OK
Christian guy:"Hitler what your doing is wrong, didn’t you read the 10 commandments? God says killing (or is it murder? Christians can’t even agree to have a common morality!) wrong!
Hitler:“So?”
The theist argument;
My morality is better than yours, I get mine from a book.
Do you know that genocide is wrong? I certainly do. Is the only basis for your belief that genocide is wrong your reliance on a supernatural authority, or on your belief in the existence of that supernatural authority? I would expect that, when you got right down to it, that this is not the case. Please correct me if I mis-speak.
But it’s a really really OLD book!
Anyways, if you can’t trust an ancient book that’s been translated from another language (sure the placement of a comma can change the meaning of a sentence - what’s your point?), what can you trust? REASON?!!?
Silly liberal humanist.
-Joe
Well, I’m saying that God is irrelevant to morality.
Because it works better.
No, I base mine on objective consequences and my own desires, for myself and the world.
Better moral standards make society better to live in. That’s what makes it worthwhile.
People suffer and die; that is fact, not “subjective”. People don’t want to suffer and die; that is fact, not “subjective”. People want to be free; that is fact, not “subjective”. A code of behavior that keeps people happy, alive and free therefore is better at accomplishing people’s goals; that too is fact, not “subjective”.
There is no such thing as “atheist morality”; atheists only agree on one thing, disbelief in gods. We have plenty of disagreements about morality.
Genocide makes the world worse; that is objective, not subjective. That’s why you don’t find many people who want to be subject to genocide.
Slavery make the world worse; that is objective, not subjective. Opposing slavery was right, and has always been right. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have needed chains and overseers.
Only if you’re a lunatic. Any healthy mind recognizes some things are preferable to others. Behavior that worsens the world is bad, that which improves it is is good. And no, just because there is no 100% agreement on what is better does not invalidate my arguement. There seems to be general agreement on what better is like; most people who oppose it are either :
A : Selfish and don’t care. Evil/amoral, in other words.
B : Irrational/ignorant and don’t realize/care about the consequences of what they do.
You’ll find few people who admire chaos/death/destruction for it’s own sake, especially if they are one of the sufferers.
Wrong on all counts. Atheism provides no basis for morality - or immorality, for that matter. Atheism is not a religion, any more than disbelief in fairies is a religion. It does not deny a rational standard is possible; as it consists solely of disbelief in gods, it doesn’t deny anything but gods.
No, it’s based on Occams Razor; the opposite of religion.
The whole point of the OP was that atheism is not religion - I thought that this had been beaten to death several pages ago.
But, in your statement, are you suggesting that a characteristic of religion, and by extension of theism, is that it cannot provide any proof of its moral claims, and that it denies that any rational standard is possible?
If so, then I guess that we’re getting somewhere. 
My answer is pretty much what Revenant Threshold said. I could tell him that he was wrong from my own moral perspective (and my own is the only one which is authoritative) but I would have no expectation that he would, as Cartman would say, “respect my athori-tay.” I guess I could try to appeal to whatever sense of empathy, compassion or moral aestethic he may possess in himself in order to persuade him that he was wrong but I would have no expectation that I would be successful.
If you’re asking whether there’s anyway I could argue that he was wrong in any objective sense, the answer is no. All I would be able to do is follow my own moral imperative and blow his brains out.
I rely on, and believe in, no supernatural authority. As I said, I believe that some things are wrong, and I don’t find it satisfactory to say that Ted Bundy’s point of view is “valid for him”. I repeat, at the risk of violating* Great Debates* rules, that I am puzzled by the whole question.
I think I understand the confusion here, and just to be clear, I am not suggesting that everyone’s morality is equally valid. I’m saying flat out that only MY moral judgement is valid and I operate under that assumption.
Whoa - I did not mean to put words in your mouth on the whole “supernatural authority” thing. I guess maybe we’re vehemently agreeing on this?
Regarding the moral code under which a sociopath acts - what does it mean that it’s not “valid for him” - what code would he consider valid? And anyway, if I think it’s wrong, and you think it’s wrong, don’t we agree that it’s wrong, whether or not we think that wrong-ness is an absolute or interpreted term? I find this situation neither unsatisfactory nor puzzling.
The idea that it’s an objective morality that keeps us from slaughtering each other is bizarre. Do gerbils have an objective morality that keeps them from slaughtering each other?
Dude, this is the pit (Straight Dope Message Board > The BBQ Pit > Atheists are NOT just another religion) lay on!
Might I further suggest that you (and most other self-identified atheists here) would expect each person to conduct themselves according to what they perceive to be their own moral code. To thine own self be true, and all that.
Is this where the confusion and fear arise - that atheists derive their moral code naturalistically or internally, and don’t rely on the teachings of supernatural authority of theists (of pick whatever denomination)?
I’ll ask again:
[ol]
[li]Do theists consider the only righteous form of authority to establish a moral code to be external and supernatural?[/li][li]If someone’s behavior is substantially in agreement with what you consider to be your moral code, does it matter from where they perceive the authority deriving that code? Would you consider that person to be a moral person?[/li]If someone’s behavior is substantially different from what you consider to be actions consistent with your moral code, would you consider that person to be an immoral person? In your consideration, does it mitigate the morality of their actions if they perceive the same authority as do you in deriving the moral code under which they act?[/ol]
We agree that we disapprove. Is that all?
crowmanyclouds, I’m embarassed! Fuck you! (Is that better?)
You seem to equate my reaction to genocide to the disapproval I might feel over watching a bad sitcom. Why couldn’t it be similar to the disapproval I might feel over having my leg cut off? Do I have to make the font really big when I say that genocide is wrong? All I’m saying is that words like right, wrong, good, bad have no meaning without someone to interpret them - at least in my perspective and model of the universe.
It’s like Scylla saying “If they’re gone, what the fuck does it matter?” or “Why is a dead friend rationally more important than a dead ant under an atheistic beleif set?” or “[the atheist’s] emotional pain is no different or more meaningful than say when [their] legs ache after a long jog. It’s just biological bullshit …” It matters to me - do I need to use that really big font again? This just seems to display such a complete lack of empathy for or insight into someone whose belief system derives from a different set of governing assumptions. And if you’re going to crap on someone’s beliefs that don’t include your own version of a supernatural authority, why stop at atheists - shouldn’t you crap all over anybody who doesn’t share your precise interpretation of the teachings of that supernatural authority? Actually, I get that Scylla is trying to find the underpinnings of rationality and logic behind the belief system of someone who considers themselves atheist - but when it is said that an atheist considers a theist’s moral code to be subjective, and that the atheist is cool with that, what is your particular gripe with the authority that I consider to underlay my morality and value system, when I readily admit that it is subjective?
Just to cut this baby in two, before it gets any older, Bundy can have any moral code he wants.
Now if he decides to act on that moral code, the rest of us ain’t just gonna stand around and watch!
That was my point about the Hitler question,
NO argument is gonna make him stop,
NO divinely inspired moral code will either.
Now a .45 in the brainpan, that’s a different story!
Fuck no! In a less civilized era it’s called a lynching! These days we call it the criminal justice system.
Seriously, it’s the morality of the Enlightenment, Blackstone explains it beautifully @ Ignore all the highfalutin language and “god” stuff, we get together and agree on the basics. I won’t kill you and you won’t kill me, and we won’t kill anybody else in the group, anybody breaks the rules, and we, the group, will mete out the agreed on punishment.
It’s when we can’t agree, that’s when “morality” falls apart.
“You want to have sex with (put your gender preference here)”,
“well I don’t, I like (whichever), since I don’t like what you like there MUST be sometin’ wrong with you!”
Look at the 10 C’s, honor thy mother…that’s morality?
“Mom’s a drunk and Dad’s been molesting me since I was 3”
It’s MORAL to hate parents like that!
It’s the fear of the great gerbil wheel in the sky!
That’s the spirit!
I’m surprised the mods haven’t moved the thread yet!
I’d like to try and explain why, if we think all morality is subjective, why we do not just let everyone do what they want.
Let’s take Persons A through D. Let’s say…A and C are theists, and B and D are atheists.
How do these people interract? Well, we don’t want people to come and steal our things…and it’s probably better that we all help each other, trade goods and so forth. So, let’s hire Person E to be our police - E can arrest those that go against our moral code.
Hang on, though - A-D don’t all have the same moral code. A, for example, as a theist, may want people who blaspheme against their deity to be arrested. C agrees. B and D do not - they don’t believe in that deity, so why does it matter if you say bad things about them? On the other hand, B is very much in favour of abortions. C is too - C’s religious, but believes that abortion is still morally correct ( up until a certain point). A and D are very much against abortion - A because of his belief in a deity that says it’s bad, and D because she believes that a fetus is as living, and has the same rights, as we do, logically. Should abortionists be arrested? Argh! They cannot decide! What can they do?!
Well, they can compromise - A and C might agree that the police should not arrest blasphemers, but in return, B and D might agree that police can arrest those who stir up hatred against religious groups. Likewise, A and D might come to a comprimise with B and C as to the time of the pregnancy at which a fetus can still be aborted. Hooray! They’re in (relative) agreement! E can now arrest people, and, in general, people will be happy with this arrangement. They’ll disagree with some things inevitably, but on the whole, more people are happier.
So, along comes Hitler (Boo! Hiss!). His moral positions are not the same as A-D either! They’re just as subjective, though - they are no more wrong or right than the others! So, what can we do to him, if he is not, objectively , wrong?
Well, Hitler’s actions and beliefs are seen to be subjectively wrong by A-D. So, laws against him are passed, and he is arrested! (Hooray!). Four people are happy - A-D are all very pleased, and they feel happiness. One person is sad - Hitler’s not gonna be a happy bunny in prison. Overall, then, what’s been achieved? Well, four people are happy, one person is unhappy. It’s a victory for (subjective) morality! Hoooray!
I realise this is a simplification - Hitler’s arrest is also good for many other people who may be killed in the future because of him, plus it gives the families of those killed, as well as strangers who are morally opposed, happy thoughts. Likewise, there’s going to be more people who are unpleased - Hitler’s supporters aren’t gonna be happy. But I think you’ll understand my general point - morality is subjective, but a group/culture can still act in accordance with a comprimise of all their moral beliefs to counter those who disagree with them on one of those general comprimised beliefs.
I ain’t crappin’ on shit, man!
What authority?
Might makes right?
If I may…
My own.
No. In the case of shooting Hitler, right compells the might. The right comes first.
Actually, the first paragraph was to respond to your post; by the second paragraph I had wandered over to addressing Scylla’s previous assertions. In hindsight, maybe that transition was only clear from this side of the keyboard.
What I was trying to convey was I felt that disapprove was a bit mild for how I would characterize my reaction to a sociopath. It’s like we’ve got a sentence, “This is wrong” and I’m trying to emphasize the word wrong and maybe for some the catch is my reliance on the understood “[I think] this is wrong.” How does the attachment of the subjection judgement invalidate the conclusion? I’m sure that neither the wrongness nor the “I think” parts are under dispute - does it somehow lose meaning if there is no objective basis?
That sucker takes a lot of WD-40 to keep from squeaking, lemme tell ya.