Morality is all in your mind.

Truth Detector said:
You really are too stupid to comprehend the ignorance in your posts. :palm:

Would you say that religion has given us a moral compass, incredible architecture and our most valued Constitution?

Therefore, what has atheism brought us? Pol Pot? Hitler? Stalin?
Click to expand...
Very little of our architecture is based on Christianity.

Christianity is not the basis of the constitution.
 
ZenMode said:
Christians have also committed the largest majority of the murders in the country, committed the majority of the child abuse, infidelity, etc.
Click to expand...

It is my firm belief that religion never stopped someone doing whatever evil was truly in their heart. And atheism never stopped someone from doing whatever good was in their heart. (And vice versa.)

Anyone who claims some form of "moral superiority" predicated on belief in God lacks self-awareness.
 
Truth Detector said:
Would you say that religion has given us a moral compass,
Click to expand...

Not really. Religion certain CLAIMS morality for itself, but then usually winds up supporting some grotesque violation of their own morality, so I'm guessing the answer is "no".

Truth Detector said:
incredible architecture and our most valued Constitution?
Click to expand...

As noted by others these are not necessarily related to faith. The architecture bit certainly did at some point in regards to church construction which also influenced some other large building construction methods, but generally the faith has little to do with modern architecture.

And the Constitution was written largely by men who had a VERY different version of "faith" from you. And they went out of their way to keep it secular.

Truth Detector said:
Therefore, what has atheism brought us? Pol Pot? Hitler? Stalin?
Click to expand...

Do we really have to go down this path AGAIN???? Does anyone on your side ever listen when people talk about this topic? Pro-TIp: Christianity doesn't fare a lot better and maybe even worse given its clear statements against the kind of thing it did with abandon in its history.
 
Daylight63 said:
It is my firm belief that religion never stopped someone doing whatever evil was truly in their heart. And atheism never stopped someone from doing whatever good was in their heart. (And vice versa.)

Anyone who claims some form of "moral superiority" predicated on belief in God lacks self-awareness.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. I think any parent can teach their kids right from wrong without terrifying them with fairy tales of eternal torment, but kids are still going to be kids. They're going to make mistakes, just as adults do.
 
Yakuda said:
Ill repeat it again. If morals are just in the mind then no one can say killing is wrong if someones mind says it's moral.

You're right about Christians. The problem is the simple minded think that because some and maybe even lots of Christians behave badly, then the teachings of Christianity is bad. That's moronic at best.
Click to expand...
I think it's an open question how, if, or why a moral law is imprinted on conscience.

I don't think there is that much functional difference between moral relativism and objective morality - as long as the "right" system prevails from my perspective. It's fine that we defeated the Nazis. But if the Nazis had conquered the world, Nazi and racist morality could become the cultural norm.

That kind of moral relativism is unappealing to me. I prefer to think there is an objective moral law that is true independent of opinion or cultural norm.
 
Cypress said:
That kind of moral relativism is unappealing to me. I prefer to think there is an objective moral law that is true independent of opinion or cultural norm.
Click to expand...
I suspect moral relativism is an invention of Christians. I've never seen anyone seriously argue for relativism.
 
Cypress said:
I think it's an open question how, if, or why a moral law is imprinted on conscience.

I don't think there is that much functional difference between moral relativism and objective morality - as long as the "right" system prevails from my perspective. It's fine that we defeated the Nazis. But if the Nazis had conquered the world, Nazi and racist morality could become the cultural norm.

That kind of moral relativism is unappealing to me. I prefer to think there is an objective moral law that is true independent of opinion or cultural norm.
Click to expand...
How if and why moral law is imprinted on the conscience is irrelevant to the discussion. If morals are only in ones mind then no one has legitimate authority or just reason to tell people they can't do what their mind tells them is moral. That's the issue. What we find to moral of how we reach that decision is a good discussion but not pertinent to the discussion of morals being only in the mind.
 
Hume said:
I suspect moral relativism is an invention of Christians. I've never seen anyone seriously argue for relativism.
Click to expand...
I think that's because absolute right and wrong is a very appealing idea.

Even those who deny objective morality tend to be hesitant to call themselves moral relativists. It's almost impossible to live out a life of subjective morality, because human nature instinctively wants to point out certain things as being objectively right or wrong based on an absolute standard.

But once you look past all the word-smithing, sophistry, and fancy-dancing, a rejection of objective morality basically makes one a moral subjectivist in my book.
 
Cypress said:
I think that's because absolute right and wrong is a very appealing idea.

Even those who deny objective morality tend to be hesitant to call themselves moral relativists
Click to expand...

Let me tell you why I avoid the term "moral relativist". It's because people who like to be as pejorative and insulting as possible to philosophies they don't share take the phrase "moral relativism" to be synonymous with hedonistic balls-to-the-wall rape/murder/torture/sociopathology and will INSIST on suggesting in every single post that that is what I, the atheist, am.

I tend to avoid words that the opposing side have already "poisoned the well" on.

Plus: I suspect by "moral relativist" you don't see yourself in that description but I bet you have moral relativist positions. You just won't cop to them or you'll outright change the entire basis of the discussion to avoid taking ownership of your own positions as stated.

. It's almost impossible to live out a life of subjective morality,
Click to expand...

Unless there is no such thing as objective morality at which point you only know subjective morality and you only THINK it is objective.

But once you look past all the word-smithing, sophistry,
Click to expand...

Yes, by people who use emotionally charged language when they can't argue their point on the merits and need to build strawmen of the opposing side.
 
Hume said:
Only to Christians.
Click to expand...

Geez, you sure do hate Christians. You realize "absolute morality" is kinda popular with almost ALL religions. Not just Christians.

Now please call me a name and make me feel bad. Make it hit hard. Something deeply personal and hurtful.
 
Daylight63 said:
Geez, you sure do hate Christians. You realize "absolute morality" is kinda popular with almost ALL religions. Not just Christians.

Now please call me a name and make me feel bad. Make it hit hard. Something deeply personal and hurtful.
Click to expand...
^^Stalker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top