Atheism is unnatural

[Dan123]

It’s not about whether I personally think it was wrong (good news, I do!) it’s whether we as a community, society, country, and species find it wrong (even better news, we do!). If morality is objective we shouldn’t see sweeping changes over time, but we do. Is slavery wrong? If so was it wrong when rules for owning slaves were written in the Bible? If it was right is it right today? If Stalin’s actions were wrong, was the slaughter of the Midianites wrong?

To me I see a world with an evolving sense of morality that has changes and mostly improved as we develop, agree upon, and defend principles woven into our societies.

 

[goout]

It’s not about whether I personally think it was wrong (good news, I do!) it’s whether we as a community, society, country, and species find it wrong (even better news, we do!). If morality is objective we shouldn’t see sweeping changes over time, but we do. Is slavery wrong? If so was it wrong when rules for owning slaves were written in the Bible? If it was right is it right today? If Stalin’s actions were wrong, was the slaughter of the Midianites wrong?

To me I see a world with an evolving sense of morality that has changes and mostly improved as we develop, agree upon, and defend principles woven into our societies.

Awesome. Evolving morality. (aka the “shifting sands” theory of morality).
so then you must agree that when the next wack-job dictator comes along, he/she is justified in going back to slavery, (if at least 51% are on board, of course).

Heck, we have rampant sexual slavery now! We have women as second class citizens over much of the world and it is,get this Dan…popular because “we decide”.

Please make the case that these kinds of crimes should be resisted when “morality evolves” and"we decide".

 

[goout]

The fact that atheists are here and are just as concerned as Christians about focusing on moral behavior exposes the fact that you are searching for objective truth. Or you wouldn’t be here, passionately.

Where’s the atheistanswers.com forums? I wanna go over there and find nothing worth getting passionate about.

 

[FiveLinden]

So you believe that truth is dependent on the way men may think about it. Therefore, the truth is not singular but changes as men from place to place or time to time change their minds. Nonsense

Please don’t use words like ‘nonsense’ when discussing my views. No, I don’t believe any of the things you attribute to me.

 

[FiveLinden]

The fact that atheists are here and are just as concerned as Christians about focusing on moral behavior exposes the fact that you are searching for objective truth.

No, it exposes exposes the fact that we are focusing on moral behaviour.

 

[Dan123]

Heck, we have rampant sexual slavery now! We have women as second class citizens over much of the world and it is,get this Dan…popular because “we decide”.

Women have been second class citizens for a long time. It’s changing. Should we resist that change?

so then you must agree that when the next wack-job dictator comes along, he/she is justified in going back to slavery, (if at least 51% are on board, of course).

I do not. Why didn’t people 500 years ago use their knowledge that slavery is objectively wrong to put an end to the practice? Why did it take social and economic norms changing to end legal slavery in the US?

And you didn’t address why there are instructions on who can be enslaved in the bible, unless it’s objectively moral?

Let’s consider something less inflammatory. Speed limits. What is the objective speed limit?

…

There is none right? Speed limits vary by country, state, county even. They vary by the type of road. They change over time, speed limits now aren’t what they were 50 years ago. Even the posted limit can be subject to weather conditions, go the posted 65mph in a show storm and the police may still pull you over because of unsafe conditions. It’s not even safety as we rarely update them to current safety standards or for the specific road, much easier to have a single state wide highway limit for example, and safety studies often play second fiddle to concerned parents in subdivisions who want a lower limit in their area, regardless of what the traffic engineers intended.

A long way of saying speed limits are about as subjective as you can get. But we don’t have trouble justifying them do we? No one is saying without an objective source for speed limits we have no way to justify enforcing them are they? We found a system that benefits society and enough of us agreed on it to make it law, and see it enforced, even if some violate those rules.

 

[goout]

goout:

Heck, we have rampant sexual slavery now! We have women as second class citizens over much of the world and it is,get this Dan…popular because “we decide”.

Women have been second class citizens for a long time. It’s changing. Should we resist that change?

so then you must agree that when the next wack-job dictator comes along, he/she is justified in going back to slavery, (if at least 51% are on board, of course).

I do not. Why didn’t people 500 years ago use their knowledge that slavery is objectively wrong to put an end to the practice? Why did it take social and economic norms changing to end legal slavery in the US?

And you didn’t address why there are instructions on who can be enslaved in the bible, unless it’s objectively moral?

Let’s consider something less inflammatory. Speed limits. What is the objective speed limit?

…

There is none right? Speed limits vary by country, state, county even. They vary by the type of road. They change over time, speed limits now aren’t what they were 50 years ago. Even the posted limit can be subject to weather conditions, go the posted 65mph in a show storm and the police may still pull you over because of unsafe conditions. It’s not even safety as we rarely update them to current safety standards or for the specific road, much easier to have a single state wide highway limit for example, and safety studies often play second fiddle to concerned parents in subdivisions who want a lower limit in their area, regardless of what the traffic engineers intended.

A long way of saying speed limits are about as subjective as you can get. But we don’t have trouble justifying them do we? No one is saying without an objective source for speed limits we have no way to justify enforcing them are they? We found a system that benefits society and enough of us agreed on it to make it law, and see it enforced, even if some violate those rules.

Dan, what is the point of speed limits? What is the good that speed limits are pursuant to? (“making it to work happy and safe” won’t do here)
After you have identified that good…consider whether this good is
1 something that you decided on,
2 or is something subject to popular decision, or
3 is something that simply is…outside your influence and whim.

 

[AlNg]

Morality is objective. If morality is subjective then morality can be anything.

Not always. One hundred years ago, it was immoral for a woman to wear a bikini. Today it is not so if you are on a beach in France.

 

[o_mlly]

Not always. One hundred years ago, it was immoral for a woman to wear a bikini. Today it is not so if you are on a beach in France.

I think you might mean “illegal” not “immoral”.

 

[JMMJ]

What do atheists spend lot’s of valuable intellectual, emotional, spiritual time doing?
Answer: talking about a God that doesn’t exist.

Most of the atheists I know really wish a god did exist. They search far and wide. They study. They evaluate. They discuss and debate. And yet, no evidence of a god.

Atheists often work much harder than religious people in trying to find the truth (not a capital “T” truth, but truth, nonetheless).

Seems like a lot of people weighing in here don’t know much at all about atheists, and don’t truly know many, either.

 

[AlNg]

I think you might mean “illegal” not “immoral”.

Another example of the subjectivity of morality is capital punishment.
today it is taught to be immoral.
In the past it was taught that it is moral to burn a heretic alive at the stake.

 

[goout]

goout:

What do atheists spend lot’s of valuable intellectual, emotional, spiritual time doing?
Answer: talking about a God that doesn’t exist.

Most of the atheists I know really wish a god did exist. They search far and wide. They study. They evaluate. They discuss and debate. And yet, no evidence of a god.

Atheists often work much harder than religious people in trying to find the truth (not a capital “T” truth, but truth, nonetheless).

Well, that is the point. Thanks for reinforcing.

 

[JMMJ]

My point was that there is a lot of ignorance on this thread with regards to statements made and ideas put forth about atheists.

 

[goout]

o_mlly:

I think you might mean “illegal” not “immoral”.

Another example of the subjectivity of morality is capital punishment.
today it is taught to be immoral.
In the past it was taught that it is moral to burn a heretic alive at the stake.

If you’re referencing the Church, the Church does not classify capital punishment as intrinsically immoral. (morality evaluates human acts…in reference to objective good, and takes intent and circumstances into account when evaluating)

The Pope has spoken of capital punishment as inadmissible. We have more moral means of correction and justice available. A mass murderer can be incarcerated and other innocent human life is protected without terminating the mass murderer.

In any case, these moral evaluations have the good of human life as their object. Unjust killings are unjust because…they take a human life unjustly. Not because they are no unpopular or now held as unethical. Unjust killings always violated this good.

 

[o_mlly]

Most of the atheists I know really wish a god did exist.

“There is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night.”

― Voltaire

 

[Dan123]

What is the good that speed limits are pursuant to?

Speed limits reduce the chance of accidents of fatalities. You want me to conclude the only reason I don’t want to die in an accident with a speeder is because a higher power dictated that to me. The thing is, evolution explains a survival instinct as well. I can’t reproduce if I’m dead, so any species with a survival instinct is going to have an edge. I don’t see the need for a higher power to spell out that dying in a fiery wreck is bad. It’s literally one of our base instincts and one we share with most of the animal kingdom.

 

[Dan123]

A mass murderer can be incarcerated and other innocent human life is protected without terminating the mass murderer.

When in history have we not been able to incarcerate a prisoner? Prisons are one of the oldest institutions.

 

[goout]

goout:

What is the good that speed limits are pursuant to?

Speed limits reduce the chance of accidents of fatalities. You want me to conclude the only reason I don’t want to die in an accident with a speeder is because a higher power dictated that to me.
…

No Dan I don’t want you to conclude that. I am asking you a simple question:
What is the purpose of speed limits? What good do they serve?

You responded :

Speed limits reduce the chance of accidents of fatalities.

Dan: What is the point of avoiding accidents and fatalities?

 

[JMMJ]

Yep. And there you have it.

 

[goout]

My point was that there is a lot of ignorance on this thread with regards to statements made and ideas put forth about atheists.

You really think? For instance…
It’s good to quote the position, and quote the misunderstanding.

I just did that above with Dan.