Can atheists tell right from wrong?

Morality doesn't exist outside the scope of the human mind (that's what makes it subjective); however, the human behaviors that result in morality are quite objective. All humans (no exceptions) judge each other on one primary question and one secondary question:

1) Is that person mean?
2) Is that person valuable?

All organic emotional responses of 'right' and 'wrong' are derived from this. Basically, morality is genetic and there of course is some wiggle room for being influenced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

shades of lamarck
we learn advantageous outlooks and positions and that knowledge crosses the weissman's barrier and then becomes an inherited disposition

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hmm
if a lion is hungry, surely he should eat his cubs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lots of fertilizer tilling going on here as well. Same repetitive bullshit. Atheists can and do make decisions between right and wrong. "But Why?" Because, in general, that I am aware of, Atheists are sentient beings. Whether they were taught by their parents or taught by society or have a genetic predisposition. None of it matters. Nothing detracts from their decision making ability.

 

fine
thanks for killing the forum

 

:bugeye:
Oh, for fuck's sake. Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it differs from personal interpretation to personal interpretation.
I may not be an atheist, but I find it offensive and insulting that you think that atheists cannot have morals or ethics merely because of their theological stance.
That's an awful fucking lot judge someone on. How would you like it if people judged you simply based on your theology? It's ridiculous and trollishly offensive.

 

Hang on a minute, in Norsefire's case that seems the only sensible thing to do, if not the only possible thing to do.:shrug:

 

Who decides morals for atheists?

 

:sigh: way to kcik a dead horse. atheists decide morals on an individual or societal basis. Just like theists. As a christian this entire suggestion of "atheism is poo" is embarassing. There is a possibility that God does not exist. There is a possibility that God does exist. Why can't this just be accepted?

 

However, if atheists are choosing morals based on social consensus, and that social morality is based off religion, aren't atheists choosing religious morals?

 

If theists choose morals based on social consensu, and that social consensus is not based off religion, aren't theists choosing pure secularism?

 

Huh?


Western morality is based almost entirely off of religion; therefore, atheists have religious morals.

 

more to the point. Let's say they are choosing morals that have been based in religion. So what? Look at the ten commandments. Pretty decent rules for a functioning society, wouldn't you say? In the absence of the original tablets, couldn't it be said that these were just edited babylonian and sumerian social laws?

 

so eastern atheists are better atheists than western atheists?

 

The individual, society, whoever decides morals for you. Or, THERE ARE NO MORALS. GIVE UP NORSE.

 

I'm only pointing out a simple fact; atheists base their morality off of religious texts. However, the problem is that, for them, it becomes subjective, and therefore there is no true, concrete morality.

 

Incorrect. I have already gone into it in depth on the last page.

 

It's entirely correct; it's still subjective. As unlikely as it may be, someone can still say "murder is righteous and Ok, and therefore I will kill people", and you can't exactly call them wrong

 

So, Norsefire, would you like to share your opinions on semitism and your pure bloodedness? I would love to hear about it.

 

The fact that atheists aren't out running around raping and pillaging is proof that many atheists can tell right from wrong. You might be confused about how they are able to do it, but you can't argue with the fact that they apparently can.