Seems odd.

As for my morality subjective to God, what's the problem?  So what if it is?  He is the creator of all things, I'm perfectly fine being subjective to Him.  All this tells me is that you want to be your own God.  I believe morality is rooted in God's nature and we are made in the image of God, thus morality is engrained in our being, knowing right from wrong.

'The point I was trying to make is I see a LOT of atheists making moral judgments against theistic Gods and some go as far as saying that is WHY there cannot be a God.' None of the atheists here are making that point and many of us would criticize someone who claimed that there cannot be a God if God is immoral. Yet you keep expressing this complaint here.

'It cannot be fact if it's relative and subjective.' So it can't be a fact that I like chocolate?

'So making moral judgement about God as factual wrong is to borrow from theistic morality to deny theism. Seems odd.' Theists don't own objective morality, there are entire books on the subject that don't invoke any gods.

'All this tells me is that you want to be your own God.' I'm having trouble reconciling statements like this with your avowed intent not to offend. No one can escape using their own judgment to determine moral questions. Even if you decide to go by whatever you think God wants, it's your own judgment that doing so is moral and your own judgment that you've correctly discerned what God wants.

'I believe morality is rooted in God's nature and we are made in the image of God, thus morality is engrained in our being, knowing right from wrong.' What you believe and what's true are not synonyms, though we would all like them to be. I believe evolution explains our moral sentiments as handily and with more relevant evidence that ancient scriptures. Other social primates also demonstrate that they have feelings of altruism, empathy, fairness, and reciprocity. Our inherent moral sentiments that we inherited from our ancestors (and share with our cousins) combined with culture, evidence, experience, observation, and tradition; form our morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

'It cannot be fact if it's relative and subjective.' So it can't be a fact that I like chocolate?

This is the one issue I think ripples down the entire line of moral understanding.  Objectivism, subjectivism, and relativism are all cognitive frameworks.  

An objectivist purports to report a fact "that x is bad", and either succeeds or fails at accurately reporting that fact. 

A subjectivist purports to report that same fact, but fails to accurately report that fact, instead inaccurately reporting some fact about themselves. 

A relativist purports to report that same fact, but fails to accurately report that fact, instead inaccurately reporting some fact about their society.

What you believe and what's true are not synonyms, though we would all like them to be. I believe evolution explains our moral sentiments as handily and with more relevant evidence that ancient scriptures. Other social primates also demonstrate that they have feelings of altruism, empathy, fairness, and reciprocity.

It's worth mentioning that this is true regardless of whether morality is objective, subjective, or relative.  

Our inherent moral sentiments that we inherited from our ancestors (and share with our cousins) combined with culture, evidence, experience, observation, and tradition; form our morality.

Evidence and observation would be objectivist, ancestors and experience would be subjectivist, culture and tradition would be relativist.

[Angrboda]

As predicted, Kingpin ignored the facts that were inconvenient to his narrative and instead cherry-picked those points which his argument could address. We aren't anti-theist, we're anti-you.

[emjay]

@emjay I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, purely taking the logic to its outcome.  That's all.  I'm not implying, suggesting that non-believers cannot be moral.  That's not true at all.  I believe quite a few could be more moral than myself.  I will say I'm a bit disappointed in seeing so many replies taking offense to "don't tell me what I believe".  The irony in that statement when throughout this entire forum is telling theists what we believe.  When at the same time you know we are all individuals and have our own beliefs.  Unity of belief does not necessitate uniformity.  Not all that proclaim to be atheists believe the same things.  So I apologize if I painted with any broad brush as there was no intent to do so.
[...]

Look, it's just that certain things push buttons that's all. As I said before, nowadays I'm more of a reader than a contributor on this site, but certain things... like misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise... still get under my skin and provoke me. I wish they didn't... I wish I could rise above it or let it go... more often at least... but as someone who tends to dwell on and overthink things, that is not always possible. So if it's ongoing, sometimes it just builds up in me until it explodes, as kind of happened here.

The thing about misrepresentation imo, is that it can never win hearts and minds, or add any productive value to a discussion, only foster aggression/oneupsmanship etc. I guess you're right, we all do it... paint in too broad strokes sometimes... but I wish we didn't. I do try to be as mindful of that as possible, and use appropriate qualifiers, eg 'some' rather an explicit or implicit 'all'... just that one little word, 'some' can make all the difference in how an argument is received and perceived... but yes, I do fail on that score too sometimes, especially when I'm angry, so I'm sorry for that.

Further, I'm not on any "crusade".  I honestly believed this to be a place that encouraged discussion and thought because I believe (like I think some of you believe) these are big questions and require meaningful conversation.  If I will just be vilified, for trying to provoke discussion, then I was wrong in my assumption and I will see myself out.  

Wish you all the best.

You just came in on the back of someone who did seem to be on such a crusade, so I guess my perception of you was a bit tainted by that. As I said, I tend to overthink things and dwell on things, so the two of you kind of melded a little bit in my mind I guess, so I'm sorry if that was too harsh/inaccurate a characterisation.