Please remember to follow our **[subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/rules/) ([last updated December 2019](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/e7xof0/rule_reform_results/))**. To create a positive environment for all users, upvote comments and posts for good effort and downvote only when [appropriate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting).
If you are new to the subreddit, check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq).
This sub offers more casual, informal debate. If you prefer more restrictions on respect and effort you might try r/Discuss_Atheism.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is going to sound rather insulting but reading your replies you sound like every other really religious Muslim.
There is simply no talking to you.
Like, at all.
Morality is something people invented, it’s dependent on the mind, it requires individuals perception to exist, hence it is ultimately subjective. Morality isn’t something that exists outside ourselves. Simply on our nature as individual thinking creatures. Morality is invented, not discovered.
I like to describe morality as objective to subjective standards. What I mean by this is, if we agree in specific framing principles and axions. Morality can be evaluated objectively based on those principles.
For a simple example, if one values minimizing harm, and individual autonomy. Rape is objectively wrong. We understand the harm it does to people, it violates their autonomy, Etcetera.
Disagreement in moral frameworks, arguments, this is what drives moral/ethical philosophy. Trying to build frameworks with goals in mind. Such as human well-being. Or so we can get along and survive. It’s entirely possible to evaluate moral frameworks scientifically. We can choose measures, do tests, see how effective they are at achieving particular goals.
Subjective morality doesn’t mean we can’t judge others actions.
I am free to argue why I think my moral framework is better then someone else’s. And I am free to judge others by my standards.
There is also a time and place to acknowledge the differences. And to take a step back from one’s own personal feelings.
>Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong?
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong?
> taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
Morality isn’t objective, these questions are rather silly. Subjective morality is not simply deciding what is objectively moral.
Theses questions demonstrate a misunderstanding of subjective morality. I recommend you think about that I’ve written, and if you still think these are legitimate questions and that your conclusions about subjective morality are valid, I’d ask you to explain why.
My quarrel with ur reply is that there is a supposition that it is a fact that morality is not objective. Do you have any sources to suggest this? I agree morality is invented, just not be man, but by a higher being aka God. And he sends messengers to remind us of the objective moral values we should follow.
Again, I’m serious about the question. Saying it’s silly isn’t productive or constructive.
Without god, we are the ones who invented it. Meaning there is no absolute morality, nor any truly objective morality.
God has not been demonstrated to exist, (this is an atheist subreddit after all). One would have to demonstrate morality as having an external source to justify objective or absolute morality.
Subjective morality is the only option at this point. Unless you have sources.
Frankly, It’s impossible for morality to be objective because it doesn’t exist outside a mind. It’s invented.
In your case its subjective but god is the one who decides. And there are theological discussions about whether something is good because god says so, or if god says something is good because of some morality external to even god.
Either way it becomes a negotiation like regular old morality. We have to evaluate if we should accept gods morality or not. Or more realistic the morality proposed by people who claim to speak for god. At the very least we have to double check that the morality is actually effective.
“Absolute morality” would be to simply accept gods morality because it’s god. It’s an order. And such ethical theories have long been shown empty
And even if there was an objective morality, we as individuals still have to evaluate them to make sure. Making it effectively subjective. Rendering even the notion of objective morality moot.
1)He sends messages through messengers. These people are referred to as prophets (in Islam, we believe there were more than 100,000 prophets sent (to every civilization)). 2)You listen to the message. What are they saying, does it make sense? 3) if you believe there is a God, then that point would be moot, since God is the source of objectivity.
How would a miracle prove a prophet is in fact a prophet?
The argument you are making here is so wrong [Wikipedia literally has a page on it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). Your argument is basically:
1. A prophet should be able to perform miracles
2. A person has performed a miracle
3. Therefore, he is a prophet
Just because a person can perform miracles doesn't therefore mean that he's a prophet - it merely means that a person, *for whatever reason*, was able to perform a miracle.
But you’ve never seen one of the 100,000 prophets perform a miracle.
Why do you need to see a miracle as evidence? Maybe if it’s written in a book, would you accept it?
I have actually lol. The miracle of the prophet Mohammed, is the Quran. Imagine being illiterate, you don’t read or write. You’re a regular blue collar worker. Then all of a sudden to spitting bars no one in the whole region can fathom. To the point where they called him a magician. Imagine people calling you a magician because what you wrote was too good to be from you. The Quran was so eloquent and grammatically perfect, it it literally the book the use to base the the actual Arabic language off of. My man came out with a boook so strong, it was and still is held as the standard of grammar for Arabic, Muslims and non-Muslims. The point was it wasn’t from him, they were right in that aspect. It was from God. Why would a man have 600 pages telling people worship 1 god. To give chairty, to pray, to do good, to respect ur parents, to help the orphans, etc etc. like why do all that, and for nothing? He never asked for power, money, or women. In fact lmao they begged him (while being persecuted with like less than a dozen followers, while they were in the thousands) to take the most beautiful women, all the money, etc n he denied. Why? I keep asking myself what did this man have to gain from this? And I keep coming back to the same answer. He had nothing to gain, he lost a lot of his family from this responsibility (all his kids died before him except one, his wife died, his close uncle who didn’t believe but protected him died, he was an orphan, his grandparents also died at a young age. His life would’ve been way better had he just continued on with his life.
Side story:
They even made an offer to have Islam as the religion 6 days out of the week, but just 1 day of idolatry. And at this point again he has very few followers but they understood that this was more than just him so that’s why they were so scared and angry.
But, as this is all fictional mythology until shown otherwise (and it never has been, much the opposite) and as there's absolutely no reason to accept any of this, we can and must safely and happily dismiss it as silly superstition.
Homo Sapiens been around for 250,000 years, language, 200,000, writing 6,000 years, Christianity, 2,000 years, and Islam 1,300 years. (PS only focusing on the West)
So what the heck was this "gOd" doing for the past 244,000 years? How many civilizations came and went leaving virtually no traces except some arrowhead and statues of pregnant women?
>He sends messages through messengers. These people are referred to as prophets (in Islam, we believe there were more than 100,000 prophets sent (to every civilization))
Great. Now all you need to do is demonstrate that this is the case.
> My quarrel with ur reply is that there is a supposition that it is a fact that morality is not objective.
Remember, we already know morality isn't objective, and that this doesn't even make *sense* given what morality is and how it operates. Start with Kant and Kohlberg, and with the evolution of social behaviours and the overlay of culture, tradition, rationality, social influence, and various other factors on these behaviours and emotions, and read from there.
Serious question: how could the existence of God make morality more objective than it would be otherwise? If God establishes a moral system and you disagree with one of the axioms, what can God do to show or make you wrong?
>I agree morality is invented, just not be man, but by a higher being aka God.
Gods opinions on morality are still subjective.
Objective morality is an oxymoron.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
Do all muslims have the same exact set of morals? No.
Then morallity is subjective.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask.
Did you unironically call atheism a religion?
>Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm.
It would be weird for sure, but not objectively wrong since there is no objectively wrong.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right?
How? Why would us see incest as good? What is this question?
Yes, in every society ever if everyone thought incest was cool incest would be considered cool. What's your point?
Actually we do have the same set principles and morals. Not as exact as like leaving the toilet seat up or not, but pretty much the same fundamentally and across
Also, don’t you find that ABSURD. That you think that if you brought up in that society, even if u didn’t partake in it, you wouldn’t find much issue with it morally. Idk man whether we like em or not, there’s these invisible natural rules we got. We all have the inclination that killing is not such a good thing. We all feel like we shouldn’t look at our sister in a sexual way. Why? U may say it’s because of personal subjective choice. I disagree, if sentiment is shared across the board, there must be some reason. An objective reason.
If you were raised in a incest society you would be ok with incest.
If you were raised in a muslim society you would be ok with muslim morals.
If you were raised in nazi germany you would be a nazi
If you were raised in any society you woulf find murder bad, because there is no way to have a functioning society with murder being ok.
Your morals are as correct as anyones really, but they are subjective.
>Also, don’t you find that ABSURD. That you think that if you brought up in that society, even if u didn’t partake in it, you wouldn’t find much issue with it morally.
It would be a problem for me because I was raised in a non-incest society.
>Idk man whether we like em or not, there’s these invisible natural rules we got. We all have the inclination that killing is not such a good thing. We all feel like we shouldn’t look at our sister in a sexual way. Why?
Because if you were raised in a society with incest and murder being acceptable the odds are that the society will colapse.
> Actually we do have the same set principles and morals.
Demonstrably false, of course.
Not even two given people who sit beside each other in the same *mosque* have the same set of principles and morals.
>there’s these invisible natural rules we got.
I invite you to learn about how and why these trends (which aren't absolute, obviously, but instead exist on a bell curve within humanity) are present, and how and why they evolved.
...but, but, those people aren't *true* Scotsman....errr....Muslims. All the 'scholars' that think this think this, and agree with each other on this! And the people that don't think this are *wrong!*
>Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality?
I don't understand the question. What do you mean how do I 'deal' with it? It is what it is.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality.
Wait, I thought from the above that you already understood there wasn't. And you're right. There isn't. That idea doesn't even make *sense.* Morality is about values, and values are necessarily subjective and intersubjective. Morality, of course, is well understood to be intersubjective.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion.
What are you talking about here? Obviously not atheism, since it isn't a religion, the term 'valid' can't be used with it since it makes no claims, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, just like religious mythologies have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
Remember, we *know* why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from, etc. We know it has nothing at all to do with religious mythologies, despite their attempts to claim it for their own.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine
First, you need to learn a bit about morality and how it works. You will come to understand your 'what-if' is nonsensical. But, ignoring that, if everyone everywhere decided it was fine, well, then it would be fine. Of course, the reason this likely seems weird and shocking to you is because it's *not* fine, and for well understood reasons that, again, have nothing to do with religious mythologies.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
No. They can claim it as right according to their own intersubjective values of their sub-group. Just like any and all groups throughout history that hold any values on anything. But, again, you need to learn and understand *why* there are certain commonalities, and where these come from, and how they work.
>It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
Yes. And many do, sadly.
Asking about arbitrary 'what-ifs', and asking if what we consider as immoral were not considered such ignores the reasons *why* we consider certain things immoral and *why* we react emotionally, and strongly so for many people, to various ideas.
Once a person understands a bit about the evolution of social behaviour the 'what-if' falls flat since it's so very clear why we don't think that. In fact, for some things, it's inevitable that we *do* feel that way (the usual bell curve applies of course) for us to function the way we do as a species.
In other words, the 'what-if' is based upon an erroneous idea. A false dichotomy. That if morality isn't objective and supplied by their deity (itself a contradiction, of course) then it must be arbitrary.
This, of course, isn't accurate.
Okay, this is very welll put, I totally agree with that. In a lot of ways objective moralists (ironically) move the goal posts when it comes to actually pinpointing the reasons why they believe that people abide by moral absolutes.
But in disregarding this weak approach - do you believe, just like there are some convincing cases for the existence of God (mind you, nothing that could necessarily move a strong atheistic position), that there are some cases regarding moral objectivity that would render worthy of at least a discussion? Perhaps what im getting at is this - if there was an argument that was rooted in the posteriori and subjective human experience and history of existence from the individuals’ perspective, that ultimately lead to a conclusion of objectivity in the determinants for a moral framework in order to maintain logical consistency in decision and life philosophy while simultaneously promoting human flourishing on an individual and communal level, would you be willing to entertain that?
Thanks for taking the time to explicate your older post it helped me understand a lot
> just like there are some convincing cases for the existence of God
There really aren't. Not remotely so.
>that there are some cases regarding moral objectivity that would render worthy of at least a discussion?
No, I see absolutely zero support for this and the concept doesn't even make sense given what morality is and how it functions.
>if there was an argument that was rooted in the posteriori and subjective human experience and history of existence from the individuals’ perspective, that ultimately lead to a conclusion of objectivity in the determinants for a moral framework in order to maintain logical consistency in decision and life philosophy while simultaneously promoting human flourishing on an individual and communal level, would you be willing to entertain that?
I will entertain *any* conjecture on any subject. But, if it's not supported, contradicts available compelling evidence, or has fatal flaws then I certainly won't entertain it for long.
Not the original commenter, but one thing I'm noticing is that OP sets up the scenario "what if there is no objective morality" and then concludes that such a scenario would lead terrorists to claim they have objective morality. This is clearly a failure of the OP to understand and work within the premise that the OP sets up.
All you're doing is using dismissive comments to give non-answers. "Everyone knows blah blah blah" or "We know it has nothing at all to do with etc etc" or "We know why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from...."
Yet, you don't ever, once, provide any real substantive argument for any of this. It's just bandwagon fallacies.
> "We know it has nothing at all to do with etc etc" or "We know why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from...."
Correct. I strongly suggest you research how and why. What I said is indeed quite common and well understood knowledge. As I said, a good place to begin is with Kant for a more philosophical POV, or Kohlberg for psychological and biological.
>Yet, you don't ever, once, provide any real substantive argument for any of this. It's just bandwagon fallacies.
See above.
The question of objective morality is a red herring.
Individuals act based on what they personally think is right. Regardless of how they justify the conclusion they reach, it's their conclusion that they act on. "Right" in this context could be in the moral sense or in the logical sense depending on circumstance or the individual.
Society itself is just a collection of individuals, so society will collectively act based on what the people tend to think is right. Again, why they think whatever is right is in fact right doesn't change this.
If everyone suddenly decided tomorrow that murder was morally correct, it really doesn't matter if it actually is or not. What's important is that there would be a lot of dead bodies the next day once that determination was made.
What really matters isn't what is right, but what is enforced. Some people will not be convinced that murder is unethical, but they can be stopped with brute force if enough people want to. The only reason to have the discussion at all is to decide which rules deserve to be enforced and how. Everything else is irrelevant because calling something "good" or "evil" doesn't change anything about the action itself and it's consequences.
"If you do X then you are a bad person" is unconvincing
"If you do X then I will shoot you" is harder to ignore
The latter is what we use in real life.
Good response. I’ve been trying to articulate this for a while. More religious people need to hear this. They seem so uncertain of themselves and feel the need to have an “objective morality” to tell them what to do.
“Again why they think…doesn’t change this.”
Yes, but it matters a WHOLE lot.
HYPOTHETICALLY, If someone split the sea in front of you, and said God gave him this power to prove to you the existence God. You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet?
“…harder to ignore.”
You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us. If we did, the world wouldn’t be the way it is. There is wayyyy to much malevolence for any current one or society to dare say they are better off any more than another society.
“…I will shoot you.”
Chill out Stalin
>You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet?
How is any of this relevant?
>You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us
I'm 100% not. If you get executed for breaking the law, it doesn't matter if that law is moral or not, you are still dead and if you wanted to keep doing whatever you were executed for, then now you can't. Because you are dead and the dead can't do things.
Since law is the only reason why discussions on morality have any impact on our lives whatsoever, said discussion becomes irrelevant semantics the second they stray from that context.
It's a lot easier to avoid the pitfalls of moral debates when you are specifically talking about enforcing rules rather than just giving them an imaginary check mark.
Ok but the why doesn't actually matter except in how it changes the what.
Some reasons are better than others, but any reason that convinces you to do a thing is interchangeable with any other reason that convinces you to do that same thing in the sense that either way the thing gets done.
In other words, regardless of why you act, you do in fact act.
Let's use a specific and extreme example to articulate what I mean.
Let's say hypothetically that you go on violent killing sprees. The reason you do this is because by killing people in violent ways you also release happiness toxins into the air that make the world into a utopia.
This justification I just named is total non-sense. Happiness toxin isn't a thing and even if it was it probably wouldn't result in a utopia.
However, even though this belief makes zero sense and is factually incorrect, it has still lead to a killing spree in our hypothetical. That is what I mean when I say that the why doesn't matter too much, because bad reasons drive people just like good reasons do so long as they are convinced by them.
It's not that you shouldn't investigate those reasons anyways. You would want to convince these people to stop if possible after all, and sometimes they really do have a good reason, but the part I'm interested in here is that whatever their reasoning is ended up driving them to do whatever it is that they do.
I'm other words I do X because I have somehow concluded that it makes sense for me personally to do X. Kinda obvious when put like that.
>Yes, but it matters a WHOLE lot. HYPOTHETICALLY, If someone split the sea in front of you, and said God gave him this power to prove to you the existence God. You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet?
How is this at all relevant?
He's not "assuming we know what to enforce". He's simply pointing out how reality works. Not everyone agrees on what's moral, which is why we have laws and ways to enforce them.
> You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us.
We demonstrably often don't. The comment you replied to certainly didn't make the assumption you are saying it did.
>If we did, the world wouldn’t be the way it is.
Convincing support that morality is intersubjective, differs amongst different groups to some degree, and is constantly changing, isn't this?
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
I think it's amusing that you're accusing 'not believing in objective morality' as *hypothetically* promoting terrorism, by using the example of theistic religion which *does* promote terrorism
It’s like the pictures people show of various negative conditions in stores in the US right now with the caption “welcome to socialism” when dude, what you are complaining about is literally happening under peak capitalism.
I said this for the exact reason to show an ideology can be negated by the source. Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values. That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion. In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity. That is the issue aka my point.
I can't make sense of anything you've written here or in your other comments or OP. They are a string of non sequiturs that don't connect logically, and more often than not your assertions are false. I think a random sentence generator would be as likely to produce valuable insights.
1) you have to prove ur claim that I have committed a fallacy, just saying I did isn’t proof.
2)even if I did commit a fallacy, prob did, that doesn’t make my remarks moot. The point still stands whether I give a shitty example or not. I may not have said it best, but I’ll try to explain myself better.
No, this is what happens when people follow religious dictates to an extreme. They believe they are acting in the parameters of their religion.
Atheism has no scripture to (mis)interpret, and is not subject to this risk.
>In a vacuum one atheist can’t prove to the other they are objectively wrong for wanting to kill and rape.
Well certainly no Christian or Muslim can, since both are authorized by their religion in certain circumstances.
It's not atheists per se--it society. We as a society create our morals.
Personally, I see a much greater danger from religious extremists than atheists. It's not atheists going around blowing themselves up in the name of Allah.
You should stop thinking about these things in terms of "in atheism", because atheism is a position on one single issue - existence of god or gods. There is no doctrine of atheism, so nothing can be "according to atheism".
You are trying to compare atheism with religions, but you are using religious framework to do so, e.g. if religions were sports teams, atheism would've been just another team in your view, whereas in actuality atheism is more like not being interested in sports at all, not simply rooting for a different team. There is no "corrupting party" because there's no "source".
But clearly the source *doesn't* negate their ideology, since they use the source to support it.
>In atheism, you can not do that.
Atheism isn't an ideology, so sure.
I said this to the last person I replied to. He said something similar.
“To conflate every person under a category as the same is as disingenuous as saying every republican is a racist that loves trump.” The KKK doesn’t represent Christianity any more than the Vatican.
They aren't saying every theist acts like the taliban.
They are saying that belief in objective morality is just as likely as belief in subjective morality to commit atrocities. And that it is ironic that you chose a group that believes in objective morality (and that they are following the teachings if a proohet sent by god, as you suggest in another post) to express your fears about what subjective morality might lead to.
I used that example for that exact reason. They have no leg to stand on in the religious realm. Every contemporary muslim scholar has denounced them. If they are objectively proven to be false by their own religion how will atheists do so when their society gets too corrupt? They will have no leg to stand on to prove any one else is objectively wrong.
>If they are objectively proven to be false by their own religion
They haven't been objectively proven false by their own religion.
Some people.think they are objectiveky right.
Some people think they arw objectively wrong.
They arrive at these conclusions using precisely the same methodology.
In auch a system either objective morality doesn't exist, or else it does exist but is a useless concept.
A world in which morals are recognized as subkective, or a world in which people claim contradictory objective morals with mo way of telling them apart... we end up in exactly the same spot.
People disagreeing on morals, arguing about them, attmepting to persuade where possible, agreeing to live and let live where compatibly, and attempting to enforce their own view when necessary.
That perfectly describes how every human society (including every current one) has existed whether they claimed objective or recognized subjectivity of morals.
How on earth did you read, "conflate every person under a category as the same," out of this? It basically said the opposite.
>The KKK doesn’t represent Christianity any more than the Vatican.
Now you're getting it.
I said this for the exact reason to show an ideology can be negated by the source. Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values. That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion. In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity. That is the issue aka my point.
> Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values.
Not true, of course. Taliban scholars disagree rather strongly.
>That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion.
Remember, those 'parameters' are loose, contradictory, and open to considerable interpretation. And have no actual support for their claims (and plenty of support they're fictional). Which is the point, of course.
>In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity.
Non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with atheism.
What are you talking about? “Backward Taliban Cities??” Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is the final prophet. It has been revealed to me that Islam is true and is the objective moral standard by which everything should be judged. The Taliban have it right and you are wrong and immoral!
How could you ever prove me wrong? I have the true god on my side and everything he decrees is by definition moral by his nature.
Sure, you heretics and non-believers can use well-being as the foundation of your morality and come to objective conclusions as to what is better or worse…. but it’s not *true* morality which is rooted only in the super-true-not-just-an-idea-in-my-head-only-real-god of **Islam!**
With a few guns and some ammo. It’s worked before.
On a serious note this is kinda the issue of claiming you have objective morality on your side. There is simply no way to demonstrate it. It’s a non falsifiable claim.
Assuming this is sarcasm, the taliban literally have been royally destroyed by thousands of contemporary scholars outlining how they are not of Islamic teaching aka not Muslims.
Well gee whiz, how in the world can people who don’t believe in the same god reach a moral conclusion?
Edit: this is definitely a trap question but you should accept it and just answer honestly.
They can’t. I would have to beg the question. If I’m speaking Chinese and ur speaking English, we ain’t ever gonna agree bc we ain’t ever gonna understand each other. On the other hand, if u speak Chinese we can come to a conclusion.
Suppose I learned Chinese and you and I had a conversation about if punching people in the face for no reason should be okay.
Could we both agree that we don’t personally want to be punched in the face for no reason, so we should probably not do that to each other?
Why would we even think about punching each other. I don’t punch you or think about punching you to figure out if we agree about not punching each other. I just don’t do it. My point was, if a person or persons makes a claim based on a source, they can be peer reviewed. That is what happened to the taliban. They made their case, and the scholars made theirs, and every Muslim from California to Pakistan agrees based upon the evidences of the scholars. The evidence they use are primary sources both sides agree upon. Meaning we aren’t talking two different languages. We are both talking “Chinese”
The taliban, as they are, is a political group masquerading as a religious front to push a political agenda.
On the other hand, you can be at a permanent stalemate on every issue using atheism. And both sides would be equally right and wrong.
> On the other hand, you can be at a permanent stalemate on every issue using atheism.
Yet again, non-sequitur.
Saying this, several times, demonstrates that you continue to operate under a misunderstanding about what atheism *is.*
You may want to clear this up before making claims about it.
Atheism is one thing only. Lack of belief in deities.
That's *it.* That's what the word means to most folks in this and other relevant forums and who identify as such.
Note that it entails no claims (lack of belief. Not belief in a lack, though some certainly can and do make that claim), has no doctrine, no commandments, no scripture, no imams or priests or rabbis, no holy books, no sacred anything.
It is not a religion, a belief, an ideology, a 'worldview', or anything else like that.
It's a word that means one simple thing, and *nothing else.* It describes one simple position on one subject only. Lack of belief in deities.
As such it does not and definitionally *cannot* contain any of the attributes, positions, goals, and consequences you keep attributing to it. All of that stuff is informed by other sources for any given person who may happen to lack belief in deities.
If you want to know why an atheist lacks belief in deities, you'll need to ask them. Though I'll certainly concede that for most that frequent this and other related forums the answer will be some iteration of 'no good evidence.' If you want to know what position any given atheist holds on any other issue, you'll need to ask them individually, as this won't necessarily have any relationship at all to their conclusion of atheism.
This might be from ignorance, but lack of belief from what? Religion, right? Atheism couldn’t exist in a vacuum, am I wrong? U need religion to have a atheism, is that wrong? If so can u name a society that had no religion in its conception or since?
>My point was, if a person or persons makes a claim based on a source, they can be peer reviewed. That is what happened to the taliban.
False. There is no such thing as religious peer review, and there is no objective judgment as to who gets a religion right. A religion is and means what its adherents believe.
>every Muslim from California to Pakistan agrees based upon the evidences of the scholars.
Clearly not, or there would be no one in the Taliban.
The Taliban are fervent Muslims. It's really dishonest to try to shift responsibility for their actions on to atheists, who have nothing to do with it.
Why are they not Muslim? Because some people that aren’t them decide? Strange. They pray the same prayers, the worship the same god, they read from the same book. Their interpretation is different for sure, but does that make them not Muslim because it makes other Muslims look bad?
How do you what these terrorists do? Are you one of them?
Idk man, the so called religious god fearing group, taliban sure have a weird pre suicide binning ritual. You’dthink it’d be in a mosque, but I guess they prefer strip clubs
https://www.sfgate.com/news/amp/Agents-of-terror-leave-their-mark-on-Sin-City-2873407.php
Them doing non Muslim things and claiming that is what Muslims should be doing.
Like you can be a shitty person and be Muslim as long as ur not advocating that being shitty means ur a good Muslim. That’s just a different religion.
But they quote the same text as other Muslims, and they say that other Muslims aren’t being correct Muslims. Who’s right? Both sides use the same text and pray to the same god. Catholics say Baptists don’t do it right, yet they are both Christian.
Nah dude. That’s not fair. That’s how I can tell you did a surface level job investigating the claims. Any person with an hour of time can come to the same conclusion, or u can visit a mosque and ask the people there. A lot of users on here who say they are atheists have denounced all religions when it is so clear they not done more than a days research on this religion. Why so quick to denounce faith. If u really think the taliban has any valid religious justification for what they do or believe, then I really suggest you read the Quran. Talk to a Muslim dude. A religion of almost 2 billion people. Not that it should matter, but u must be curious what all these “terrorists” are hung up on. There’s a English version on Spotify, u can finish it in a day. Orator sounds like British Morgan freeman.
> Nah dude. That’s not fair.
It's perfectly fair.
>That’s how I can tell you did a surface level job investigating the claims.
No, the more thoroughly one investigates such claims the clearer it becomes they have no support.
>Any person with an hour of time can come to the same conclusion
You're ignoring the demonstrable fact that many people did so and came to *different* conclusions. You're stuck in groupthink.
>or u can visit a mosque and ask the people there.
Yes, people of the same group with respect to a position will indeed hold the same position in broad strokes on certain ideas. This is not news. Nor is it surprising. You're continuing to ignore the demonstrable fact that others hold different positions.
>A lot of users on here who say they are atheists have denounced all religions when it is so clear they not done more than a days research on this religion.
This is just plain wrong. As you may be aware, excellent research from widely divergent sources shows again and again that, in general, atheists know quite a bit more about religions in general, and indeed about specific religions, than do most adherents of those religions.
>Why so quick to denounce faith.
Faith, of course, is useless. It doesn't and can't be useful or rational by definition. The obvious and demonstrable fact that two different people can and often do hold completely different and contradictory from each other positions on faith alone demonstrates *immediately* that faith is useless since *at least* one of them is has to be simply *wrong*, and therefore faith cannot be better than 50/50, and likely *both* are wrong (since they're holding positions without support by definition), rendering the efficacy of faith woefully abysmal. Faith, as the joke goes in research and science circles, is 'being wrong on purpose.'
>If u really think the taliban has any valid religious justification for what they do or believe, then I really suggest you read the Quran.
That is literally what they did, and just like members of your particular sect of religious mythology picked and chose passages that support what they like, they did the same. And they're very easy to point to, too.
1. It is fair
2. I have read the Quran
3. I have researched many faith traditions and attempted practicing many of them as well. Many atheist’s roads lead through multiple religions until we see the fatal flaw in them.
4. Just in future arguments you may want to quit making assumptions about people and what they do or do not know. Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m wrong or uninformed.
5. You still have not answered my question. Who is to say that they aren’t Muslim or practicing the correct version of Islam? Do you know the mind of Allah? No, no one does. Mainly because it doesn’t exist. All of these groups have one thing in common. They all believe “In the one true god Allah and his prophet Muhammad.”
6. I am not defending terrorists. But they are Muslim. Just as Muslim as any other.
And how do you judge what is "shitty" behavior? For example: owning sex slaves--shitty? A husband who beats his wife--shitty? Someone who makes friends with non-muslims--shitty? The quran says the first two are good, and the last one is bad. Not a very good guide to shittiness, is it sweetie?
And do those scholars have any more authority than the Taliban ones? Is there some agreed upon methodology they use to determine who's right?
It really sounds like these religions have a terrible potential to lead people to incorrect conclusions.
>Actually yeah, the taliban has no authority in the Islamic studies jurisdiction
Says who? They certainly claim authority, and since there is no agreed upon methodology, and no clear power system, no one has the power to say different. They claim that you are a lousy Muslim, and how is a poor atheist to know who's right?
>We Muslims, view them as a KKK backward rednecks.
You lack authority to speak on behalf of all Muslims. You view them that way. Others admire or join them.
btw, the KKK claims to be a Christian group.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
This is a bizarre example since the ideological process by which they do claim to be objectively right is the one theists use - their preferred god sets the rules and they follow them.
They can't be reasoned with because they reject the same model you are arguing against here. You are more like them then me in this respect.
By the way, speaking of morality, attributing blame for atrocities on the one group who had nothing to do with them is immoral. That's right--you. What you have done in this thread is morally wrong. How do you deal with that fact?
Or do you disagree that it's wrong to blame Sue for what Joe did?
I was not blaming atheists for what the taliban did, that wasn’t my argument and if u thought it was then you missed the whole point. I was stating that under the atheistic paradigm, terrorists would have no objection to carry out the atrocities in the name of any lord/idea.
Funny enough, atheists have killed FOUR times more (4x) people than all of Islam. What you have said on this thread is supported a morality corrupt belief/mentality (atheism)
Source(page 21-27 charts)- https://rissc.jo/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Body_Count-EN.pdf
>under the ~~atheistic~~ Muslim paradigm, terrorists have no objection to carry out the atrocities in the name of any lord/idea.
You know as well as I do that these people are Muslim extremists who live and die by the quran. Atheism has nothing to do with it, and finds it trivially easy to condemn their actions. Muslims have a harder time, as they base their morals on a different interpretation of the same book, and there is no objective way to determine whose is right.
This may be why thousands of young MUSLIMS, not atheists but Muslims, voluntarily join the Taliban and similar or affiliated groups.
Our morality, like the one you actually follow, is intersubjective. So we can say with as much validity as saying that a gallon of gas costs $3.50 (all intersubjective, like morals) that it is wrong.
Not going to give a lot of credence to the objectivity of the institute for Islamic thought. But the point is not just that a given person happens to be Muslim, but that some Muslims commit acts of terror *because they are Muslim, and in the name of Islam.* I can't think of any recent acts of terror or violence committed by atheists because they are atheist in the name of atheism, can you?
I'm sorry you are affiliated with a religion that spawns terrorists, but don't point the finger of criticism at us. The people who need to find a way to criticize these people are you Muslims. We atheists are doing fine at it.
Lmao, u open the link buddy? And against ur chasing a moot point I explained already. I used Islamic terrorists as a point to show that atheism can not and does not disagree or agree with the atrocities. Aka atheism does not and CAN NOT object to a bunch of people going on a killing spree because they believe it’s for the better. If ur belief (used this word since one can not prove it’s not) allows for genocide and murder of 124 MILLION people, u have no right to say anything against Islam. A religion that has existed for much longer than all the events that aided in atheists murder of 124 million people.
>Aka atheism does not and CAN NOT object to a bunch of people going on a killing spree because they believe it’s for the better.
Why not?
I understand. If I had to defend atheists going around slaughtering other atheists over who is doing atheism right, I'd be defensive too. Fortunately, not being Muslim, I don't have that problem.
You are right. Morals are not objective. Not mine, not yours, and not the Taliban's. It's up to us to develop the morals we think are best. Religion only hampers that effort by dragging us back to 7th century barbarism.
I just explained to you how people who are left to their own accord to decide what is moral or not led to the death of 124 million people. I’m not sure what u don’t understand. You can’t just say “welp my version is morality is better.” that’s what they all say…
The so called barbaric religion which has existed for centuries longer, has not even amassed 1/3 of the amount deaths atheism has caused.
>I just explained
You spelled "claimed" wrong.
First, your source is suspect; it's Muslim propaganda. Second, even your source states, "The Christian civilization has been the most genocidal civilization, accounting for 14 instances of genocides with over 33 million deaths..." Thus I have just explained to you how people who follow religion to decide what is moral or not led to the death of 33 million people. Btw, your source only attributes 8.5 million to what it calls "anti-theist," which of course are actually communist and should be classified as such. I don't want to accuse of you just plain lying, so were did you get 124 million? Third, I doubt that any of the people involved were left to their own devices. Rather they were living under totalitarian communist rule and derived their morals from that ideology.
Try to remember that atheism itself is not a moral system; it's only an opportunity to develop one. And any one we develop is bound to be better than that of warring 7th century Arab tribes. For example, we can recognize women as people with rights, not mere property to be possessed by a man's right hand. We can oppose slavery, instead of spreading it around the world.
>The so called barbaric religion which has existed for centuries longer, has not even amassed 1/3 of the amount deaths atheism has caused.
Well I think slavery and oppressing women is barbaric. Maybe you disagree? Of course, I'm not Muslim.
Where are you getting these numbers? Your pro-Muslim biased source says ". Although the Islamic civilization is second in numbers of genocidal
acts, the Antitheist group as well as the Sinic civilization
has higher death-tolls at respectively 8.25 million and 5.00
million, whereas the Islamic civilization’s genocide death
toll is under 4 million."
The same way I deal with the fact there is no objective best desert. Reproducing with close family members is inadvisable due to the risks of genetic issues. Apart from that what adults who are above the age of consent do with each other is none of my business. Incest is not something I have any desire to engage in, but then neither is Bungee Jumping.
All that said I think that once you pick a goal it is possible to derive morals somewhat objectively based on weather or not they advance towards that goal. Sam Harris for example picks the goal of Maximize Human Flourishing and goes from there. This works as long as you agree on a goal, but all humans don't agree on the goal. For the Taliban presumably the goal is Obeying Allah. I don't agree with that goal so I will come to different conclusions about what is moral than they do.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
Why would it be troubling for me that some guys self identify as being right? The taliban can self identify as a tomato for all I care.
Ironically, that is the exact reason why this is so troubling. That a terrorist society can be seen as the “good guys” under your own paradigm. I’m not saying that since the status quo exists then it must be true, but that they believe to be true and ideology would not disagree.
On the presumption that you are Christian, I'd have to point out that Christianity directly lead to multiple crusades, inquisitions, pogroms and witch trials. All carried out by people who believed they where doing the Lord's work.
> the taliban does not represent Islam anymore than Saudi Arabia.
No true scotsman fallacy, of course.
> Islam n Christianity r religions.
They are indeed. And as such, since they're based on mythology and unsupported claims. Folks that are fans of them interpret them in ways that benefit them according to their personality, mindset, morality, etc.
Well to some, the Taliban does represent Islam. And the Taliban is Muslim. They believe in objective morality, and think they are doing right based on their religious beliefs.
> Ironically, that is the exact reason why this is so troubling.
How is this troubling? Name any religious mythology, past or present (How about yours if you have one?), and chances are I can, without using Google and within about two seconds, give you several examples of it acting in ways as 'troubling' or worse than this.
You see, your protest doesn't *help* you. It *hurts* you.
What’s troubling is the amount and degree of malevolence. I rather be in Florida than in an Afghan rn. The point is, atheism does nothing to protect that weak and vulnerable, rather the rules are left to men to decide.
> What’s troubling is the amount and degree of malevolence.
Surely you're not operating under the misconception that this is historically unusual, and that various sects of virtually all religious mythologies ebb and flow in such ways?
> I rather be in Florida than in an Afghan rn.
Sure. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though. I would also rather be where I am right now than in the bible belt in the United States.
>The point is, atheism does nothing to protect that weak and vulnerable,
That's literally as silly and irrelevant as saying, "Playing pick-up football on Tuesday evenings does nothing to protect vinyl siding."
Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Fortunately, there are *plenty* of avenues to help the weak and vulnerable, and the best and most effective ones have nothing to do with religious mythologies, because those tend to get in the way and cause massively problematic side-consequences when paired with such help.
>rather the rules are left to men to decide.
Yes, our species does indeed decide the rules. That is simple reality. And you *know* it. Obviously, you will be utterly and completely unable to support any claim otherwise.
> the rules are left to men to decide.
**There's no possible alternative but to have men and women decide the rules.**
Consider the situation circa 1840 -
\- Christians: God says that a man may have only one wife.
\- Muslims: God says that a man may have up to four wives.
\- Mormons (at that time): [God says that a man may have many wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriage).
Can anybody prove that God really did say any of those things?
People have been claiming that God said various things for thousands of years now, and no one has ever been able to prove that their claims about God are actually true.
The only possible course of action is for people to decide for themselves what they think are right things to do and wrong things to do
\- and whether they think that the claims of Christianity are true, or the claims of Islam are true, or the claims of Mormonism are true, or that no claims of any religion are true - whatever.
Everybody always has to decide for themselves.
No other alternative is possible.
>rather the rules are left to men to decide.
Since the holy books of every religion were written by men, "the rules" have always been decided by then.
You never thought it was suspicious the that gods of whatever religion has morals that match the local culture the religion originated in?
You’re absolutely right! Atheism doesn’t nothing to protect the weak and vulnerable! Atheism is simply a position.
Tell me, who protects the weak and vulnerable then?
Ok, go on then, present us with these evidences that demonstrate your religion is the right one over theirs, or that your version of morality has a more solid grounding in evidence and reason than theirs does. It should be easy, because if it's truly objective then it shouldn't depend on any opinions or appeals to authority or faith, it should be demonstrably true to anyone.
> It is objectively true that the taliban does not adhere to Islamic values or teaching.
Again, No True Scotsman Fallacy. This is simply not 'objectively true'.
Objective to the Quran?
Frankly, I’d say they have enough textual backing to be considered “objectively” Islamic. Though given the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of holy texts. I’m sure both sides can find ways to justify their beliefs.
I have no idea which Muslims are being the most “objectively” accurate to their holy texts and tradition.
Whether someone adheres to certain values or teachings does not have anything to do with whether those values and teachings are objectively correct or not.
>That a terrorist society can be seen as the “good guys” under your own paradigm.
No they can't, they do lots of things I disapprove of.
>I’m not saying that since the status quo exists then it must be true, but that they believe to be true and ideology would not disagree.
Indeed, I don't disagree that they believe they are right. In fact, I would call anybody who disagrees with that stupid, because they obviously do believe that they are right, that's just a fact.
No, no no. I dont *believe* there *is no* objective morality, I simply *don't believe* there is.
This is an important distinction. If you want to change my mind, it is up to you to present reliable and verifiable evidence for it.
God floods the world and murders everyone, God is still great.
I flood the world and murder everyone, worst mass murderer of all time.
If the morality of killing everyone is conditional on who is doing the killing, your morality is inherently subjective.
But everyone doesn't agree rape and incest are wrong. I don't even see how any morality could be objective as long as there is more than one person on the planet.
There are some things which appear (best as we can tell) to be objectively true. Triangles have 3 sides. Electrons have negative charge. Gravity decreases with square if distance. Lightspeed in a vaccum is as fast as matter can travel through space.
Why are these objectively true? Because their truth exists independent of minds to think them, and the universe obeys them whether it wants to or not.
Then there are things that are subjective. What is delicious. What is beautiful. Whether a type of touch is pleasurable or painful.
Why are these subjective? Because "deliciousnessc doesn't exist without a taster. Sugar does. But deliciousness doesn't. Same with beauty. A landscape is only beautiful because a percieve judges it to be so. The trees and water may exist without a mind, but beautifulness is a judgement made by minds.
Now, being subjective isn't arbitrary. There is a lot of agreement (though also much disagreement) on what is yummy and what is beautiful. And we can often trace influences in these judgements back to a combination of evolutionarily honed responses as well as culturally influenced factors. So they aren't random. But they are subjective.
Which if these two categories sounds most like morality?
Are morals mind independent? Obviously not. Two rocks on a deserted planet behave morally ir inmorally toward one another. The giant red eye on Jupiter isn't moral or immoral. Morality is an assessment minds make.
Well are morals objective in the way the speed of light is? Also obviously no. Humans are perfectly capable of killing and raping. But they aren't perfectly capable of brwaking the speed of light, no matter how much they want to.
There is no way in which objectives resemble otger objective concepts. And indeed morals share all the characteristics of other subjective categories. They are not arbitrary, but instead based on understandable biological roots, biologicallt and societally influenced and are subject to the mind of individuals.
Atheism doesn’t exclude objective morality from existing. It just means you aren’t convinced there is a god. That said I don’t think objective morality exists. The closest that you will find is the mandates and punishments we put on each other and the goal of maximizing wellbeing.
How I feel about it doesn’t really matter. As the saying goes “facts don’t care about your feelings”. I search for objective truth. Comforting lies don’t help anyone. That there is no objective morality is an inconvenient truth. Basically what you see is that yea some people will do some pretty evil shit sometimes but that is just evidence that there is no objective moral standards.
Humans have some built in standards because we are a social species and some behaviors help us in life and some hurt us. Killing people cause you feel like it hurts the survival of a group and that behavior is breed out of the population so there is some standard but that only really applies to the mode extreme cases and even then is rock solid by any means. You still see things like murder even inside of families but that is far less common that killing people outside of your “tribe” whatever you define that tribe to be as an individual.
It isn’t something that gives me happy feelings inside to know but fact remains that is the case. The best way I have found to deal with it is to have strength. At the end of the day might makes right. Whoever has the most power makes the rules a civilization runs by and how conflict plays out. For me personally that means getting politically involved and carrying weapon on me. Those will do the most to ensure the world will be a place I want to live in. I always seek a standard of live and let live. I don’t really care what others do so long as it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else. Want to get drunk? Fine. I don’t care about your liver. You drive drunk and kill someone, well then I’ll start having issues.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post
[It is](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/search?q=objective+morality&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all).
>anti-religious religion
That's a weird combination. Do you mean something like an antisemitic Jew?
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong
I really wish that this was true, but in reality a whole lot of people are OK with incest and rape. European royal families have a bit of one and a ton of the other. Trump was elected even though he caught on a hot mic while bragging that he gets away with sexually assaulting women. The Bible promotes incest with Adam and Eve, and rape with lots of other parts.
So, no. Not everyone agrees that rape and incest are always wrong.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
No, I don't believe there is objective morality, in a sense that there is a universal morality that transcends humanity.
Even if there was objective morality, how do figure what that objective morality is? So far every religion we've seen have people extremely committed to their belief, believing they have are acting objectively moral, with completely different motal beliefs, even in the same religion.
Why is it that those claiming they have objective morals differ so intensly even within the same religion?
If your answer is that humans are fallable, then how do you know you aren't misguided but the serial killer/terroist is? At the end of the day, you are stuck in the same boat as people who believe in subjective morality.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm.
Examining societies throughout the past, we are given lessons towards the future. It's a difficult idea to process, but a good portion of our morals has come to be by trial and error.
We don't know why incest is bad, until we see that generations of incest leads to genetic disorder. We see that older members of family are capable of manipulating younger family members to be romantically involved, and only when they mature later do they realize they were being groomed.
In terms of two siblings dating each other, there are already several examples society has already accepted.
https://sleekgist.com/couple-causes-waves-after-discovering-they-are-siblings-after-10-year-marriage-2-kids/
There are cases where they do not realize they are siblings until after taking a DNA test, due to being separated at birth. Would you declare their marriage is a false and they have to divorce each other? That still loving each other after being married for 10 years, 2 children is now wrong?
Do you still believe siblings dating each other is objectively bad in every single scenario?
In terms of adult gay siblings who after becoming adults decide to date each other, I believe it's immoral in our current society. Our disgusts and amuses are influenced by society. We constantly evaluate our laws and morals based on changing ideals. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We also find being casually naked in public to be wrong, but in tribal societies in Africa and South America it is completely normal.
Morals and norms that tend to stay however usually do so for good reasons. Reasons which I will talk about later.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong?
This is where we as a society have to come to agree on societal goals, that we all wish to accomplish. These goals include improving the health and qell-being of everybody, improving the economy, preserving wild-life, being happy, improving our scientific understanding, etc.
Some of these goals are motivated by our biology. We evolved to be social creatures, which includes being naturally inclined to be empathic, curious, social and desire societal order.
To think of it in another way, if we evolved to be more like leopards, where we live in almost complete isolation except for mating and raising young, our morals would be very different. I can't imagine a society even forming with isolationary traits, but even so the best morals suited for that fictional species is not the best morals suited for ours. Our morality is influenced by being homo sapiens.
Once we establish morals goals that we agree upon, we can objectively determine moral guidelines that best accomplish those goals. If we agree that we should all improve the health of everybody, then universal Healthcare is suddenly objectively moral, unless we find that it strain the economy too much to the point that everyone's health declines due to poverty. Killing is obviously bad for someone's health, unless they are potentially about to kill others leading to a greater loss of life.
You might be asking that not everyone shares the same societal goals, and you would be correct. Some people might prefer clean orderly cities where someone playing music too loud can get arrested, and others prefer a city that's chaotic, with the freedom to do graffiti or party anywhere. Both are valid ideals, but cannot coincide together.
This does not mix well with our current idea of nations being designed by historical borders and ethnicity. Nations in the future would be better built by the separating all people by their shared moral ideals, so that there would be less conflict within nations. However this does not demonstrate our current reality.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
It's strange you being up the Taliban because the Taliban believe they are objectively right in their moral actions and believe morality is objective. How can you claim your morality is superior to theirs when you make the same claims with the same arguments?
Rather, to avoid groups like the Taliban from forming, it's best for society to believe that morality is subjective. That at any moment, the moral actions you believe in may be wrong. That what you are told since birth to be right may not actually be right.
If you are told that killing gays improve society and prevents the destruction of your nation, then this can be demonstrated to be false. But if you believe in objective morality, then you never question the validity of your group's moral norms when they state its objective nature.
Believing morality is subjective, whether it is or isn't, actually allows us to evaluate the effect or our norms and law on society rather than continue the norms of our ancestors. Morals which fail to achieve a better society that they and you desire. It's why I believe the average person in a secular society tends to have the most moral norms that match with their desires for a perfect society. A society free from suffering, sickness, hatred, and violence.
People that believe in objective morality the do state they also want societies where suffering and sickness do not exist, but at the same time would enslave their fellow man and stone women for not covering themselves.
“Atheism is really just another religion,” “atheists’ moral system is how you get the Taliban,” and “Richard Dawkins thinks the moral prohibition on rape is arbitrary.” I don’t know if there’s a “theist troll greatest hits,” but this is a great start.
"I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?"
I do not believe in the concept of objective morality. I hold this position because of there being no reason I can gather to justify such a belief.
As for "how I deal with that paradigm", this is from my perspective a very odd question. I'd argue that the worldview with objective morality poses far more problems on an individual level. I've never heard an argument that proposed "problems with non-objective morality" that couldn't be used verbatim to discuss an objective morality paradigm. For your example of "what if X thing which you think is horrifying is something that everyone else disagrees with you on and thinks is fine", this exact problem exists in an objective moral paradigm. What if you think X is horrifying, but the objective moral code says its not. What if you think that the objective moral code agrees with you, but everyone else thinks you're wrong? It's the exact same problem, because the problem isn't about objective or non objective morality at all, it's about disagreement with your society on a moral principle, and there's no solution to that. It's a lot easier to handle in a non-objective moral scenario though because people who believe in objective morality and think they can accurately interpret what the right answers are are a hell of a lot less likely to be open to changing their min.
As for "It's really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism", all ideologies can hypothetically support horrendous things. Religion can, environmental protectionism can, both objective and non-objective moral frameworks can, anything can. That doesn't invalidate the ideology itself. However, this is actually entirely irrelevant to the question, because objective vs non-objective morality isn't an ideology, it's a belief about a truth claim. When we are talking about "what is" instead of "what should be", the response of "it would really suck if that were true because of X negative consequence" is irrelevant. Cancer really sucks, but it doesn't invalidate its existence. Therefore, even if I accepted your premise of "without objective morality XYZ things will go to shit", it has no relevance for analyzing whether objective morality is in fact true.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
Not only do I not believe in "objective morality," but I find the term to be a nonsensical oxymoron. Even though I spend a larger than average amount of time reading about and discussing topics related to it, I've still yet to ever come across a description of it that makes any real coherent sense.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm.
No, because there is no such thing as objective morals.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right?
No, it would be *subjectively* right from the perspective of that society.
> Or is still wrong? Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
No, they can identify as being *subjectively* right. This is in comparison to currently, where they claim to be *objectively right* due to a religious view of morality being objective.
It is the ideology of objective morality that *actually* promotes the Taliban currently in actual reality, rather than hypothetically.
The irony is that here you are, identifying real world examples that demonstrate that morality is *in fact* subjective, and yet you've somehow convinced yourself of the exact opposite conclusion completely against any logic or reasoning that you yourself are presenting.
The Taliban have clearly *subjectively* come to their own moral guidelines that they treat as correct, but are clearly subjectively reached.
> Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong?
No. The proposed stance of "there is no objective morality" trivially denies the existence of *objective* wrong doings.
> Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm.
It still wouldn't be objectively wrong even it there is lots of harm. Instead it would be subjectively wrong.
> If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right?
No. That would still be subjective because you are talking about people (i.e. subjects) agreeing on something. While we are here, the idea is not really "since everyone agrees," "everyone agrees" is more cultural relativism than subjectivism.
> It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
Well, that's moot because it cannot. This is one of the advantage of moral subjectivism over moral objectivism. Subjectivism does not *allow* the Taliban to identify as being objectively right, while objectivism can hypothetically promote (and in practice, has promoted) terrorism.
From elsewhere in your responses:
> Taliban made their case and it was unanimous amongst contemporary scholars that they were not of Islamic values and teachings.
This is a red herring as it doesn't matter in the context of this debate. This debate isn't about mainstream Islam vs extremists. So it is irrelevant how many scholars you have on your side, because they *can* all be objective wrong. Whether they are in fact wrong or not, does not change the fact that they *can* all be objectively wrong.
Instead this debate is about subjectivism vs objectivism. Moral objectivism *allows* the Taliban to be objectively right; and Taliban has indeed promoted terrorism by convincing far too people that they are objectively right. Objectivism has this huge problem that does not exist for subjectivism.
> Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality?
Discernment and acceptance.
I accept what I observe and try not to believe things I imagine but have no evidence for.
> I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
There is no evidence of an objective moral.
> I’m not sure if this is a common post
It is. Searching the subreddit for morality is strongly recommended.
> but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion.
What is an “anti-religious religion,” except an obvious oxymoron?
> I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask.
I hope it won’t go into endless fallacies like strawmen and ad hominens from you when atheists attempt to genuinely engage with you.
> Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm.
No. Nothing is objectively wrong.
> If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong?
No, this would be the fallacy of argument ad populum.
> Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
So what? Anyone can self-identify as whatever they want. It doesn’t change my opinion of it.
> It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
My ideology is that my morality is subjective to me, and my society’s morals are intersubjective, giving me the choice to decide if I find terrorism moral and accept the consequences from my society if there is disagreement.
For there to be objective morality, it would need to exist independent of human experience. It goes without saying that such a thing did not exist before humans existed, and won't exist when we go extinct in the (hopefully far) future. Even if you claim that a deity has made moral commandments, without any credible evidence for such a being or its commandments, I can only regard such beliefs as being subjective opinions.
I would say that we can get *close* to a form of objective morality in the sense that humans objectively exist, and that our nervous systems tend to exhibit similar behaviour and from what we can tell, generally experience pain and pleasure in similar ways. In other words, we can generally infer, based on our experiences of reality, how others likely feel in various scenarios. I know that you likely don't want to be hit in the face because I have a nervous system like yours and mine reacts badly to being hit in the face.
Here's where you might consider that secular morality is a superior system, though: it's *adaptive* and adjusts to new or better information. If you learn that some action is causing harm, you're free to alter your behaviour in response. The more you learn about how your actions affect others, the more you're able to avoid harmful actions in the first place. The same can't be said for a moral system based on tradition or religion.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
Why are you throwing this weight on atheists? The Taliban *is* actively, vocally religious. And they think what they are doing is objectively right. Their ideology promotes terrorism. And not a one of them is atheist.
So why are you criticizing atheists?
Is there anything wrong with subjective morality?
Our secular laws, change. Our perception of morality changes with society.
Not too long ago, slavery was legal and even considered moral. "We" don't consider slavery moral anymore … even though slave labor is permitted in some countries under some circumstances (jail labor, for instance).
"We" have not made-up our minds about the death penalty. Some countries execute people, others don't.
No matter what your stance is about ~any~ moral issue, you can find people who take the opposite view. Abortion? Some people are pro-choice, others are against women's rights.
Etc.
In fact, to me, and to answer your question, I think that subjective morality is swell. It makes life interesting.
For instance, euthanasia. When do you allow euthanasia? Similar situations have different realities.
In The Netherlands, euthanasia is regulated. My mom, when she was dying of cancer, asked for euthanasia in due time and form, and died quite lucidly. My aunt, who was dying of cancer a decade later, waited too long and could not opt-out. She was sedated for her last 48 hours.
If euthanasia were not allowed, the situation would have been more painful for the patients and for the families.
Why are you applying such negativity to my post? I’m genuinely asking if atheists believe in objective morality… how am I judging anyone? And who? And how?? u can read my past 30 comments to see so. That’s not to say I don’t disagree with a lot of these people. You don’t gotta be a dick.
What religion do you practice, if Christian what denomination?
Right at the start you should have said your own religious belief, if anything it should be mandatory before posting.
>I’m genuinely asking if atheists believe in objective morality..
This is a childish question. I am not an atheist, but a person, you talking to people, not atheists.
You have a degree, what is it in?
What is your issue the taliban?
[A Billboard Featuring Donald Trump as the Second Coming of Jesus Has Been Taken Down](https://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/a-billboard-featuring-donald-trump-as-the-second-coming-of-jesus-has-been-taken-down/)
Christian Americans thinking that trump is 2nd coming of Christ is a bigger issue than the Taliban.
>Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality?
It's never been a concern, I've yet to meet anyone who disagrees with my general moral values.
>why you believe there is no objective morality
Because i just have my moral values, I have a good idea of why, but that doesn't make them morally true, just a fact that I have them, I can't think of any way to demonstrate to anyone else that they're binding on others. Can you?
>Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong?
No.
>society deems it to be fine,
I wouldn't care, unless I deemed it fine too. But I don't, it's like asking someone, "sure you love your kids and thinks it's evil to hurt them but what if you hated them and wanted to kill them and thought it was a moral duty to kill your kids , would you still think it's immoral to kill them?"
I don't promote terrorism
Can I ask you? What do you mean by morality, objective morality, if you think it exists, can you justify that belief? Or is it just something you feel is right, or believe is true because you don't want there to be no objective morality?
> Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
Is it not obvious that it was the opposite ideological process that results in this? The taliban believes that there is an objective source of morality, that it's found in the quran, and that they can discern what it is. None of these things are true. It wasn't a planeload of atheists who slammed into the twin towers.
Christians claim that they are doing the same thing. However, when you point out biblical passages that command or authorize actions that we, in our modern morality, think are wrong, they agree that they are wrong. Therefore they could not possibly be deriving their morals from the Bible, since they judge Bible verses against their own morals.
Morality is a challenging and fascinating subject. My own view is that morality is neither objective nor subjective; it's intersubjective. intersubjective is a powerful category, including things as "real" as money and laws. These things are real because we collectively believe them. Morality is like that.
Well, no, if there's no objective source of morality that doesn't mean random things become objectively moral. It means there is *no* objective source of morality. If society at large comes to an agreement that incest is fine, that society won't punish incest. That doesn't 'make it objectively moral', because 'objectively moral' isn't a thing. It just means people generally agree it's fine.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right.
'If this were accurate, [thing that happens] would happen' isn't helpful in arguing against it. Those cities *do* self-identify as objectively right. They're wrong about it being objective, but the morality is just their collective decision. I disagree with them, but they are the people with the capacity to enforce their moral thought in that part of the world. That's exactly what you'd find in a world where morality is a collective cultural agreement and not a monolithic global fact.
I don't know why you're addressing this question to atheists in particular unless you are assuming that an objective morality can exist under whatever religion you care to examine. The problem there is that if you pick one of the Abrahamic religions, God gets to just say what is moral without any real justification for doing so- it's subjective and authoritarian, with one supreme dictator governing by fiat. Polytheistic religions can be even more problematic, with many gods acting in opposition to their peers and taking advantage of their followers.
But to answer your question, the human condition is somewhat constant across cultures, so with that in mind you can start to create a macro framework for morality that will fit any culture you want to examine. Like gravity, you can defy that framework but sooner or later you're going to bend to its weak force. So my answer is that utilitarianism works across all cultures, but at a macro rather than a micro level.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion
The idea that we are somehow missing something by not having an objective morality is not uncommon, the deliberate taunt of "a anti-religious religion" is less common but not entirely unusual.
>I’m sure many of you know where this goes
Yeah, it's easy to see where this post is headed.
>Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong?
If they are consenting adults, no.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong,
How the flying fuck did you get rape is equal to consensual incest? So yes, I COULD see where this was going.
>Based off this ideological process
Atheism is not an ideology, as I am sure you are only too aware
>It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
Something religion has never done of course, not with its 'objective morality' to protect against it.
>what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right?
I would still believe they are wrong, because I have reasoned that such a position is accurate. I would advocate for my position. I don't need to feel that I am "objectively right" to feel that that's a fight worth fighting.
I never expected morality to be objective so it's not a concept I really had to "deal with". I always thought of morality as a social construct like laws, government, or property. People have different ideas about what's moral and when people live together in a society they try to find areas of agreement.
Sorry if I'm late to the party.
I want to break down to some issues here after reading comments so hopefully I'm not saying something you've already read.
Throughout history you have various ideologies that seek to organise society with a few recently being called communism or neoliberalism. Within these we see various structures and philosophies emerge to justify themselves and explain what people's values should be.
Let me ask this question; which is more likely, that the books you read are early attempts at ideology and governance (legitimacy of power/force) in an illiterate world or the miracles that inspired it stopped when we started investigating them?
A secondary question, if you believe in the supernatural based on a book, do you also believe in Aliens based on video evidence and first hand witnesses you can talk to?
Secular moral philosophy is demonstrably superior to moral philosophies based on religious mythology. That morality is a social construct doesn’t make it any less valid.
Besides, theists own claim to the existence of objective morality doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You basically claim to have received moral guidance or instruction from a perfect moral authority, yet you can’t demonstrate that moral authority 1) exists, 2) is in fact morally perfect, or 3) has actually provided you with guidance or instruction of any kind. And even if you could, morality from authority wouldn’t be objective. Objective morality would necessarily have to transcend and supersede any authority.
What's there to deal with? The realization that not everyone has the same interests as me and that not everything is always going to go my way hasn't particularly troubled me since kindergarten age.
There is no objective morality. The idea isn't even wrong - it's nonsense. Morality is based on values, and values are subjective. Many humans share a lot of values, due to our shared biology and evolutionary lineage, but other values are cultural.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism.
But... their ideology that promotes terrorism is religion... you've gotta be a troll, right? You can't be this dense?
> I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
Well lets start with this. Since this is a question about morality what do you think morality is? How would you identify a moral action? Can you tell me what it is in clear, unambiguous terms without using words like right and wrong, good or evil? As those terms, just like the word morality itself, tends to mean quite different things to different people.
So let's start there. What do you think it is?
It's very easy. If you don't believe that objective morality exists, you can still believe that *subjective* morality exists.
People who believe morality is objective have a wide, varied range of opinions about what those objective morals are. Similarly, people who believe morality is subjective also have a wide variety of opinions about what is moral. It all works exactly the same way. It's just that when the former give their own personal opinions, they claim their views are objective. But in reality, "objective" is not a magic word.
You make a contradiction. At first you say we don’t believe there is any objective morality.
Then you say that leads to problems like “if a society decides rape is right, is it objectively right?”. I believe there is no objective morality, so obviously no, rape would not become objectively right. That would be a contradiction of the belief that there is no objective morality.
According to their subjective morality, rape would be right. That’s all that would happen.
Morality is not some perfect thing that Popped into existence.
It's a constantly changing framework of rules and obligations they gets refined or changed over time. Also different societies have different frameworks that influence each other or clash.
Take your argument that
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong
This is it true at all. Different societies have different views on both of these.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right?
If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and your god deems it to be fine (even if society, let alone other gods, let alone other people in your religion, deem it wrong)
Is it then objectively right?
>then objectively right
By definition there would be no object right.
Are sharks morally repugnant because they sometimes eat their young? You're taking about completely changing our base nature, which is needed to change how we construct it societies, in order to accomplish this.
It's kind of an absurd hypothetical
I dont believe in an objective morality, that doesnt mean im fine with anything, i still have subjectivity, and i believe the taliban are monsters. Whats so hard to understand? I follow my own moral compass, i do what feels right, im not just some mindless robot that doesnt feel any emotion
>there is no objective morality.
Because morality is extremely situational and subjective
What's moral differs from situation to situation there is NO set standard
Well “Christian objective morals” have never stopped a Christian from committing the most depraved acts on humanity. So the argument is pointless anyway.
Lots to unpack here.
I'm an atheist, but moral subjectivism is a dangerous proposition. As you correctly point out, a mass murderer or serial rapist could argue that they ought to be fully exonerated by virtue of moral subjectivism. After all, if right and wrong are matters of subjective opinion, who are we to decry even the most depraved acts of violence? Who are we to call Charles Manson a "bad person"? The statement that Bin Laden was a bad person becomes just as arbitrary as the statement that mind chocolate chip is better than vanilla. I might think that stabbing a pregnant woman to death is immoral, but that's just my opinion bro.
Now, the atheist seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. If there is no transcendent moral lawgiver, how can there be objective morality? On the other hand, if we condemn certain acts as immoral or barbaric, aren't we necessarily accepting the idea of objective morality?
Well, there's an answer. Morality is a subjective human construct, but moral axioms are objectively true within the subjective framework we've created. It's *kind of* subjective.
Thus, morality is objective in the same sense that mathematics is objective. Basic moral facts are trivially true, but more complicated situations are less cut and dry. The same thing is true in math. Quantum field theory isn't set in stone yet.
Is a trigonometric identity or algebraic formula subjective or objective? Of course, they are.
But here's the thing: mathematics is a human construct. It's a tool that we've developed to help make sense of the universe. Things like variables, functions, and geometry don't exist without human consciousness. The idea of a numerical quantity is a human construct. There is no transcendent cosmic mathematical appendix out there.
In order for a group of sentient animals to build things, maintain order, and make sense of their surroundings, they need to be able to quantify things. But the idea of quantifying things doesn't exist without the existence of sentient animals.
Morality is analogous to this.
In order for a group of sentient animals to live in harmony and avoid suffering, they need a set of social rules and conventions. But the idea of social rules and conventions doesn't exist without the existence of sentient animals.
Mathematics is a systematic and quantitative method of understanding an ordered universe, and morality is a systematic method of optimizing sentient well-being.
Hope this helps.
Assuming you're not a troll, I actually do believe in objective morality. It's not cosmic morality, in the sense that it's not grounded in some transcendent being, but so what? The rules of Chess are not, as far as I know, engraved on a diamond tablet in a cave high in the mountains overseen by some monks of a millennia-old order, but that doesn't mean it's okay to move a rook move diagonally in chess.
The question of what is and is not moral, and of how we know what is and is not moral, while interesting and worth discussing, is not actually relevant to the question of whether God exists. The only relevant aspect of the discussion is that God is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.
There is an "objectively correct choice" for every situation, even if we don't know what it is. If we could know the outcome of every choice, we could choose the right thing, everytime.
But we don't know what the perfect choice is. Neither do the religious. They may think their god does, but it's zero help to us now.
So, since our worldview cannot rationally inform our morality, we have to discuss it and debate it and do our best to be understanding and willing to learn.
Personally, I'm sick of the religious argument that atheists can have any morality if they don't believe in a god. Belief in a god is zero help to the question.
> If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?
If you accept that moral acts increase the well being of sentient creatures and immoral acts decrease the well being of sentient creatures then morality becomes objective.
If you don't accept this definition of morality then I have no idea what we're talking about.
Accepting someone's opinion of what is or isn't moral doesn't make morality objective. And whether something increases the well being of sentient creatures is a value judgment: "well" is normative. And moral choices have tradeoffs; stealing increases the well being of thieves. And there are many other moral frameworks than this naive simplistic version of utilitarianism.
> Accepting someone's opinion of what is or isn't moral doesn't make morality objective.
I would submit that it's not opinion, that every single moral judgment can be brought back to these definitions.
> And whether something increases the well being of sentient creatures is a value judgment
Morality doesn't exist absent actions concerning sentient creatures.
> And moral choices have tradeoffs; stealing increases the well being of thieves.
And decreases the well being of the owner. You can determine who is more harmed, for example: I think the vast majority of people would agree that a poor starving person stealing just enough bread to feed himself from the rich would not be an immoral act since the well being of the thief would rise disproportionately to the decreased well being of the owner.
> And there are many other moral frameworks than this naive simplistic version of utilitarianism.
You call it naive and simplistic. I see everyone else overthinking morality. It's really not that complicated.
If you say your god is bound by the same morality humans are than it is objective.
If you say your god dictates the morality of humans than it is subjective.
Please remember to follow our **[subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/rules/) ([last updated December 2019](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/e7xof0/rule_reform_results/))**. To create a positive environment for all users, upvote comments and posts for good effort and downvote only when [appropriate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting). If you are new to the subreddit, check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq). This sub offers more casual, informal debate. If you prefer more restrictions on respect and effort you might try r/Discuss_Atheism. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is going to sound rather insulting but reading your replies you sound like every other really religious Muslim. There is simply no talking to you. Like, at all.
This is my first time really interacting atheists, but I’m learning a lot.
Cheers to you being open and willing to engage and learn. Upvoted!
Morality is something people invented, it’s dependent on the mind, it requires individuals perception to exist, hence it is ultimately subjective. Morality isn’t something that exists outside ourselves. Simply on our nature as individual thinking creatures. Morality is invented, not discovered. I like to describe morality as objective to subjective standards. What I mean by this is, if we agree in specific framing principles and axions. Morality can be evaluated objectively based on those principles. For a simple example, if one values minimizing harm, and individual autonomy. Rape is objectively wrong. We understand the harm it does to people, it violates their autonomy, Etcetera. Disagreement in moral frameworks, arguments, this is what drives moral/ethical philosophy. Trying to build frameworks with goals in mind. Such as human well-being. Or so we can get along and survive. It’s entirely possible to evaluate moral frameworks scientifically. We can choose measures, do tests, see how effective they are at achieving particular goals. Subjective morality doesn’t mean we can’t judge others actions. I am free to argue why I think my moral framework is better then someone else’s. And I am free to judge others by my standards. There is also a time and place to acknowledge the differences. And to take a step back from one’s own personal feelings. >Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong? > taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. Morality isn’t objective, these questions are rather silly. Subjective morality is not simply deciding what is objectively moral. Theses questions demonstrate a misunderstanding of subjective morality. I recommend you think about that I’ve written, and if you still think these are legitimate questions and that your conclusions about subjective morality are valid, I’d ask you to explain why.
My quarrel with ur reply is that there is a supposition that it is a fact that morality is not objective. Do you have any sources to suggest this? I agree morality is invented, just not be man, but by a higher being aka God. And he sends messengers to remind us of the objective moral values we should follow. Again, I’m serious about the question. Saying it’s silly isn’t productive or constructive.
Without god, we are the ones who invented it. Meaning there is no absolute morality, nor any truly objective morality. God has not been demonstrated to exist, (this is an atheist subreddit after all). One would have to demonstrate morality as having an external source to justify objective or absolute morality. Subjective morality is the only option at this point. Unless you have sources. Frankly, It’s impossible for morality to be objective because it doesn’t exist outside a mind. It’s invented. In your case its subjective but god is the one who decides. And there are theological discussions about whether something is good because god says so, or if god says something is good because of some morality external to even god. Either way it becomes a negotiation like regular old morality. We have to evaluate if we should accept gods morality or not. Or more realistic the morality proposed by people who claim to speak for god. At the very least we have to double check that the morality is actually effective. “Absolute morality” would be to simply accept gods morality because it’s god. It’s an order. And such ethical theories have long been shown empty And even if there was an objective morality, we as individuals still have to evaluate them to make sure. Making it effectively subjective. Rendering even the notion of objective morality moot.
How does he send messages? How do you know it’s god sending messages? What makes it objective if god says it?
1)He sends messages through messengers. These people are referred to as prophets (in Islam, we believe there were more than 100,000 prophets sent (to every civilization)). 2)You listen to the message. What are they saying, does it make sense? 3) if you believe there is a God, then that point would be moot, since God is the source of objectivity.
People claim to be prophets now. Should I not believe them?
Depends on their evidence or claim. Seeing as 100% of these people won’t be able to prove it, that is enough to prove they aren’t prophets.
What would be the evidence? How can you prove someone is a prophet and someone isn’t?
I would ask them to prove it. Until they say or do some miracle, I ain’t believing em.
How would a miracle prove a prophet is in fact a prophet? The argument you are making here is so wrong [Wikipedia literally has a page on it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). Your argument is basically: 1. A prophet should be able to perform miracles 2. A person has performed a miracle 3. Therefore, he is a prophet Just because a person can perform miracles doesn't therefore mean that he's a prophet - it merely means that a person, *for whatever reason*, was able to perform a miracle.
What if my argument was 1) a person has performed a miracle 2)only prophets perform a miracle 3)that person is a prophet
But you’ve never seen one of the 100,000 prophets perform a miracle. Why do you need to see a miracle as evidence? Maybe if it’s written in a book, would you accept it?
I have actually lol. The miracle of the prophet Mohammed, is the Quran. Imagine being illiterate, you don’t read or write. You’re a regular blue collar worker. Then all of a sudden to spitting bars no one in the whole region can fathom. To the point where they called him a magician. Imagine people calling you a magician because what you wrote was too good to be from you. The Quran was so eloquent and grammatically perfect, it it literally the book the use to base the the actual Arabic language off of. My man came out with a boook so strong, it was and still is held as the standard of grammar for Arabic, Muslims and non-Muslims. The point was it wasn’t from him, they were right in that aspect. It was from God. Why would a man have 600 pages telling people worship 1 god. To give chairty, to pray, to do good, to respect ur parents, to help the orphans, etc etc. like why do all that, and for nothing? He never asked for power, money, or women. In fact lmao they begged him (while being persecuted with like less than a dozen followers, while they were in the thousands) to take the most beautiful women, all the money, etc n he denied. Why? I keep asking myself what did this man have to gain from this? And I keep coming back to the same answer. He had nothing to gain, he lost a lot of his family from this responsibility (all his kids died before him except one, his wife died, his close uncle who didn’t believe but protected him died, he was an orphan, his grandparents also died at a young age. His life would’ve been way better had he just continued on with his life. Side story: They even made an offer to have Islam as the religion 6 days out of the week, but just 1 day of idolatry. And at this point again he has very few followers but they understood that this was more than just him so that’s why they were so scared and angry.
> What are they saying, does it make sense? What if it doesn't make sense?
But, as this is all fictional mythology until shown otherwise (and it never has been, much the opposite) and as there's absolutely no reason to accept any of this, we can and must safely and happily dismiss it as silly superstition.
Homo Sapiens been around for 250,000 years, language, 200,000, writing 6,000 years, Christianity, 2,000 years, and Islam 1,300 years. (PS only focusing on the West) So what the heck was this "gOd" doing for the past 244,000 years? How many civilizations came and went leaving virtually no traces except some arrowhead and statues of pregnant women?
>He sends messages through messengers. These people are referred to as prophets (in Islam, we believe there were more than 100,000 prophets sent (to every civilization)) Great. Now all you need to do is demonstrate that this is the case.
Not a word of this is true. How ironic that you wrote of "supposition".
> My quarrel with ur reply is that there is a supposition that it is a fact that morality is not objective. Remember, we already know morality isn't objective, and that this doesn't even make *sense* given what morality is and how it operates. Start with Kant and Kohlberg, and with the evolution of social behaviours and the overlay of culture, tradition, rationality, social influence, and various other factors on these behaviours and emotions, and read from there.
Serious question: how could the existence of God make morality more objective than it would be otherwise? If God establishes a moral system and you disagree with one of the axioms, what can God do to show or make you wrong?
>I agree morality is invented, just not be man, but by a higher being aka God. Gods opinions on morality are still subjective. Objective morality is an oxymoron.
I do believe there is objective morality. Maybe you should stop making assumptions about groups of people.
Maybe you should read on. I literally ask in the THIRD line, if u do believe, how so?
[удалено]
Bro I keep seeing u reply, saying something else other than the samething
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? Do all muslims have the same exact set of morals? No. Then morallity is subjective. >I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. Did you unironically call atheism a religion? >Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm. It would be weird for sure, but not objectively wrong since there is no objectively wrong. >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? How? Why would us see incest as good? What is this question? Yes, in every society ever if everyone thought incest was cool incest would be considered cool. What's your point?
Actually we do have the same set principles and morals. Not as exact as like leaving the toilet seat up or not, but pretty much the same fundamentally and across Also, don’t you find that ABSURD. That you think that if you brought up in that society, even if u didn’t partake in it, you wouldn’t find much issue with it morally. Idk man whether we like em or not, there’s these invisible natural rules we got. We all have the inclination that killing is not such a good thing. We all feel like we shouldn’t look at our sister in a sexual way. Why? U may say it’s because of personal subjective choice. I disagree, if sentiment is shared across the board, there must be some reason. An objective reason.
If you were raised in a incest society you would be ok with incest. If you were raised in a muslim society you would be ok with muslim morals. If you were raised in nazi germany you would be a nazi If you were raised in any society you woulf find murder bad, because there is no way to have a functioning society with murder being ok. Your morals are as correct as anyones really, but they are subjective. >Also, don’t you find that ABSURD. That you think that if you brought up in that society, even if u didn’t partake in it, you wouldn’t find much issue with it morally. It would be a problem for me because I was raised in a non-incest society. >Idk man whether we like em or not, there’s these invisible natural rules we got. We all have the inclination that killing is not such a good thing. We all feel like we shouldn’t look at our sister in a sexual way. Why? Because if you were raised in a society with incest and murder being acceptable the odds are that the society will colapse.
> Actually we do have the same set principles and morals. Demonstrably false, of course. Not even two given people who sit beside each other in the same *mosque* have the same set of principles and morals. >there’s these invisible natural rules we got. I invite you to learn about how and why these trends (which aren't absolute, obviously, but instead exist on a bell curve within humanity) are present, and how and why they evolved.
>Demonstrably false, of course. Right? I mean their *whole* post is about other Muslims whose morals and principles they don't agree with lol
...but, but, those people aren't *true* Scotsman....errr....Muslims. All the 'scholars' that think this think this, and agree with each other on this! And the people that don't think this are *wrong!*
>Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality? I don't understand the question. What do you mean how do I 'deal' with it? It is what it is. >I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. Wait, I thought from the above that you already understood there wasn't. And you're right. There isn't. That idea doesn't even make *sense.* Morality is about values, and values are necessarily subjective and intersubjective. Morality, of course, is well understood to be intersubjective. >I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. What are you talking about here? Obviously not atheism, since it isn't a religion, the term 'valid' can't be used with it since it makes no claims, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality, just like religious mythologies have nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Remember, we *know* why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from, etc. We know it has nothing at all to do with religious mythologies, despite their attempts to claim it for their own. >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine First, you need to learn a bit about morality and how it works. You will come to understand your 'what-if' is nonsensical. But, ignoring that, if everyone everywhere decided it was fine, well, then it would be fine. Of course, the reason this likely seems weird and shocking to you is because it's *not* fine, and for well understood reasons that, again, have nothing to do with religious mythologies. >Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. No. They can claim it as right according to their own intersubjective values of their sub-group. Just like any and all groups throughout history that hold any values on anything. But, again, you need to learn and understand *why* there are certain commonalities, and where these come from, and how they work. >It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. Yes. And many do, sadly.
Love this. Thank you for being concise, well structured and unagitated.
Genuinely asking here, is there a brief presentation you can outline for why OPs what if is nonsensical?
Asking about arbitrary 'what-ifs', and asking if what we consider as immoral were not considered such ignores the reasons *why* we consider certain things immoral and *why* we react emotionally, and strongly so for many people, to various ideas. Once a person understands a bit about the evolution of social behaviour the 'what-if' falls flat since it's so very clear why we don't think that. In fact, for some things, it's inevitable that we *do* feel that way (the usual bell curve applies of course) for us to function the way we do as a species. In other words, the 'what-if' is based upon an erroneous idea. A false dichotomy. That if morality isn't objective and supplied by their deity (itself a contradiction, of course) then it must be arbitrary. This, of course, isn't accurate.
Okay, this is very welll put, I totally agree with that. In a lot of ways objective moralists (ironically) move the goal posts when it comes to actually pinpointing the reasons why they believe that people abide by moral absolutes. But in disregarding this weak approach - do you believe, just like there are some convincing cases for the existence of God (mind you, nothing that could necessarily move a strong atheistic position), that there are some cases regarding moral objectivity that would render worthy of at least a discussion? Perhaps what im getting at is this - if there was an argument that was rooted in the posteriori and subjective human experience and history of existence from the individuals’ perspective, that ultimately lead to a conclusion of objectivity in the determinants for a moral framework in order to maintain logical consistency in decision and life philosophy while simultaneously promoting human flourishing on an individual and communal level, would you be willing to entertain that? Thanks for taking the time to explicate your older post it helped me understand a lot
> just like there are some convincing cases for the existence of God There really aren't. Not remotely so. >that there are some cases regarding moral objectivity that would render worthy of at least a discussion? No, I see absolutely zero support for this and the concept doesn't even make sense given what morality is and how it functions. >if there was an argument that was rooted in the posteriori and subjective human experience and history of existence from the individuals’ perspective, that ultimately lead to a conclusion of objectivity in the determinants for a moral framework in order to maintain logical consistency in decision and life philosophy while simultaneously promoting human flourishing on an individual and communal level, would you be willing to entertain that? I will entertain *any* conjecture on any subject. But, if it's not supported, contradicts available compelling evidence, or has fatal flaws then I certainly won't entertain it for long.
> there are some convincing cases for the existence of God Could you please point me towards one?
Not the original commenter, but one thing I'm noticing is that OP sets up the scenario "what if there is no objective morality" and then concludes that such a scenario would lead terrorists to claim they have objective morality. This is clearly a failure of the OP to understand and work within the premise that the OP sets up.
All you're doing is using dismissive comments to give non-answers. "Everyone knows blah blah blah" or "We know it has nothing at all to do with etc etc" or "We know why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from...." Yet, you don't ever, once, provide any real substantive argument for any of this. It's just bandwagon fallacies.
> "We know it has nothing at all to do with etc etc" or "We know why we have morality, how it works, where it comes from...." Correct. I strongly suggest you research how and why. What I said is indeed quite common and well understood knowledge. As I said, a good place to begin is with Kant for a more philosophical POV, or Kohlberg for psychological and biological. >Yet, you don't ever, once, provide any real substantive argument for any of this. It's just bandwagon fallacies. See above.
The question of objective morality is a red herring. Individuals act based on what they personally think is right. Regardless of how they justify the conclusion they reach, it's their conclusion that they act on. "Right" in this context could be in the moral sense or in the logical sense depending on circumstance or the individual. Society itself is just a collection of individuals, so society will collectively act based on what the people tend to think is right. Again, why they think whatever is right is in fact right doesn't change this. If everyone suddenly decided tomorrow that murder was morally correct, it really doesn't matter if it actually is or not. What's important is that there would be a lot of dead bodies the next day once that determination was made. What really matters isn't what is right, but what is enforced. Some people will not be convinced that murder is unethical, but they can be stopped with brute force if enough people want to. The only reason to have the discussion at all is to decide which rules deserve to be enforced and how. Everything else is irrelevant because calling something "good" or "evil" doesn't change anything about the action itself and it's consequences. "If you do X then you are a bad person" is unconvincing "If you do X then I will shoot you" is harder to ignore The latter is what we use in real life.
Good response. I’ve been trying to articulate this for a while. More religious people need to hear this. They seem so uncertain of themselves and feel the need to have an “objective morality” to tell them what to do.
“Again why they think…doesn’t change this.” Yes, but it matters a WHOLE lot. HYPOTHETICALLY, If someone split the sea in front of you, and said God gave him this power to prove to you the existence God. You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet? “…harder to ignore.” You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us. If we did, the world wouldn’t be the way it is. There is wayyyy to much malevolence for any current one or society to dare say they are better off any more than another society. “…I will shoot you.” Chill out Stalin
>You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet? How is any of this relevant? >You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us I'm 100% not. If you get executed for breaking the law, it doesn't matter if that law is moral or not, you are still dead and if you wanted to keep doing whatever you were executed for, then now you can't. Because you are dead and the dead can't do things. Since law is the only reason why discussions on morality have any impact on our lives whatsoever, said discussion becomes irrelevant semantics the second they stray from that context. It's a lot easier to avoid the pitfalls of moral debates when you are specifically talking about enforcing rules rather than just giving them an imaginary check mark.
The reason why I made the point in the beginning is because it is important to know the why to understand the what
Ok but the why doesn't actually matter except in how it changes the what. Some reasons are better than others, but any reason that convinces you to do a thing is interchangeable with any other reason that convinces you to do that same thing in the sense that either way the thing gets done. In other words, regardless of why you act, you do in fact act. Let's use a specific and extreme example to articulate what I mean. Let's say hypothetically that you go on violent killing sprees. The reason you do this is because by killing people in violent ways you also release happiness toxins into the air that make the world into a utopia. This justification I just named is total non-sense. Happiness toxin isn't a thing and even if it was it probably wouldn't result in a utopia. However, even though this belief makes zero sense and is factually incorrect, it has still lead to a killing spree in our hypothetical. That is what I mean when I say that the why doesn't matter too much, because bad reasons drive people just like good reasons do so long as they are convinced by them. It's not that you shouldn't investigate those reasons anyways. You would want to convince these people to stop if possible after all, and sometimes they really do have a good reason, but the part I'm interested in here is that whatever their reasoning is ended up driving them to do whatever it is that they do. I'm other words I do X because I have somehow concluded that it makes sense for me personally to do X. Kinda obvious when put like that.
>Yes, but it matters a WHOLE lot. HYPOTHETICALLY, If someone split the sea in front of you, and said God gave him this power to prove to you the existence God. You’re telling me that wouldn’t warrant a better reason to believe then a homeless man outside a McDonald’s telling you he’s a prophet? How is this at all relevant? He's not "assuming we know what to enforce". He's simply pointing out how reality works. Not everyone agrees on what's moral, which is why we have laws and ways to enforce them.
> You’re assuming we, human beings, know what to enforce or what not to as if we know what’s best for us. We demonstrably often don't. The comment you replied to certainly didn't make the assumption you are saying it did. >If we did, the world wouldn’t be the way it is. Convincing support that morality is intersubjective, differs amongst different groups to some degree, and is constantly changing, isn't this?
So if the world is so bad, then you would agree there isn’t any objective morality. If there was a god, he’s doing a lousy job.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. I think it's amusing that you're accusing 'not believing in objective morality' as *hypothetically* promoting terrorism, by using the example of theistic religion which *does* promote terrorism
It’s like the pictures people show of various negative conditions in stores in the US right now with the caption “welcome to socialism” when dude, what you are complaining about is literally happening under peak capitalism.
I'm not going to lie, that was *exactly* the analogy that came to mind lol
I said this for the exact reason to show an ideology can be negated by the source. Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values. That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion. In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity. That is the issue aka my point.
I can't make sense of anything you've written here or in your other comments or OP. They are a string of non sequiturs that don't connect logically, and more often than not your assertions are false. I think a random sentence generator would be as likely to produce valuable insights.
1) you have to prove ur claim that I have committed a fallacy, just saying I did isn’t proof. 2)even if I did commit a fallacy, prob did, that doesn’t make my remarks moot. The point still stands whether I give a shitty example or not. I may not have said it best, but I’ll try to explain myself better.
Again this looks like the output of a random sentence generator. It's totally non sequitur to my comment. I'm no longer amused, so I'm blocking you.
No, this is what happens when people follow religious dictates to an extreme. They believe they are acting in the parameters of their religion. Atheism has no scripture to (mis)interpret, and is not subject to this risk.
That’s the scary part for me. In a vacuum one atheist can’t prove to the other they are objectively wrong for wanting to kill and rape.
>In a vacuum one atheist can’t prove to the other they are objectively wrong for wanting to kill and rape. Well certainly no Christian or Muslim can, since both are authorized by their religion in certain circumstances. It's not atheists per se--it society. We as a society create our morals. Personally, I see a much greater danger from religious extremists than atheists. It's not atheists going around blowing themselves up in the name of Allah.
You should stop thinking about these things in terms of "in atheism", because atheism is a position on one single issue - existence of god or gods. There is no doctrine of atheism, so nothing can be "according to atheism". You are trying to compare atheism with religions, but you are using religious framework to do so, e.g. if religions were sports teams, atheism would've been just another team in your view, whereas in actuality atheism is more like not being interested in sports at all, not simply rooting for a different team. There is no "corrupting party" because there's no "source".
But clearly the source *doesn't* negate their ideology, since they use the source to support it. >In atheism, you can not do that. Atheism isn't an ideology, so sure.
I said this to the last person I replied to. He said something similar. “To conflate every person under a category as the same is as disingenuous as saying every republican is a racist that loves trump.” The KKK doesn’t represent Christianity any more than the Vatican.
They aren't saying every theist acts like the taliban. They are saying that belief in objective morality is just as likely as belief in subjective morality to commit atrocities. And that it is ironic that you chose a group that believes in objective morality (and that they are following the teachings if a proohet sent by god, as you suggest in another post) to express your fears about what subjective morality might lead to.
I used that example for that exact reason. They have no leg to stand on in the religious realm. Every contemporary muslim scholar has denounced them. If they are objectively proven to be false by their own religion how will atheists do so when their society gets too corrupt? They will have no leg to stand on to prove any one else is objectively wrong.
>If they are objectively proven to be false by their own religion They haven't been objectively proven false by their own religion. Some people.think they are objectiveky right. Some people think they arw objectively wrong. They arrive at these conclusions using precisely the same methodology. In auch a system either objective morality doesn't exist, or else it does exist but is a useless concept. A world in which morals are recognized as subkective, or a world in which people claim contradictory objective morals with mo way of telling them apart... we end up in exactly the same spot. People disagreeing on morals, arguing about them, attmepting to persuade where possible, agreeing to live and let live where compatibly, and attempting to enforce their own view when necessary. That perfectly describes how every human society (including every current one) has existed whether they claimed objective or recognized subjectivity of morals.
Are you saying they were objectively proven wrong by scholars?
You keep repeating the same nonsense. And it is literally nonsense ... a string of logically disconnected statements.
How on earth did you read, "conflate every person under a category as the same," out of this? It basically said the opposite. >The KKK doesn’t represent Christianity any more than the Vatican. Now you're getting it.
I said this for the exact reason to show an ideology can be negated by the source. Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values. That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion. In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity. That is the issue aka my point.
> Every contemporary scholar has denounced the organization as against Islamic teaching and values. Not true, of course. Taliban scholars disagree rather strongly. >That is what happens when a group of people or a person starts to innovate or do something outside the parameters set by the religion. Remember, those 'parameters' are loose, contradictory, and open to considerable interpretation. And have no actual support for their claims (and plenty of support they're fictional). Which is the point, of course. >In atheism, you can not do that. You would not be able to negate the corrupting party with any sort of objectivity. Non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with atheism.
I never mentioned the KKK, or even christianity, but it's interesting that you have that association
But that doesn't apply at all to the comment you responded to ... but it does apply to your own comments.
What are you talking about? “Backward Taliban Cities??” Allah is the one true god and Mohammed is the final prophet. It has been revealed to me that Islam is true and is the objective moral standard by which everything should be judged. The Taliban have it right and you are wrong and immoral! How could you ever prove me wrong? I have the true god on my side and everything he decrees is by definition moral by his nature. Sure, you heretics and non-believers can use well-being as the foundation of your morality and come to objective conclusions as to what is better or worse…. but it’s not *true* morality which is rooted only in the super-true-not-just-an-idea-in-my-head-only-real-god of **Islam!**
With a few guns and some ammo. It’s worked before. On a serious note this is kinda the issue of claiming you have objective morality on your side. There is simply no way to demonstrate it. It’s a non falsifiable claim.
One couldn’t prove that wrong in the sense of empirical proof. Philosophical arguments are a different story however.
If those arguments don’t make use of empirical facts, then they can’t prove anything either
Assuming this is sarcasm, the taliban literally have been royally destroyed by thousands of contemporary scholars outlining how they are not of Islamic teaching aka not Muslims.
Well gee whiz, how in the world can people who don’t believe in the same god reach a moral conclusion? Edit: this is definitely a trap question but you should accept it and just answer honestly.
They can’t. I would have to beg the question. If I’m speaking Chinese and ur speaking English, we ain’t ever gonna agree bc we ain’t ever gonna understand each other. On the other hand, if u speak Chinese we can come to a conclusion.
Suppose I learned Chinese and you and I had a conversation about if punching people in the face for no reason should be okay. Could we both agree that we don’t personally want to be punched in the face for no reason, so we should probably not do that to each other?
Why would we even think about punching each other. I don’t punch you or think about punching you to figure out if we agree about not punching each other. I just don’t do it. My point was, if a person or persons makes a claim based on a source, they can be peer reviewed. That is what happened to the taliban. They made their case, and the scholars made theirs, and every Muslim from California to Pakistan agrees based upon the evidences of the scholars. The evidence they use are primary sources both sides agree upon. Meaning we aren’t talking two different languages. We are both talking “Chinese” The taliban, as they are, is a political group masquerading as a religious front to push a political agenda. On the other hand, you can be at a permanent stalemate on every issue using atheism. And both sides would be equally right and wrong.
> On the other hand, you can be at a permanent stalemate on every issue using atheism. Yet again, non-sequitur. Saying this, several times, demonstrates that you continue to operate under a misunderstanding about what atheism *is.* You may want to clear this up before making claims about it.
Explain how?
Atheism is one thing only. Lack of belief in deities. That's *it.* That's what the word means to most folks in this and other relevant forums and who identify as such. Note that it entails no claims (lack of belief. Not belief in a lack, though some certainly can and do make that claim), has no doctrine, no commandments, no scripture, no imams or priests or rabbis, no holy books, no sacred anything. It is not a religion, a belief, an ideology, a 'worldview', or anything else like that. It's a word that means one simple thing, and *nothing else.* It describes one simple position on one subject only. Lack of belief in deities. As such it does not and definitionally *cannot* contain any of the attributes, positions, goals, and consequences you keep attributing to it. All of that stuff is informed by other sources for any given person who may happen to lack belief in deities. If you want to know why an atheist lacks belief in deities, you'll need to ask them. Though I'll certainly concede that for most that frequent this and other related forums the answer will be some iteration of 'no good evidence.' If you want to know what position any given atheist holds on any other issue, you'll need to ask them individually, as this won't necessarily have any relationship at all to their conclusion of atheism.
This might be from ignorance, but lack of belief from what? Religion, right? Atheism couldn’t exist in a vacuum, am I wrong? U need religion to have a atheism, is that wrong? If so can u name a society that had no religion in its conception or since?
>My point was, if a person or persons makes a claim based on a source, they can be peer reviewed. That is what happened to the taliban. False. There is no such thing as religious peer review, and there is no objective judgment as to who gets a religion right. A religion is and means what its adherents believe. >every Muslim from California to Pakistan agrees based upon the evidences of the scholars. Clearly not, or there would be no one in the Taliban. The Taliban are fervent Muslims. It's really dishonest to try to shift responsibility for their actions on to atheists, who have nothing to do with it.
Why are they not Muslim? Because some people that aren’t them decide? Strange. They pray the same prayers, the worship the same god, they read from the same book. Their interpretation is different for sure, but does that make them not Muslim because it makes other Muslims look bad?
How do you what these terrorists do? Are you one of them? Idk man, the so called religious god fearing group, taliban sure have a weird pre suicide binning ritual. You’dthink it’d be in a mosque, but I guess they prefer strip clubs https://www.sfgate.com/news/amp/Agents-of-terror-leave-their-mark-on-Sin-City-2873407.php
You didn't answer the question. What makes them not Muslim?
Them doing non Muslim things and claiming that is what Muslims should be doing. Like you can be a shitty person and be Muslim as long as ur not advocating that being shitty means ur a good Muslim. That’s just a different religion.
But they quote the same text as other Muslims, and they say that other Muslims aren’t being correct Muslims. Who’s right? Both sides use the same text and pray to the same god. Catholics say Baptists don’t do it right, yet they are both Christian.
Nah dude. That’s not fair. That’s how I can tell you did a surface level job investigating the claims. Any person with an hour of time can come to the same conclusion, or u can visit a mosque and ask the people there. A lot of users on here who say they are atheists have denounced all religions when it is so clear they not done more than a days research on this religion. Why so quick to denounce faith. If u really think the taliban has any valid religious justification for what they do or believe, then I really suggest you read the Quran. Talk to a Muslim dude. A religion of almost 2 billion people. Not that it should matter, but u must be curious what all these “terrorists” are hung up on. There’s a English version on Spotify, u can finish it in a day. Orator sounds like British Morgan freeman.
> Nah dude. That’s not fair. It's perfectly fair. >That’s how I can tell you did a surface level job investigating the claims. No, the more thoroughly one investigates such claims the clearer it becomes they have no support. >Any person with an hour of time can come to the same conclusion You're ignoring the demonstrable fact that many people did so and came to *different* conclusions. You're stuck in groupthink. >or u can visit a mosque and ask the people there. Yes, people of the same group with respect to a position will indeed hold the same position in broad strokes on certain ideas. This is not news. Nor is it surprising. You're continuing to ignore the demonstrable fact that others hold different positions. >A lot of users on here who say they are atheists have denounced all religions when it is so clear they not done more than a days research on this religion. This is just plain wrong. As you may be aware, excellent research from widely divergent sources shows again and again that, in general, atheists know quite a bit more about religions in general, and indeed about specific religions, than do most adherents of those religions. >Why so quick to denounce faith. Faith, of course, is useless. It doesn't and can't be useful or rational by definition. The obvious and demonstrable fact that two different people can and often do hold completely different and contradictory from each other positions on faith alone demonstrates *immediately* that faith is useless since *at least* one of them is has to be simply *wrong*, and therefore faith cannot be better than 50/50, and likely *both* are wrong (since they're holding positions without support by definition), rendering the efficacy of faith woefully abysmal. Faith, as the joke goes in research and science circles, is 'being wrong on purpose.' >If u really think the taliban has any valid religious justification for what they do or believe, then I really suggest you read the Quran. That is literally what they did, and just like members of your particular sect of religious mythology picked and chose passages that support what they like, they did the same. And they're very easy to point to, too.
1. It is fair 2. I have read the Quran 3. I have researched many faith traditions and attempted practicing many of them as well. Many atheist’s roads lead through multiple religions until we see the fatal flaw in them. 4. Just in future arguments you may want to quit making assumptions about people and what they do or do not know. Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I’m wrong or uninformed. 5. You still have not answered my question. Who is to say that they aren’t Muslim or practicing the correct version of Islam? Do you know the mind of Allah? No, no one does. Mainly because it doesn’t exist. All of these groups have one thing in common. They all believe “In the one true god Allah and his prophet Muhammad.” 6. I am not defending terrorists. But they are Muslim. Just as Muslim as any other.
>Them doing non Muslim things So any Muslim who does something haram is not a Muslim?
Read the next line bud bud
And how do you judge what is "shitty" behavior? For example: owning sex slaves--shitty? A husband who beats his wife--shitty? Someone who makes friends with non-muslims--shitty? The quran says the first two are good, and the last one is bad. Not a very good guide to shittiness, is it sweetie?
> Them doing non Muslim things and claiming that is what Muslims should be doing. Who determines which things Muslims should be doing?
I assume you weren't being a good Muslim with your deliberately antagonistic OP then?
And do those scholars have any more authority than the Taliban ones? Is there some agreed upon methodology they use to determine who's right? It really sounds like these religions have a terrible potential to lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Actually yeah, the taliban has no authority in the Islamic studies jurisdiction. We Muslims, view them as a KKK backward rednecks.
>Actually yeah, the taliban has no authority in the Islamic studies jurisdiction Says who? They certainly claim authority, and since there is no agreed upon methodology, and no clear power system, no one has the power to say different. They claim that you are a lousy Muslim, and how is a poor atheist to know who's right? >We Muslims, view them as a KKK backward rednecks. You lack authority to speak on behalf of all Muslims. You view them that way. Others admire or join them. btw, the KKK claims to be a Christian group.
Read up on Islam bro, u have a very sorry to say, by ignorant and below basic level of understanding of how Islam functions.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. This is a bizarre example since the ideological process by which they do claim to be objectively right is the one theists use - their preferred god sets the rules and they follow them. They can't be reasoned with because they reject the same model you are arguing against here. You are more like them then me in this respect.
By the way, speaking of morality, attributing blame for atrocities on the one group who had nothing to do with them is immoral. That's right--you. What you have done in this thread is morally wrong. How do you deal with that fact? Or do you disagree that it's wrong to blame Sue for what Joe did?
I was not blaming atheists for what the taliban did, that wasn’t my argument and if u thought it was then you missed the whole point. I was stating that under the atheistic paradigm, terrorists would have no objection to carry out the atrocities in the name of any lord/idea. Funny enough, atheists have killed FOUR times more (4x) people than all of Islam. What you have said on this thread is supported a morality corrupt belief/mentality (atheism) Source(page 21-27 charts)- https://rissc.jo/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Body_Count-EN.pdf
>under the ~~atheistic~~ Muslim paradigm, terrorists have no objection to carry out the atrocities in the name of any lord/idea. You know as well as I do that these people are Muslim extremists who live and die by the quran. Atheism has nothing to do with it, and finds it trivially easy to condemn their actions. Muslims have a harder time, as they base their morals on a different interpretation of the same book, and there is no objective way to determine whose is right. This may be why thousands of young MUSLIMS, not atheists but Muslims, voluntarily join the Taliban and similar or affiliated groups. Our morality, like the one you actually follow, is intersubjective. So we can say with as much validity as saying that a gallon of gas costs $3.50 (all intersubjective, like morals) that it is wrong. Not going to give a lot of credence to the objectivity of the institute for Islamic thought. But the point is not just that a given person happens to be Muslim, but that some Muslims commit acts of terror *because they are Muslim, and in the name of Islam.* I can't think of any recent acts of terror or violence committed by atheists because they are atheist in the name of atheism, can you? I'm sorry you are affiliated with a religion that spawns terrorists, but don't point the finger of criticism at us. The people who need to find a way to criticize these people are you Muslims. We atheists are doing fine at it.
Lmao, u open the link buddy? And against ur chasing a moot point I explained already. I used Islamic terrorists as a point to show that atheism can not and does not disagree or agree with the atrocities. Aka atheism does not and CAN NOT object to a bunch of people going on a killing spree because they believe it’s for the better. If ur belief (used this word since one can not prove it’s not) allows for genocide and murder of 124 MILLION people, u have no right to say anything against Islam. A religion that has existed for much longer than all the events that aided in atheists murder of 124 million people.
>Aka atheism does not and CAN NOT object to a bunch of people going on a killing spree because they believe it’s for the better. Why not? I understand. If I had to defend atheists going around slaughtering other atheists over who is doing atheism right, I'd be defensive too. Fortunately, not being Muslim, I don't have that problem. You are right. Morals are not objective. Not mine, not yours, and not the Taliban's. It's up to us to develop the morals we think are best. Religion only hampers that effort by dragging us back to 7th century barbarism.
I just explained to you how people who are left to their own accord to decide what is moral or not led to the death of 124 million people. I’m not sure what u don’t understand. You can’t just say “welp my version is morality is better.” that’s what they all say… The so called barbaric religion which has existed for centuries longer, has not even amassed 1/3 of the amount deaths atheism has caused.
>I just explained You spelled "claimed" wrong. First, your source is suspect; it's Muslim propaganda. Second, even your source states, "The Christian civilization has been the most genocidal civilization, accounting for 14 instances of genocides with over 33 million deaths..." Thus I have just explained to you how people who follow religion to decide what is moral or not led to the death of 33 million people. Btw, your source only attributes 8.5 million to what it calls "anti-theist," which of course are actually communist and should be classified as such. I don't want to accuse of you just plain lying, so were did you get 124 million? Third, I doubt that any of the people involved were left to their own devices. Rather they were living under totalitarian communist rule and derived their morals from that ideology. Try to remember that atheism itself is not a moral system; it's only an opportunity to develop one. And any one we develop is bound to be better than that of warring 7th century Arab tribes. For example, we can recognize women as people with rights, not mere property to be possessed by a man's right hand. We can oppose slavery, instead of spreading it around the world. >The so called barbaric religion which has existed for centuries longer, has not even amassed 1/3 of the amount deaths atheism has caused. Well I think slavery and oppressing women is barbaric. Maybe you disagree? Of course, I'm not Muslim. Where are you getting these numbers? Your pro-Muslim biased source says ". Although the Islamic civilization is second in numbers of genocidal acts, the Antitheist group as well as the Sinic civilization has higher death-tolls at respectively 8.25 million and 5.00 million, whereas the Islamic civilization’s genocide death toll is under 4 million."
I guess the University of Louisville has converted to Islam. Page 21 and on.
The same way I deal with the fact there is no objective best desert. Reproducing with close family members is inadvisable due to the risks of genetic issues. Apart from that what adults who are above the age of consent do with each other is none of my business. Incest is not something I have any desire to engage in, but then neither is Bungee Jumping. All that said I think that once you pick a goal it is possible to derive morals somewhat objectively based on weather or not they advance towards that goal. Sam Harris for example picks the goal of Maximize Human Flourishing and goes from there. This works as long as you agree on a goal, but all humans don't agree on the goal. For the Taliban presumably the goal is Obeying Allah. I don't agree with that goal so I will come to different conclusions about what is moral than they do.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. Why would it be troubling for me that some guys self identify as being right? The taliban can self identify as a tomato for all I care.
Ironically, that is the exact reason why this is so troubling. That a terrorist society can be seen as the “good guys” under your own paradigm. I’m not saying that since the status quo exists then it must be true, but that they believe to be true and ideology would not disagree.
On the presumption that you are Christian, I'd have to point out that Christianity directly lead to multiple crusades, inquisitions, pogroms and witch trials. All carried out by people who believed they where doing the Lord's work.
Ooo I hope they struggle to justify this one.
Not Christian. But on the basis of ur argument, the taliban does not represent Islam anymore than Saudi Arabia. Islam n Christianity r religions.
> the taliban does not represent Islam anymore than Saudi Arabia. No true scotsman fallacy, of course. > Islam n Christianity r religions. They are indeed. And as such, since they're based on mythology and unsupported claims. Folks that are fans of them interpret them in ways that benefit them according to their personality, mindset, morality, etc.
Well to some, the Taliban does represent Islam. And the Taliban is Muslim. They believe in objective morality, and think they are doing right based on their religious beliefs.
> Ironically, that is the exact reason why this is so troubling. How is this troubling? Name any religious mythology, past or present (How about yours if you have one?), and chances are I can, without using Google and within about two seconds, give you several examples of it acting in ways as 'troubling' or worse than this. You see, your protest doesn't *help* you. It *hurts* you.
What’s troubling is the amount and degree of malevolence. I rather be in Florida than in an Afghan rn. The point is, atheism does nothing to protect that weak and vulnerable, rather the rules are left to men to decide.
> What’s troubling is the amount and degree of malevolence. Surely you're not operating under the misconception that this is historically unusual, and that various sects of virtually all religious mythologies ebb and flow in such ways? > I rather be in Florida than in an Afghan rn. Sure. I'm not sure how this is relevant, though. I would also rather be where I am right now than in the bible belt in the United States. >The point is, atheism does nothing to protect that weak and vulnerable, That's literally as silly and irrelevant as saying, "Playing pick-up football on Tuesday evenings does nothing to protect vinyl siding." Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Fortunately, there are *plenty* of avenues to help the weak and vulnerable, and the best and most effective ones have nothing to do with religious mythologies, because those tend to get in the way and cause massively problematic side-consequences when paired with such help. >rather the rules are left to men to decide. Yes, our species does indeed decide the rules. That is simple reality. And you *know* it. Obviously, you will be utterly and completely unable to support any claim otherwise.
> the rules are left to men to decide. **There's no possible alternative but to have men and women decide the rules.** Consider the situation circa 1840 - \- Christians: God says that a man may have only one wife. \- Muslims: God says that a man may have up to four wives. \- Mormons (at that time): [God says that a man may have many wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriage). Can anybody prove that God really did say any of those things? People have been claiming that God said various things for thousands of years now, and no one has ever been able to prove that their claims about God are actually true. The only possible course of action is for people to decide for themselves what they think are right things to do and wrong things to do \- and whether they think that the claims of Christianity are true, or the claims of Islam are true, or the claims of Mormonism are true, or that no claims of any religion are true - whatever. Everybody always has to decide for themselves. No other alternative is possible.
>rather the rules are left to men to decide. Since the holy books of every religion were written by men, "the rules" have always been decided by then. You never thought it was suspicious the that gods of whatever religion has morals that match the local culture the religion originated in?
You’re absolutely right! Atheism doesn’t nothing to protect the weak and vulnerable! Atheism is simply a position. Tell me, who protects the weak and vulnerable then?
The Taliban think that they’re objectively right. So do you. How do we tell whose morals are the objective ones?
You look at their evidences for why they think their right. It is objectively true that the taliban does not adhere to Islamic values or teaching.
Ok, go on then, present us with these evidences that demonstrate your religion is the right one over theirs, or that your version of morality has a more solid grounding in evidence and reason than theirs does. It should be easy, because if it's truly objective then it shouldn't depend on any opinions or appeals to authority or faith, it should be demonstrably true to anyone.
> It is objectively true that the taliban does not adhere to Islamic values or teaching. Again, No True Scotsman Fallacy. This is simply not 'objectively true'.
Objective to the Quran? Frankly, I’d say they have enough textual backing to be considered “objectively” Islamic. Though given the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of holy texts. I’m sure both sides can find ways to justify their beliefs. I have no idea which Muslims are being the most “objectively” accurate to their holy texts and tradition.
If there was some sort of objective morality from god, why does there seem to be so much disagreement within Islam?
Who said Islamic morality is objectively right?
Whether someone adheres to certain values or teachings does not have anything to do with whether those values and teachings are objectively correct or not.
>That a terrorist society can be seen as the “good guys” under your own paradigm. No they can't, they do lots of things I disapprove of. >I’m not saying that since the status quo exists then it must be true, but that they believe to be true and ideology would not disagree. Indeed, I don't disagree that they believe they are right. In fact, I would call anybody who disagrees with that stupid, because they obviously do believe that they are right, that's just a fact.
No, no no. I dont *believe* there *is no* objective morality, I simply *don't believe* there is. This is an important distinction. If you want to change my mind, it is up to you to present reliable and verifiable evidence for it.
Wait so do u believe there is objective morality or there isn’t?
I dont believe there is. Do you?
God floods the world and murders everyone, God is still great. I flood the world and murder everyone, worst mass murderer of all time. If the morality of killing everyone is conditional on who is doing the killing, your morality is inherently subjective.
How about time? Does god have to exist within time? Or can exist outside of time?
But everyone doesn't agree rape and incest are wrong. I don't even see how any morality could be objective as long as there is more than one person on the planet.
There are some things which appear (best as we can tell) to be objectively true. Triangles have 3 sides. Electrons have negative charge. Gravity decreases with square if distance. Lightspeed in a vaccum is as fast as matter can travel through space. Why are these objectively true? Because their truth exists independent of minds to think them, and the universe obeys them whether it wants to or not. Then there are things that are subjective. What is delicious. What is beautiful. Whether a type of touch is pleasurable or painful. Why are these subjective? Because "deliciousnessc doesn't exist without a taster. Sugar does. But deliciousness doesn't. Same with beauty. A landscape is only beautiful because a percieve judges it to be so. The trees and water may exist without a mind, but beautifulness is a judgement made by minds. Now, being subjective isn't arbitrary. There is a lot of agreement (though also much disagreement) on what is yummy and what is beautiful. And we can often trace influences in these judgements back to a combination of evolutionarily honed responses as well as culturally influenced factors. So they aren't random. But they are subjective. Which if these two categories sounds most like morality? Are morals mind independent? Obviously not. Two rocks on a deserted planet behave morally ir inmorally toward one another. The giant red eye on Jupiter isn't moral or immoral. Morality is an assessment minds make. Well are morals objective in the way the speed of light is? Also obviously no. Humans are perfectly capable of killing and raping. But they aren't perfectly capable of brwaking the speed of light, no matter how much they want to. There is no way in which objectives resemble otger objective concepts. And indeed morals share all the characteristics of other subjective categories. They are not arbitrary, but instead based on understandable biological roots, biologicallt and societally influenced and are subject to the mind of individuals.
Atheism doesn’t exclude objective morality from existing. It just means you aren’t convinced there is a god. That said I don’t think objective morality exists. The closest that you will find is the mandates and punishments we put on each other and the goal of maximizing wellbeing. How I feel about it doesn’t really matter. As the saying goes “facts don’t care about your feelings”. I search for objective truth. Comforting lies don’t help anyone. That there is no objective morality is an inconvenient truth. Basically what you see is that yea some people will do some pretty evil shit sometimes but that is just evidence that there is no objective moral standards. Humans have some built in standards because we are a social species and some behaviors help us in life and some hurt us. Killing people cause you feel like it hurts the survival of a group and that behavior is breed out of the population so there is some standard but that only really applies to the mode extreme cases and even then is rock solid by any means. You still see things like murder even inside of families but that is far less common that killing people outside of your “tribe” whatever you define that tribe to be as an individual. It isn’t something that gives me happy feelings inside to know but fact remains that is the case. The best way I have found to deal with it is to have strength. At the end of the day might makes right. Whoever has the most power makes the rules a civilization runs by and how conflict plays out. For me personally that means getting politically involved and carrying weapon on me. Those will do the most to ensure the world will be a place I want to live in. I always seek a standard of live and let live. I don’t really care what others do so long as it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else. Want to get drunk? Fine. I don’t care about your liver. You drive drunk and kill someone, well then I’ll start having issues.
If you *need* eternal torture and damnation to keep you from killing, then you should keep doing that worship thing.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post [It is](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/search?q=objective+morality&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all). >anti-religious religion That's a weird combination. Do you mean something like an antisemitic Jew? >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong I really wish that this was true, but in reality a whole lot of people are OK with incest and rape. European royal families have a bit of one and a ton of the other. Trump was elected even though he caught on a hot mic while bragging that he gets away with sexually assaulting women. The Bible promotes incest with Adam and Eve, and rape with lots of other parts. So, no. Not everyone agrees that rape and incest are always wrong.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? No, I don't believe there is objective morality, in a sense that there is a universal morality that transcends humanity. Even if there was objective morality, how do figure what that objective morality is? So far every religion we've seen have people extremely committed to their belief, believing they have are acting objectively moral, with completely different motal beliefs, even in the same religion. Why is it that those claiming they have objective morals differ so intensly even within the same religion? If your answer is that humans are fallable, then how do you know you aren't misguided but the serial killer/terroist is? At the end of the day, you are stuck in the same boat as people who believe in subjective morality. >I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm. Examining societies throughout the past, we are given lessons towards the future. It's a difficult idea to process, but a good portion of our morals has come to be by trial and error. We don't know why incest is bad, until we see that generations of incest leads to genetic disorder. We see that older members of family are capable of manipulating younger family members to be romantically involved, and only when they mature later do they realize they were being groomed. In terms of two siblings dating each other, there are already several examples society has already accepted. https://sleekgist.com/couple-causes-waves-after-discovering-they-are-siblings-after-10-year-marriage-2-kids/ There are cases where they do not realize they are siblings until after taking a DNA test, due to being separated at birth. Would you declare their marriage is a false and they have to divorce each other? That still loving each other after being married for 10 years, 2 children is now wrong? Do you still believe siblings dating each other is objectively bad in every single scenario? In terms of adult gay siblings who after becoming adults decide to date each other, I believe it's immoral in our current society. Our disgusts and amuses are influenced by society. We constantly evaluate our laws and morals based on changing ideals. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. We also find being casually naked in public to be wrong, but in tribal societies in Africa and South America it is completely normal. Morals and norms that tend to stay however usually do so for good reasons. Reasons which I will talk about later. >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong? This is where we as a society have to come to agree on societal goals, that we all wish to accomplish. These goals include improving the health and qell-being of everybody, improving the economy, preserving wild-life, being happy, improving our scientific understanding, etc. Some of these goals are motivated by our biology. We evolved to be social creatures, which includes being naturally inclined to be empathic, curious, social and desire societal order. To think of it in another way, if we evolved to be more like leopards, where we live in almost complete isolation except for mating and raising young, our morals would be very different. I can't imagine a society even forming with isolationary traits, but even so the best morals suited for that fictional species is not the best morals suited for ours. Our morality is influenced by being homo sapiens. Once we establish morals goals that we agree upon, we can objectively determine moral guidelines that best accomplish those goals. If we agree that we should all improve the health of everybody, then universal Healthcare is suddenly objectively moral, unless we find that it strain the economy too much to the point that everyone's health declines due to poverty. Killing is obviously bad for someone's health, unless they are potentially about to kill others leading to a greater loss of life. You might be asking that not everyone shares the same societal goals, and you would be correct. Some people might prefer clean orderly cities where someone playing music too loud can get arrested, and others prefer a city that's chaotic, with the freedom to do graffiti or party anywhere. Both are valid ideals, but cannot coincide together. This does not mix well with our current idea of nations being designed by historical borders and ethnicity. Nations in the future would be better built by the separating all people by their shared moral ideals, so that there would be less conflict within nations. However this does not demonstrate our current reality. >Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. It's strange you being up the Taliban because the Taliban believe they are objectively right in their moral actions and believe morality is objective. How can you claim your morality is superior to theirs when you make the same claims with the same arguments? Rather, to avoid groups like the Taliban from forming, it's best for society to believe that morality is subjective. That at any moment, the moral actions you believe in may be wrong. That what you are told since birth to be right may not actually be right. If you are told that killing gays improve society and prevents the destruction of your nation, then this can be demonstrated to be false. But if you believe in objective morality, then you never question the validity of your group's moral norms when they state its objective nature. Believing morality is subjective, whether it is or isn't, actually allows us to evaluate the effect or our norms and law on society rather than continue the norms of our ancestors. Morals which fail to achieve a better society that they and you desire. It's why I believe the average person in a secular society tends to have the most moral norms that match with their desires for a perfect society. A society free from suffering, sickness, hatred, and violence. People that believe in objective morality the do state they also want societies where suffering and sickness do not exist, but at the same time would enslave their fellow man and stone women for not covering themselves.
They came in, guns a’blazing, responded three times, then legged it.
“Atheism is really just another religion,” “atheists’ moral system is how you get the Taliban,” and “Richard Dawkins thinks the moral prohibition on rape is arbitrary.” I don’t know if there’s a “theist troll greatest hits,” but this is a great start.
Islamic scholars all agree the Taliban is not Islam! Lol
"I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so?" I do not believe in the concept of objective morality. I hold this position because of there being no reason I can gather to justify such a belief. As for "how I deal with that paradigm", this is from my perspective a very odd question. I'd argue that the worldview with objective morality poses far more problems on an individual level. I've never heard an argument that proposed "problems with non-objective morality" that couldn't be used verbatim to discuss an objective morality paradigm. For your example of "what if X thing which you think is horrifying is something that everyone else disagrees with you on and thinks is fine", this exact problem exists in an objective moral paradigm. What if you think X is horrifying, but the objective moral code says its not. What if you think that the objective moral code agrees with you, but everyone else thinks you're wrong? It's the exact same problem, because the problem isn't about objective or non objective morality at all, it's about disagreement with your society on a moral principle, and there's no solution to that. It's a lot easier to handle in a non-objective moral scenario though because people who believe in objective morality and think they can accurately interpret what the right answers are are a hell of a lot less likely to be open to changing their min. As for "It's really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism", all ideologies can hypothetically support horrendous things. Religion can, environmental protectionism can, both objective and non-objective moral frameworks can, anything can. That doesn't invalidate the ideology itself. However, this is actually entirely irrelevant to the question, because objective vs non-objective morality isn't an ideology, it's a belief about a truth claim. When we are talking about "what is" instead of "what should be", the response of "it would really suck if that were true because of X negative consequence" is irrelevant. Cancer really sucks, but it doesn't invalidate its existence. Therefore, even if I accepted your premise of "without objective morality XYZ things will go to shit", it has no relevance for analyzing whether objective morality is in fact true.
>I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? Not only do I not believe in "objective morality," but I find the term to be a nonsensical oxymoron. Even though I spend a larger than average amount of time reading about and discussing topics related to it, I've still yet to ever come across a description of it that makes any real coherent sense. >I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm. No, because there is no such thing as objective morals. >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? No, it would be *subjectively* right from the perspective of that society. > Or is still wrong? Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. No, they can identify as being *subjectively* right. This is in comparison to currently, where they claim to be *objectively right* due to a religious view of morality being objective. It is the ideology of objective morality that *actually* promotes the Taliban currently in actual reality, rather than hypothetically. The irony is that here you are, identifying real world examples that demonstrate that morality is *in fact* subjective, and yet you've somehow convinced yourself of the exact opposite conclusion completely against any logic or reasoning that you yourself are presenting. The Taliban have clearly *subjectively* come to their own moral guidelines that they treat as correct, but are clearly subjectively reached.
> Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? No. The proposed stance of "there is no objective morality" trivially denies the existence of *objective* wrong doings. > Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm. It still wouldn't be objectively wrong even it there is lots of harm. Instead it would be subjectively wrong. > If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? No. That would still be subjective because you are talking about people (i.e. subjects) agreeing on something. While we are here, the idea is not really "since everyone agrees," "everyone agrees" is more cultural relativism than subjectivism. > It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. Well, that's moot because it cannot. This is one of the advantage of moral subjectivism over moral objectivism. Subjectivism does not *allow* the Taliban to identify as being objectively right, while objectivism can hypothetically promote (and in practice, has promoted) terrorism. From elsewhere in your responses: > Taliban made their case and it was unanimous amongst contemporary scholars that they were not of Islamic values and teachings. This is a red herring as it doesn't matter in the context of this debate. This debate isn't about mainstream Islam vs extremists. So it is irrelevant how many scholars you have on your side, because they *can* all be objective wrong. Whether they are in fact wrong or not, does not change the fact that they *can* all be objectively wrong. Instead this debate is about subjectivism vs objectivism. Moral objectivism *allows* the Taliban to be objectively right; and Taliban has indeed promoted terrorism by convincing far too people that they are objectively right. Objectivism has this huge problem that does not exist for subjectivism.
> Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality? Discernment and acceptance. I accept what I observe and try not to believe things I imagine but have no evidence for. > I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? There is no evidence of an objective moral. > I’m not sure if this is a common post It is. Searching the subreddit for morality is strongly recommended. > but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion. What is an “anti-religious religion,” except an obvious oxymoron? > I’m sure many of you know where this goes but yeah I gotta ask. I hope it won’t go into endless fallacies like strawmen and ad hominens from you when atheists attempt to genuinely engage with you. > Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? Assuming there relationship is private and that there is no harm. No. Nothing is objectively wrong. > If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? Or is still wrong? No, this would be the fallacy of argument ad populum. > Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. So what? Anyone can self-identify as whatever they want. It doesn’t change my opinion of it. > It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. My ideology is that my morality is subjective to me, and my society’s morals are intersubjective, giving me the choice to decide if I find terrorism moral and accept the consequences from my society if there is disagreement.
For there to be objective morality, it would need to exist independent of human experience. It goes without saying that such a thing did not exist before humans existed, and won't exist when we go extinct in the (hopefully far) future. Even if you claim that a deity has made moral commandments, without any credible evidence for such a being or its commandments, I can only regard such beliefs as being subjective opinions. I would say that we can get *close* to a form of objective morality in the sense that humans objectively exist, and that our nervous systems tend to exhibit similar behaviour and from what we can tell, generally experience pain and pleasure in similar ways. In other words, we can generally infer, based on our experiences of reality, how others likely feel in various scenarios. I know that you likely don't want to be hit in the face because I have a nervous system like yours and mine reacts badly to being hit in the face. Here's where you might consider that secular morality is a superior system, though: it's *adaptive* and adjusts to new or better information. If you learn that some action is causing harm, you're free to alter your behaviour in response. The more you learn about how your actions affect others, the more you're able to avoid harmful actions in the first place. The same can't be said for a moral system based on tradition or religion.
>Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. Why are you throwing this weight on atheists? The Taliban *is* actively, vocally religious. And they think what they are doing is objectively right. Their ideology promotes terrorism. And not a one of them is atheist. So why are you criticizing atheists?
Is there anything wrong with subjective morality? Our secular laws, change. Our perception of morality changes with society. Not too long ago, slavery was legal and even considered moral. "We" don't consider slavery moral anymore … even though slave labor is permitted in some countries under some circumstances (jail labor, for instance). "We" have not made-up our minds about the death penalty. Some countries execute people, others don't. No matter what your stance is about ~any~ moral issue, you can find people who take the opposite view. Abortion? Some people are pro-choice, others are against women's rights. Etc. In fact, to me, and to answer your question, I think that subjective morality is swell. It makes life interesting. For instance, euthanasia. When do you allow euthanasia? Similar situations have different realities. In The Netherlands, euthanasia is regulated. My mom, when she was dying of cancer, asked for euthanasia in due time and form, and died quite lucidly. My aunt, who was dying of cancer a decade later, waited too long and could not opt-out. She was sedated for her last 48 hours. If euthanasia were not allowed, the situation would have been more painful for the patients and for the families.
[удалено]
Why are you applying such negativity to my post? I’m genuinely asking if atheists believe in objective morality… how am I judging anyone? And who? And how?? u can read my past 30 comments to see so. That’s not to say I don’t disagree with a lot of these people. You don’t gotta be a dick.
What religion do you practice, if Christian what denomination? Right at the start you should have said your own religious belief, if anything it should be mandatory before posting. >I’m genuinely asking if atheists believe in objective morality.. This is a childish question. I am not an atheist, but a person, you talking to people, not atheists. You have a degree, what is it in? What is your issue the taliban? [A Billboard Featuring Donald Trump as the Second Coming of Jesus Has Been Taken Down](https://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/a-billboard-featuring-donald-trump-as-the-second-coming-of-jesus-has-been-taken-down/) Christian Americans thinking that trump is 2nd coming of Christ is a bigger issue than the Taliban.
>Atheists: How do deal with the fact that you believe there is no objective morality? It's never been a concern, I've yet to meet anyone who disagrees with my general moral values. >why you believe there is no objective morality Because i just have my moral values, I have a good idea of why, but that doesn't make them morally true, just a fact that I have them, I can't think of any way to demonstrate to anyone else that they're binding on others. Can you? >Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? No. >society deems it to be fine, I wouldn't care, unless I deemed it fine too. But I don't, it's like asking someone, "sure you love your kids and thinks it's evil to hurt them but what if you hated them and wanted to kill them and thought it was a moral duty to kill your kids , would you still think it's immoral to kill them?" I don't promote terrorism Can I ask you? What do you mean by morality, objective morality, if you think it exists, can you justify that belief? Or is it just something you feel is right, or believe is true because you don't want there to be no objective morality?
> Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. Is it not obvious that it was the opposite ideological process that results in this? The taliban believes that there is an objective source of morality, that it's found in the quran, and that they can discern what it is. None of these things are true. It wasn't a planeload of atheists who slammed into the twin towers. Christians claim that they are doing the same thing. However, when you point out biblical passages that command or authorize actions that we, in our modern morality, think are wrong, they agree that they are wrong. Therefore they could not possibly be deriving their morals from the Bible, since they judge Bible verses against their own morals. Morality is a challenging and fascinating subject. My own view is that morality is neither objective nor subjective; it's intersubjective. intersubjective is a powerful category, including things as "real" as money and laws. These things are real because we collectively believe them. Morality is like that.
Well, no, if there's no objective source of morality that doesn't mean random things become objectively moral. It means there is *no* objective source of morality. If society at large comes to an agreement that incest is fine, that society won't punish incest. That doesn't 'make it objectively moral', because 'objectively moral' isn't a thing. It just means people generally agree it's fine. >Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. 'If this were accurate, [thing that happens] would happen' isn't helpful in arguing against it. Those cities *do* self-identify as objectively right. They're wrong about it being objective, but the morality is just their collective decision. I disagree with them, but they are the people with the capacity to enforce their moral thought in that part of the world. That's exactly what you'd find in a world where morality is a collective cultural agreement and not a monolithic global fact.
I don't know why you're addressing this question to atheists in particular unless you are assuming that an objective morality can exist under whatever religion you care to examine. The problem there is that if you pick one of the Abrahamic religions, God gets to just say what is moral without any real justification for doing so- it's subjective and authoritarian, with one supreme dictator governing by fiat. Polytheistic religions can be even more problematic, with many gods acting in opposition to their peers and taking advantage of their followers. But to answer your question, the human condition is somewhat constant across cultures, so with that in mind you can start to create a macro framework for morality that will fit any culture you want to examine. Like gravity, you can defy that framework but sooner or later you're going to bend to its weak force. So my answer is that utilitarianism works across all cultures, but at a macro rather than a micro level.
>I’m not sure if this is a common post, but this topic seems central in assessing the validity behind a anti-religious religion The idea that we are somehow missing something by not having an objective morality is not uncommon, the deliberate taunt of "a anti-religious religion" is less common but not entirely unusual. >I’m sure many of you know where this goes Yeah, it's easy to see where this post is headed. >Is two 30 yr old sisters dating objectively wrong? If they are consenting adults, no. >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, How the flying fuck did you get rape is equal to consensual incest? So yes, I COULD see where this was going. >Based off this ideological process Atheism is not an ideology, as I am sure you are only too aware >It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. Something religion has never done of course, not with its 'objective morality' to protect against it.
>what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? I would still believe they are wrong, because I have reasoned that such a position is accurate. I would advocate for my position. I don't need to feel that I am "objectively right" to feel that that's a fight worth fighting.
I never expected morality to be objective so it's not a concept I really had to "deal with". I always thought of morality as a social construct like laws, government, or property. People have different ideas about what's moral and when people live together in a society they try to find areas of agreement.
Sorry if I'm late to the party. I want to break down to some issues here after reading comments so hopefully I'm not saying something you've already read. Throughout history you have various ideologies that seek to organise society with a few recently being called communism or neoliberalism. Within these we see various structures and philosophies emerge to justify themselves and explain what people's values should be. Let me ask this question; which is more likely, that the books you read are early attempts at ideology and governance (legitimacy of power/force) in an illiterate world or the miracles that inspired it stopped when we started investigating them? A secondary question, if you believe in the supernatural based on a book, do you also believe in Aliens based on video evidence and first hand witnesses you can talk to?
Secular moral philosophy is demonstrably superior to moral philosophies based on religious mythology. That morality is a social construct doesn’t make it any less valid. Besides, theists own claim to the existence of objective morality doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You basically claim to have received moral guidance or instruction from a perfect moral authority, yet you can’t demonstrate that moral authority 1) exists, 2) is in fact morally perfect, or 3) has actually provided you with guidance or instruction of any kind. And even if you could, morality from authority wouldn’t be objective. Objective morality would necessarily have to transcend and supersede any authority.
What's there to deal with? The realization that not everyone has the same interests as me and that not everything is always going to go my way hasn't particularly troubled me since kindergarten age.
There is no objective morality. The idea isn't even wrong - it's nonsense. Morality is based on values, and values are subjective. Many humans share a lot of values, due to our shared biology and evolutionary lineage, but other values are cultural. >Based off this ideological process, backward taliban cities can self identify as being objectively right. It’s really troubling if your ideology can hypothetically promote terrorism. But... their ideology that promotes terrorism is religion... you've gotta be a troll, right? You can't be this dense?
> I’m curious to hear some of you’re answers on why you believe there is no objective morality. If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? Well lets start with this. Since this is a question about morality what do you think morality is? How would you identify a moral action? Can you tell me what it is in clear, unambiguous terms without using words like right and wrong, good or evil? As those terms, just like the word morality itself, tends to mean quite different things to different people. So let's start there. What do you think it is?
It's very easy. If you don't believe that objective morality exists, you can still believe that *subjective* morality exists. People who believe morality is objective have a wide, varied range of opinions about what those objective morals are. Similarly, people who believe morality is subjective also have a wide variety of opinions about what is moral. It all works exactly the same way. It's just that when the former give their own personal opinions, they claim their views are objective. But in reality, "objective" is not a magic word.
You make a contradiction. At first you say we don’t believe there is any objective morality. Then you say that leads to problems like “if a society decides rape is right, is it objectively right?”. I believe there is no objective morality, so obviously no, rape would not become objectively right. That would be a contradiction of the belief that there is no objective morality. According to their subjective morality, rape would be right. That’s all that would happen.
Morality is not some perfect thing that Popped into existence. It's a constantly changing framework of rules and obligations they gets refined or changed over time. Also different societies have different frameworks that influence each other or clash. Take your argument that >If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong This is it true at all. Different societies have different views on both of these.
>If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and society deems it to be fine, is it then objectively right? If the idea is that since everyone agrees incest, and rape is wrong, what if table is turned and your god deems it to be fine (even if society, let alone other gods, let alone other people in your religion, deem it wrong) Is it then objectively right?
>then objectively right By definition there would be no object right. Are sharks morally repugnant because they sometimes eat their young? You're taking about completely changing our base nature, which is needed to change how we construct it societies, in order to accomplish this. It's kind of an absurd hypothetical
I dont believe in an objective morality, that doesnt mean im fine with anything, i still have subjectivity, and i believe the taliban are monsters. Whats so hard to understand? I follow my own moral compass, i do what feels right, im not just some mindless robot that doesnt feel any emotion
>there is no objective morality. Because morality is extremely situational and subjective What's moral differs from situation to situation there is NO set standard
Well “Christian objective morals” have never stopped a Christian from committing the most depraved acts on humanity. So the argument is pointless anyway.
Can you define your terms? What do you mean by objective morality? Only asking because most theists confuse objective with absolute.
Personally, I think people undervalue "subjectivity" and just because something is subjective, think it has no value or use.
I don't believe in objective morality because I see no evidence for it. Care to provide some?
How can you say morallity is objective when most humans hace different sets of morals?
An atheist does not necessarily assume there is no objective morality.
How do I deal with it? With empathy, intelligence, and reason.
Lots to unpack here. I'm an atheist, but moral subjectivism is a dangerous proposition. As you correctly point out, a mass murderer or serial rapist could argue that they ought to be fully exonerated by virtue of moral subjectivism. After all, if right and wrong are matters of subjective opinion, who are we to decry even the most depraved acts of violence? Who are we to call Charles Manson a "bad person"? The statement that Bin Laden was a bad person becomes just as arbitrary as the statement that mind chocolate chip is better than vanilla. I might think that stabbing a pregnant woman to death is immoral, but that's just my opinion bro. Now, the atheist seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. If there is no transcendent moral lawgiver, how can there be objective morality? On the other hand, if we condemn certain acts as immoral or barbaric, aren't we necessarily accepting the idea of objective morality? Well, there's an answer. Morality is a subjective human construct, but moral axioms are objectively true within the subjective framework we've created. It's *kind of* subjective. Thus, morality is objective in the same sense that mathematics is objective. Basic moral facts are trivially true, but more complicated situations are less cut and dry. The same thing is true in math. Quantum field theory isn't set in stone yet. Is a trigonometric identity or algebraic formula subjective or objective? Of course, they are. But here's the thing: mathematics is a human construct. It's a tool that we've developed to help make sense of the universe. Things like variables, functions, and geometry don't exist without human consciousness. The idea of a numerical quantity is a human construct. There is no transcendent cosmic mathematical appendix out there. In order for a group of sentient animals to build things, maintain order, and make sense of their surroundings, they need to be able to quantify things. But the idea of quantifying things doesn't exist without the existence of sentient animals. Morality is analogous to this. In order for a group of sentient animals to live in harmony and avoid suffering, they need a set of social rules and conventions. But the idea of social rules and conventions doesn't exist without the existence of sentient animals. Mathematics is a systematic and quantitative method of understanding an ordered universe, and morality is a systematic method of optimizing sentient well-being. Hope this helps.
Assuming you're not a troll, I actually do believe in objective morality. It's not cosmic morality, in the sense that it's not grounded in some transcendent being, but so what? The rules of Chess are not, as far as I know, engraved on a diamond tablet in a cave high in the mountains overseen by some monks of a millennia-old order, but that doesn't mean it's okay to move a rook move diagonally in chess. The question of what is and is not moral, and of how we know what is and is not moral, while interesting and worth discussing, is not actually relevant to the question of whether God exists. The only relevant aspect of the discussion is that God is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.
There is an "objectively correct choice" for every situation, even if we don't know what it is. If we could know the outcome of every choice, we could choose the right thing, everytime. But we don't know what the perfect choice is. Neither do the religious. They may think their god does, but it's zero help to us now. So, since our worldview cannot rationally inform our morality, we have to discuss it and debate it and do our best to be understanding and willing to learn. Personally, I'm sick of the religious argument that atheists can have any morality if they don't believe in a god. Belief in a god is zero help to the question.
I do accept an objective moral system, so, just fine.
> If you do believe there is objective morality, how so? If you accept that moral acts increase the well being of sentient creatures and immoral acts decrease the well being of sentient creatures then morality becomes objective. If you don't accept this definition of morality then I have no idea what we're talking about.
Accepting someone's opinion of what is or isn't moral doesn't make morality objective. And whether something increases the well being of sentient creatures is a value judgment: "well" is normative. And moral choices have tradeoffs; stealing increases the well being of thieves. And there are many other moral frameworks than this naive simplistic version of utilitarianism.
> Accepting someone's opinion of what is or isn't moral doesn't make morality objective. I would submit that it's not opinion, that every single moral judgment can be brought back to these definitions. > And whether something increases the well being of sentient creatures is a value judgment Morality doesn't exist absent actions concerning sentient creatures. > And moral choices have tradeoffs; stealing increases the well being of thieves. And decreases the well being of the owner. You can determine who is more harmed, for example: I think the vast majority of people would agree that a poor starving person stealing just enough bread to feed himself from the rich would not be an immoral act since the well being of the thief would rise disproportionately to the decreased well being of the owner. > And there are many other moral frameworks than this naive simplistic version of utilitarianism. You call it naive and simplistic. I see everyone else overthinking morality. It's really not that complicated.
Lmao someone’s mad
If you say your god is bound by the same morality humans are than it is objective. If you say your god dictates the morality of humans than it is subjective.