Atheists, what are your morals?

[Sir Silentium]

If Christians base their morals off God's word, then what do atheists base their morals off?

Most western countries were built off Christian values, forming the law from the Bible. Christians look to the Bible as their standard. Muslims look to the Qur'an. But what is the atheist's ultimate standard?

If God does not exist, what makes any moral claim objectively true rather than a preference, tradition, or social convention?

The existence of an objective moral law points toward a moral Lawgiver. There has to be something beyond human opinion.


Take a simple moral statement:
"Torturing children for fun is wrong."
Most people agree with that statement. But why is it wrong?

Person 1: Torturing children for fun is wrong
Person 2: Why is it wrong?
Person 1: Because it causes unnecessary harm
Person 2: Why is unnecessary harm wrong?
.........and the cycle continues.

At that point, the question can simply be pushed back another step. If morality is objective, what ultimately grounds these moral facts? What makes unnecessary harm objectively wrong rather than just a human opinion?

---

@atheists I leave you with this question: Why is torturing children for fun wrong?

 

[dumbozhina]

REMINDER: CRIME RATE IS NEGATIVELY CORRELATED WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, INTERNATIONALLY AND WITHIN U.S. STATES/PRISONS.
so any attempt to link atheism and immorality is either stupid or intentionally misleading.

 

[GrAYnigger]

I don't care about morals. Goyciety can die for all i care lol. At best morality is a mutual pact that I don't want to be hurt so I am not gonna hurt others.

 

[Poopless One]

If Christians base their morals off God's word, then what do atheists base their morals off?

Richard Dawkins

 

[Needle]

Whatever keeps things moving for me and everyone is fine

 

[dumbozhina]

Why is torturing children wrong?

i dont mind torturing children. so your argument is wrong from the beginning.
you are wrong to assume:
1.that all atheists need some ultimate grounds beyond self-interest or empathy.

2. that christians have this "ultimate ground". the biblical view varies across denominations. what sola scriptura protestants dont understand is that interpretation of the bible is not self-evident. it's church's view.

 

[GrAYnigger]

So many christian threads lately. Wish there was more politics tbh.

 

[Cryo]

Look, morals aren't real. Things happen in world for no reason. There is no fairness. There is no evil and good. Everyone is trying to have control in their lives.

And by the way? People don't torture for fun not because it's wrong but because they don't like or want to. That's it

And those who do either want to or wouldn't mind it. Also everyone can be pushed into doing something like that if the people around them and their influences are depraved enough or if they're gaslit enough.

you are wrong to assume:
1.that all atheists need some ultimate grounds beyond self-interest or empathy.

 

[ANTAGONIST]

I don't believe that morals exist.

 

[Bongcel357]

My morals are total foid and total normie destruction

 

[ANTAGONIST]

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is just as religious as the pope, only more stupid because his religion is based on what society has agreed upon (which ultimately still comes from the bible).

 

[LeFrenchCel]

They're based on common sense

For instance:
- don't harm people who did not deserve it
- the one who starts a conflict will always be wrong no matter how it escalates

 

[yeetbender_]

They're based on common sense

For instance:
- don't harm people who did not deserve it
- the one who starts a conflict will always be wrong no matter how it escalates

 

[yeetbender_]

I base it vaguely upon my own intuition and what I know/believe or heavily suspect to be factual.

 

[zd60]

They're based on common sense

For instance:
- don't harm people who did not deserve it
- the one who starts a conflict will always be wrong no matter how it escalates

 

[Fatbaldingcel]

Masterbution.
Foodie
You people

 

[andrewphillips25082]

I'm goign to commetn here, even though I slip in and out of believing.
Just don't do any retarted things, like.
Rape
Murder
Fighting
Incest.
Among others.

 

[Sir Silentium]

I'm goign to commetn here, even though I slip in and out of believing.
Just don't do any retarted things, like.
Rape
Murder
Fighting
Incest.
Among others.

But what makes them "retarded"?, where is the moral guideline to say something is morally better than the other?
You believe this because most mainstream western countries have been brought up on Christian values/ethos, so this is what is naturally socially/culturally accepted.

The western law speaks against those of what you mentioned, and they got their morals from the Bible. So do you just follow it blindly without giving it thought? You would be blindly following Christ then.

If there was no Bible or God, then these factors you listed wouldn't be considered immoral. Rape is natural, murder is natural, fighting is natural, incest is natural, etc. The atheists that believe we are merely animals need to think about it.

- They can't answer the question appropriately of what actually makes something immoral.

 

[TEC-XX]

If it bothers my conscience it's evil, if not I don't care

 

[Sir Silentium]

They're based on common sense

For instance:
- don't harm people who did not deserve it
- the one who starts a conflict will always be wrong no matter how it escalates

"Common sense" doesn't answer the question, it just describes how most people feel.

Why is it common sense not to harm people who didn't deserve it?
If you say, "Because it causes harm" then "Why is causing unnecessary harm objectively wrong?"
If you say, "Because society says so" then "if society changes, does morality change?"
-----you can see where i'm going

The question isn't whether people can recognise right and wrong. It's what ultimately grounds right and wrong as an objective.

---

Morality is grounded in God's nature. It has got to be more than human opinion - of which everyone should fall under
@zd60

 

[Sex-Starved Beast]

If God does not exist, what makes any moral claim objectively true rather than a preference, tradition, or social convention?

My morals are my personal convinction, you could call it a preference. Despite this, I am more faithful to them than most people who believe that their morals are "objective" are faithful to theirs.

 

[Sir Silentium]

If it bothers my conscience it's evil, if not I don't care

Your conscience isn't everyone else's. Some murderers claim not to have felt any sought of guilt and love to murderer people for the adrenaline... is this right because their conscience is telling them it's right?

 

[TEC-XX]

Your conscience isn't everyone else's. Some murderers claim not to have felt any sought of guilt and love to murderer people for the adrenaline... is this right because their conscience is telling them it's right?

No, my conscience is the only one that matters. I suspect others feel the same though, so we can use systems of law to come to a shared middle ground whereby we can punish wrongdoers regardless of morality.

 

[Sir Silentium]

My morals are my personal convinction, you could call it a preference. Despite this, I am more faithful to them than most people who believe that their morals are "objective" are faithful to theirs.

That's great, but what grounds your morals? Regardless of how consistently you follow them.

If your morals are simply personal convictions or preferences, then they are subjective. The thread is about objectivity:
On what basis can you say someone else's moral preferences are objectively wrong? If another person sincerely believes stealing, murder, or abuse is acceptable, are they objectively wrong, or do they simply have different preferences?

 

[Let It Burn]

The blackoill is my morals brootal

 

[Sir Silentium]

No, my conscience is the only one that matters. I suspect others feel the same though, so we can use systems of law to come to a shared middle ground whereby we can punish wrongdoers regardless of morality.

Should morality be subjective or objective? If it's subjective then there is no real moral; murderers can murder people, rapists can rape people, and so fourth. Subjective morality cannot say those acts are objectively wrong.

 

[TEC-XX]

Should morality be subjective or objective? If it's subjective then there is no real moral; murderers can murder people, rapists can rape people, and so fourth. Subjective morality cannot say those acts are objectively wrong.

Subjective and objective morality are the same thing, just different takes on it

The only morality is the one that works. There is no cosmic law of morality but there are moralities that work and those that don't, the ones that do, by nature of the universe, are the good ones, otherwise they wouldn't have survived

 

[Bongcel357]

Despite what I said before, my actual morals are simply

Treat others as you would wish them to treat you.

Unfortunately most normies utterly fail to understand this, and get extremely mad when you give them 1/1000 of how they treated you.

 

[Sir Silentium]

I don't believe that morals exist.

That's the best counter to the argument.

If there are no objective moral facts, is anything morally wrong?

 

[Sir Silentium]

Subjective and objective morality are the same thing, just different takes on it

Well no but doesn't matter, it's alright

The only morality is the one that works. There is no cosmic law of morality but there are moralities that work and those that don't, the ones that do, by nature of the universe, are the good ones, otherwise they wouldn't have survived

But that's what works, not what is objectively right.

Why is "what works" the moral standard? You can see what i'm getting at

 

[Sir Silentium]

I base it vaguely upon my own intuition and what I know/believe or heavily suspect to be factual.

If your morals are simply baed on your own intuition or what you suspect to be factual, then they are subjective.
The thread is about objectivity:
On what basis can you say someone else's moral preferences are objectively wrong? If another person's intuition believes stealing, murder, or abuse is acceptable, are they objectively wrong, or do they simply have different preferences?

 

[TEC-XX]

Well no but doesn't matter, it's alright

But that's what works, not what is objectively right.

Why is "what works" the moral standard? You can see what i'm getting at

Actually I don't see

Your original question was open ended. I'm telling you I don't believe in objective morality, but that I see what is called "subjective morality" or more accurately, subjective moralities, as essentially objective.

The whole argument of "what about a society which endorses x thing" I just bite the bullet and say yes. I mean, all morality is constructed, if there were no humans there would be no (or, in a few animals) morality. At the end of the day it's our individual consciences that matter.

But we use those consciences to create societal moralities which really falls down to social punishments for things we don't like and that's fine. Different societies will use different amounts of reason to justify some of their edicts. But the point is no society that apologists lampoon as cartoonishly evil would survive. "What if x thing is okay in that society?" Well then it's okay to the people that think it's okay as long as they still exist.

 

[Peroz Shapur]

Atheists in my opinion cannot have morals. If you are not religious, there is no objective reason why anything is right or why anything is wrong. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have belief in God and especially Heaven and Hell.

 

[Sir Silentium]

Atheists in my opinion cannot have morals. If you are not religious, there is no objective reason why anything is right or why anything is wrong.

I agree

I don't know what I would do if I didn't have belief in God and especially Heaven and Hell.

100%

 

[Peroz Shapur]

I agree

100%

There is correlation between this and the massacres and genocides committed by them (i.e. atheists) throughout history, particularly the 20th century.

 

[andrewphillips25082]

But what makes them "retarded"?, where is the moral guideline to say something is morally better than the other?
You believe this because most mainstream western countries have been brought up on Christian values/ethos, so this is what is naturally socially/culturally accepted.

The western law speaks against those of what you mentioned, and they got their morals from the Bible. So do you just follow it blindly without giving it thought? You would be blindly following Christ then.

If there was no Bible or God, then these factors you listed wouldn't be considered immoral. Rape is natural, murder is natural, fighting is natural, incest is natural, etc. The atheists that believe we are merely animals need to think about it.

- They can't answer the question appropriately of what actually makes something immoral.

You just have a feeling that they are wrong.

 

[Sir Silentium]

You just have a feeling that they are wrong.

Everyone can have different feelings, it's all subjective. For example, if someone feels stealing, murder, or abuse is acceptable, are they objectively wrong, or do they simply have different preferences?

Because everyone can feel different things, so for their to be objective morals I believe there has to be a moral lawgiver.

 

[Rapemaxxer]

None. If it doesn't get me in trouble, it's fine.

 

[Rapemaxxer]

I leave you with this question: Why is torturing children for fun wrong?

Because doing so would get me imprisoned

 

[esdeathlover]

If Christians base their morals off God's word, then what do atheists base their morals off?

Most western countries were built off Christian values, forming the law from the Bible. Christians look to the Bible as their standard. Muslims look to the Qur'an. But what is the atheist's ultimate standard?

If God does not exist, what makes any moral claim objectively true rather than a preference, tradition, or social convention?

The existence of an objective moral law points toward a moral Lawgiver. There has to be something beyond human opinion.


Take a simple moral statement:
"Torturing children for fun is wrong."
Most people agree with that statement. But why is it wrong?

Person 1: Torturing children for fun is wrong
Person 2: Why is it wrong?
Person 1: Because it causes unnecessary harm
Person 2: Why is unnecessary harm wrong?
.........and the cycle continues.

At that point, the question can simply be pushed back another step. If morality is objective, what ultimately grounds these moral facts? What makes unnecessary harm objectively wrong rather than just a human opinion?

---

@atheists I leave you with this question: Why is torturing children for fun wrong?

Modern Christians and hell, even past Christians, don't base it on the bible. All morality is disgust reactions; that's why, when you see moral debate, they always want to reduce morals to their worst outcome.(expect TAG philolarpers). What would be the biblical justification of killing 1 million cockroaches over one million butterflies? none. But I assume you would kill 1 million cockroaches. Or catholics(I know your protestant, but stick with me) say that using a condom or even pulling out is a sin. Is that in the bible? idk. a bunch of truecels(Aquinas) decided it.Or the age of consent the bible only says "
But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry." But yet most Christians wouldn't be ok with marrying someone during puberty but say its a sin, why? disgust. or polymany the only time the bible makes a ruling about polygamy is when he forces a brother to marry his wife or else will be shamed(duet 25) no where does the Bible, new or old condemn polygamy the most you can find is the bible forcing people to do polymany

 

[Sir Silentium]

Great reply especially with the cockroach/analogy. I've read it through about 10 times trying to think of an equivalent response. There is a lot to break down but i'll try and shorten it and keep it within the topic.

Modern Christians and hell, even past Christians, don't base it on the bible. All morality is disgust reactions; that's why, when you see moral debate, they always want to reduce morals to their worst outcome.

If all moral judgments are just expressions of disgust, then your judgment around Christians being merely motivated by disgust are also just disgust reactions rather than objective insights. The claim undercuts itself.

What would be the biblical justification of killing 1 million cockroaches over one million butterflies? none. But I assume you would kill 1 million cockroaches.

I like the analogy. But the fact that I would rather preserve butterflies than cockroaches doesn't mean butterflies have greater intrinsic worth, nor that cockroaches are of less worth than butterflies. It simply means one outcome is more desirable than the other. The same principle applies to people ofc.

Or catholics(I know your protestant, but stick with me) say that using a condom or even pulling out is a sin. Is that in the bible? idk. a bunch of truecels(Aquinas) decided it.Or the age of consent the bible only says "

God also said that sexual intimate connections are for a man and a wife to enjoy - not just for reproduction. Doesn't matter if a bunch of scholars decide on something either - if it isn't in the bible and there's no clear link then they're just fulfilling their own beliefs rather than upholding God's scripture.

But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry." But yet most Christians wouldn't be ok with marrying someone during puberty but say its a sin, why? disgust. or polymany the only time the bible makes a ruling about polygamy is when he forces a brother to marry his wife or else will be shamed(duet 25) no where does the Bible, new or old condemn polygamy the most you can find is the bible forcing people to do polymany

I fully understand what you're saying, i've made about numerous threads on the topic too. The modern agenda is very different to what it was like in bible times. Girls were married at 12-14 and boys were married at 16-18. If it were up to me I would still keep this as the norm. It prevents lusts of the flesh (which God puts lots of emphasis on - "if any man looks at a female with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart"). Not only that but also naturally women are supposed to be giving birth during their peak years of fertility which is around 16.


But back to the point, there is a distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. The strongest point here is the distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. You assume that if two things have equal value, you can never rationally prefer one outcome over another. The Bible doesn't make that assumption.

 

[esdeathlover]

Great reply especially with the cockroach/analogy. I've read it through about 10 times trying to think of an equivalent response. There is a lot to break down but i'll try and shorten it and keep it within the topic.


If all moral judgments are just expressions of disgust, then your judgment around Christians being merely motivated by disgust are also just disgust reactions rather than objective insights. The claim undercuts itself.


I like the analogy. But the fact that I would rather preserve butterflies than cockroaches doesn't mean butterflies have greater intrinsic worth, nor that cockroaches are of less worth than butterflies. It simply means one outcome is more desirable than the other. The same principle applies to people ofc.


God also said that sexual intimate connections are for a man and a wife to enjoy - not just for reproduction. Doesn't matter if a bunch of scholars decide on something either - if it isn't in the bible and there's no clear link then they're just fulfilling their own beliefs rather than upholding God's scripture.


I fully understand what you're saying, i've made about numerous threads on the topic too. The modern agenda is very different to what it was like in bible times. Girls were married at 12-14 and boys were married at 16-18. If it were up to me I would still keep this as the norm. It prevents lusts of the flesh (which God puts lots of emphasis on - "if any man looks at a female with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart"). Not only that but also naturally women are supposed to be giving birth during their peak years of fertility which is around 16.


But back to the point, there is a distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. The strongest point here is the distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. You assume that if two things have equal value, you can never rationally prefer one outcome over another. The Bible doesn't make that assumption.

will read its just 3 am my time

 

[Sir Silentium]

will read its just 3 am my time

No problem

 

[Caichan]

The existence of an objective moral law points toward a moral Lawgiver.

There is no objective moral law

 

[esdeathlover]

Great reply especially with the cockroach/analogy. I've read it through about 10 times trying to think of an equivalent response. There is a lot to break down but i'll try and shorten it and keep it within the topic.


If all moral judgments are just expressions of disgust,then you r judgment around Christians being merely motivated by disgust are also just disgust reactions rather than objective insights. The claim undercuts itself.


I like the analogy. But the fact that I would rather preserve butterflies than cockroaches doesn't mean butterflies have greater intrinsic worth, nor that cockroaches are of less worth than butterflies. It simply means one outcome is more desirable than the other. The same principle applies to people ofc.


God also said that sexual intimate connections are for a man and a wife to enjoy - not just for reproduction. Doesn't matter if a bunch of scholars decide on something either - if it isn't in the bible and there's no clear link then they're just fulfilling their own beliefs rather than upholding God's scripture.


I fully understand what you're saying, i've made about numerous threads on the topic too. The modern agenda is very different to what it was like in bible times. Girls were married at 12-14 and boys were married at 16-18. If it were up to me I would still keep this as the norm. It prevents lusts of the flesh (which God puts lots of emphasis on - "if any man looks at a female with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart"). Not only that but also naturally women are supposed to be giving birth during their peak years of fertility which is around 16.


But back to the point, there is a distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. The strongest point here is the distinction between intrinsic worth and moral status. You assume that if two things have equal value, you can never rationally prefer one outcome over another. The Bible doesn't make that assumption.

For your first point, my point is about morality, not objective facts. Objective facts are concrete; however, what we make of objective facts is subjective, like I am repulsed by shit, but a indian shitting in the street isn't. leike its say chirstianity entails something absurd like killing every baby in the world(I am not saying it does). Does that mean Christians would? No, I don't think so because most people are repulsed by killing. literal children. And my point with the analogy is to show humans decide morality instinctively. You didn't have to ponder that you knew, based on instinct, that the butterfly is worth more.If it is or isn't intrinsic, it or isn't relevant as if its univeral enoough, it might be effectively intrinsic. And if there large opposition, then the only way you can or cannot show by will to power and this is true in Christian morals too. The reason why its seen as bad in most Christian circles is not that the bible is clear (you can argue that God violates his morality because of Numbers 5) but becuase the pro life became the dominant position in the people of the church hierarchy, and their opinions came down to the laity.Thats how all moral system solve disagreement, as even if the bible it self is objective, how we read is subjective(as shown above).

tldr: Even if Scripture has an objectively correct meaning, humans only ever access it through interpretation. When sincere, knowledgeable theologians disagree for centuries, there is no neutral way to prove one interpretation is correct that everyone accepts, and aesthetic and power decides whats considered moral or immoral in all systems.

 

[Fraud.]

Pagans have created morals very before jewish religions

Or any society before, but to say that morals dont mean the christian morals

 

[Sir Silentium]

tldr: Even if Scripture has an objectively correct meaning, humans only ever access it through interpretation. When sincere, knowledgeable theologians disagree for centuries, there is no neutral way to prove one interpretation is correct that everyone accepts, and aesthetic and power decides whats considered moral or immoral in all systems.

These theologians sound all smart and such, but in practice there is only ever one true interpretation - and if they're not basing it out of clear biblical contexts (and I doubt they are), then I don't see the point in any of it.

I haven't researched the theology standpoints at all, but we can already guess by what you mentioned that it's a load of hogwash. The "only having sexual intimacy for reproduction" and the "6 years old marriage" is just nonsense to me - you don't need to study scripture to know there is no reference to this at all.

Also slightly off topic, but a few years ago I was listening in on a catholic sermon, and the priest was talking about the secret window to get into heaven or something which just blows my mind how millions of people can hear stuff like this and just take it as gospel. Like it doesn't even cross their mind that the Bible doesn't mention, and would never mention it. So these so called Theologians that are supposed catholics.... it's no wonder they're getting these kind of ideas.


But yea back to the point, at the end of there is only one correct interpretation which is usually very easy to understand with KJV, and the bible contains possibly the only true cases of moral absolutes.

 

[INVERTER]

What if I believe following the rules of the bible leads to prosocial outcomes so we should do it, but don't necessarily believe in an afterlife or a specific religion?

Look, morals aren't real. Things happen in world for no reason. There is no fairness. There is no evil and good. Everyone is trying to have control in their lives.

And by the way? People don't torture for fun not because it's wrong but because they don't like or want to. That's it

And those who do either want to or wouldn't mind it. Also everyone can be pushed into doing something like that if the people around them and their influences are depraved enough or if they're gaslit enough.

I generally agree with this. I feel great discomfort when seeing people hurt or tortured but sociopaths do not. I don't think that really makes me any more "moral" than them but sociopaths should still show restraint and if they can't, someone has to restrain them.

 

[INVERTER]

None. If it doesn't get me in trouble, it's fine.

And that's why the legal system is better than someone's personal morality.

If the legal system loosely resembles some of the rules of major religions then that makes sense. You don't need to live in a theocracy to know that murder is "wrong" because it is illegal.

 

[INVERTER]

Despite what I said before, my actual morals are simply

Treat others as you would wish them to treat you.

Unfortunately most normies utterly fail to understand this, and get extremely mad when you give them 1/1000 of how they treated you.

I've noticed that women especially greatly overestimate what they do for other people and then expect 10 times as much as they "gave" you.

One time I met this woman who I admitted I had social phobia to. She comforted me a bit saying that she used to be the same and had to work past it. Later on I see a passive aggressive post on social media saying how she was tired of doing x, y and z for other people all the time. Could have been in reference to someone else IDK but the timing was close together. The minute you admit weakness to any woman and they fake "comfort" you they become bitter towards you forever.