New Member/Morality

[fromsanzabar]

Hello Atheists one and all!

I'm new and from my cursory nibble at the posts here, most of what i see is a mocking of the religious majority with a sprinkle of ad hominem and straw man fallacies. The word science is thrown about but i've seen no citations from scientific documents. I would like to, as i know they're out there.

I'm interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the atheist position, so answer me these questions two: is there truth? Is there morality?

Thank you
SCH

[baric]

I'm interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the atheist position, so answer me these questions two: is there truth? Is there morality?
Yes and yes.

Thank you
SCH
You're welcome!

[Tulkas]

By definition, yes and yes....Objective form of each:Yes and No


P.S. Welcome!!:D

[WITHTEETH]

True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.

Morality is tricky...
THere is only one universal law - No Incest
Take that into account, we are all different and all come from different places. Each of our realities are different also. by realities i mean, what the world is insode our head. morals can be relative in my opinion. just because you and i have different morals oesnt mean either of them are wrong. don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you. also i beleive people shouldn't impose their will/religion on others.
did i answer your morality question?

[WITHTEETH]

About truth. everything is based on a first assumption, whether that be, you beleive there is a god, there isnt a god, that you don't know, that the laws of science will be here tomarrow. once you take that leap of faith. then you are on one side of the fence.
does that sound right?

[Tulkas]

True knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.

Morality is tricky...
THere is only one universal law - No Incest
Take that into account, we are all different and all come from different places. Each of our realities are different also. by realities i mean, what the world is insode our head. morals can be relative in my opinion. just because you and i have different morals oesnt mean either of them are wrong. don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you. also i beleive people shouldn't impose their will/religion on others.
did i answer your morality question?
How is incest a universal law?

And, morality is in the eye of the beholder: Morality is subjective...

[Another brick in the wall]

It isn't an assumption to believe that god(s) doesn't exist. There's no compelling reason to believe that he/they exists in the first place.

[DMofD&D]

Welcome Sanzabar! A vital question I ask of thee: Are you an Atheist, Agnostic or Theist? Or somewhere in between?

[WITHTEETH]

incest is universal because all communities, countries and and states beleive it is wrong. that makes it universal right?

[Lurker]

And, morality is in the eye of the beholder: Morality is subjective...
Does morality exist in reality? If so, where does it exist? If it exists in each of us, how do you suppose we've come to agree on so many right/wrong issues?

Would you say torturing babies for fun is universally immoral?

[WITHTEETH]

Ill go a step further and say, i believe humans are generally good. :)
We try to justify everything we do. we can't possibly know everything can we?(dont answer that).

[Lurker]

Ill go a step further and say, i believe humans are generally good. :)
We try to justify everything we do. we can't possibly know everything can we?(dont answer that).
I say we are generally bad (evil). We need to be taught to be good people. Kids come into the world and they are 100% selfish - it's all about "me". You don't see too many seminars/courses/lectures about "How to Be A Worse Father". Goodness is something we are always striving to obtain.

[WITHTEETH]

well then those kids should go to hell then right? no, they just dont have the experience and knowledge. they are good, its just all they know. they justify what they do to as much as adults. we have a disagreement i can tell. :) we can still be friends though.

[Lurker]

well then those kids should go to hell then right? no, they just dont have the experience and knowledge. they are good, its just all they know. they justify what they do to as much as adults. we have a disagreement i can tell. :) we can still be friends though.
I think adults never lose the selfishness that they are born with. It becomes tempered because we have to work and live with others, and sometimes we are nice because it benefits us.

I do disagree with you because I see the constant struggle to do good and avoid bad. We are always being reminded to do good. Why do we have to be reminded/encouraged/pleaded with before we help earthquake or tsunami victims? If we were basically good people then we'd all rush out and help without being made to feel guilty for not helping.

Laws are in place to remind us to behave, or suffer the consequences. Goverment tax incentives are there to encourage noble/good behavior by giving to charities. Why do we need to be motivated or threatened if people are basically good? It's because they're not.

I'd rather do what I want when I wanted, and I'd rather spend my money on me - because that makes me happy. Being good is not natural for me and I don't think it's natural for most people.

[Tenspace]

Hello Atheists one and all!

I'm new and from my cursory nibble at the posts here, most of what i see is a mocking of the religious majority with a sprinkle of ad hominem and straw man fallacies. The word science is thrown about but i've seen no citations from scientific documents. I would like to, as i know they're out there.

I'm interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the atheist position, so answer me these questions two: is there truth? Is there morality?

Thank you
SCH
Hmm.... there are tons of cites out there. Perhaps you were unable to find the signal through the noise?

Tenspace

[Tulkas]

And, morality is in the eye of the beholder: Morality is subjective...
Does morality exist in reality? If so, where does it exist? If it exists in each of us, how do you suppose we've come to agree on so many right/wrong issues?

Would you say torturing babies for fun is universally immoral?
No...There is NOTHING that is universally immoral or universally moral. There are some wacko's that enjoy torturing babies, some hicks that enjoy incest, ect....There is no such thing as objective morality...



WithTeeth:
"Ill go a step further and say, i believe humans are generally good."

Of course not! Starwars brought the issue to the general media in the simplest of forms: "Good and bad are only pont of views"



lurker:
I say we are generally bad (evil). We need to be taught to be good people. Kids come into the world and they are 100% selfish - it's all about "me". You don't see too many seminars/courses/lectures about "How to Be A Worse Father". Goodness is something we are always striving to obtain.


We strive to obtain goodness? You cannot label goodness! Cultures may teach their children to be selfish, to take what they can get, and there it might be 'good'.


lurker:
"Why do we have to be reminded/encouraged/pleaded with before we help earthquake or tsunami victims? If we were basically good people then we'd all rush out and help without being made to feel guilty for not helping."

Some people do rush out to help the victims...Some don't...Morality is personal and subjective!

"Laws are in place to remind us to behave, or suffer the consequences. Goverment tax incentives are there to encourage noble/good behavior by giving to charities. Why do we need to be motivated or threatened if people are basically good? It's because they're not."

They are in place to clean up problems that the government would otherwise poor cash into to deal with. Please do not tell us that the government actually makes decisions based on morality. From a die hard christian arguing against me "Do you really think gov't planner's take into account religion or morals!" It is absurd to think that they do....I once wrote a paper on how gov't officials ignore morality in decision making and embrace it in the media. Take WWII for example :)



I'd rather do what I want when I wanted, and I'd rather spend my money on me - because that makes me happy. Being good is not natural for me and I don't think it's natural for most people.

Correct, and IMO, teaching morals to people, is only unnatural. Tho, there are exceptions. Morals that improve productivity of the society, "Do not Kill" "Do not Steal" ect


P.S.
(Please no bible or koran quoting)

[Lurker]

No...There is NOTHING that is universally immoral or universally moral. There are some wacko's that enjoy torturing babies, some hicks that enjoy incest, ect....There is no such thing as objective morality...
If there is no morality then why all the good/evil talk - even by atheists? If there is no objective morality - not even one instance of it - then every action is neither good nor evil, because they don't exist. It seems to me that good and evil do exist just as love and sadness exist. If everyone agrees that people who enjoy torturing babies are "wacko" (except the wacko's themselves) then I think you have to conclude it's a univeral truth.

[Another brick in the wall]

There is objective morality, but it isn't handed down from the clouds. It's agreed upon by members of a community.

[Lurker]

There is objective morality, but it isn't handed down from the clouds. It's agreed upon by members of a community.
Objective implies fixed in some way. How are community morals fixed? It seems to always be in flux. It's also never agreed upon so I think you are wrong. If we all agreed, then why the need to change? Think of it this way... if morality is agreed upon by the members of a community then it would be considered immoral to change them. Was it immoral to change the community morals regarding slavery back in the 1800's?

[Another brick in the wall]

No, it wasn't. Sometimes morals are fixed, but often they change. I guess if objective means fixed it isn't the best word to describe it.

[Philboid Studge]

Think of it this way... if morality is agreed upon by the members of a community then it would be considered immoral to change them. Was it immoral to change the community morals regarding slavery back in the 1800's?
Maybe community-based morals evolve over time, just like virtually every other aspect of human behavior.

[Another brick in the wall]

That's the most likely explanation. Morals have definitely changed over time. When I say objective morality exists, I mean by saying there are things that many people agree to be wrong, e.g. murder.

[fromsanzabar]

D&D Master

I fear your question to be loaded. At the risk of creating many presumptions about myself on your part, i will answer nevertheless. I am a theist; a Roman Catholic to be precise. I converted from a mélange of Protestant theology this past Easter.

Regarding the answers to my two questions, there seems to be a few different positions here. One, that truth and morality both exist, but not necessarily in an absolute form binding on all men. I would like to know how they are known and at what point they become subjective.

Whiteteeth said that true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing. Do you really believe that Whiteteeth? I doubt that anyone really lives consistently with such a premise. For in order to do so it would seem that one must abdicate all of one's oppinions on the basis that truth is either nonexistent or unknowable. What's the point in making arguments for or against theism (or anything else) if it's ultimately absurd? Also, i wonder if it's possible to abstain from "imposing morality on others" if every law ever written is such an encroachment.

It was also written that there are no moral absolutes save that incest is wrong. I will repeat Tulkas' question: why? I don't think it's true that all people groups have always thought incest to be morally wrong. In fact, i'd wager that if i spent some time at the library i could find more than one cultures that permitted or even extolled it. But if it could be shown that all nations have held incest to be wrong, certainly all individuals have not.

Brick wrote that it's not an assumption to deny the existence of God, whereas to affirm his existence is. Perhaps presupposition is a better word. To prove the nonexistence of something is impossible, because it's impossible to examine everything. However, i think it's more logical to offer God as the explanation for the universe. If it is unreasonable for matter, space and energy to form existence from a complete absence, something must have eternal properties, yes?

Back to morality. To those who say that morality is in the eye of the beholder, how would this idea look if it was consistently lived out by people? Would there be laws?

My apologies if the post is too long, i do want to hear everyone's thoughts. Also, please correct me where i have misrepresented ideas.

All in peace,
SCH

[Another brick in the wall]

It's true that a negative cannot be proven, but as I'm fond of saying, proof only matters in mathematics and alcohol. If the non-existence of something can be adequately demonstrated, is that good enough. I heard one argument that went like "Saying there is no god is an absolute statement like saying there is no gold in China. In order to be 100% sure there is no god, you'd have to know everything, just as to know there is no gold in China you'd have to search every square inch of it. Both are impossible, so at best, agnosticism is the most reasonable position." But no one demads 100% certainty for anything. Is there a 100% certainty you won't crash your car today? No, but that doesn't stop most people from driving.

[Tulkas]

There is objective morality, but it isn't handed down from the clouds. It's agreed upon by members of a community.
It is still subjective, maybe i'm missing the picture or just not grasping the point, but compare the morality agree'd upon to the exact opposite morality agree'd upon by a different society...THey seem subjective to me...

Lurker:
If there is no morality then why all the good/evil talk - even by atheists?

If i said there wans't any morality, i lied...But i believe i said, "morality is in the eye of the beholder" MOrality is personal, and that only...If it is agree'd upon by a society, it is merely an agree'd upon subjective morality.


Was it immoral to change the community morals regarding slavery back in the 1800's?

No, in my mind it was moral thing to do. In some southerners mind today, it is completley immoral and slavery should be re-instated. I'm failing to see this connection::: Generally accepted yields objective morality?

[Another brick in the wall]

Well, if everyone has to agree in order for there to be objective morality, then does everyone have to agree for there to objective reality? One man sees pink elephants, ten don't. Who's to say which is right?

[Tulkas]

Well, if everyone has to agree in order for there to be objective morality, then does everyone have to agree for there to objective reality? One man sees pink elephants, ten don't. Who's to say which is right?
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.

1. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.

There are many definitions for objectives, but this was the one i refer to when i speak of objective or subjective morality. Objective, presented without bais, presented in FACT. Now of course, we can present if 10 elephants exist or not. There is a way to judge that. But morality cannot be judged objectivly. IT is an opinion, a "point of view"

Surely you cannot tell me that if 20 people have the same opinion, it becomes fact...

[Another brick in the wall]

You could judge objectively which society is better by looking at the number of prisoners, life expectancy, etc. This would give you a rough idea of which society is better and hence which morality is better.

[Tulkas]

Then you would be judging which society's rules and laws (as considered morality in cases) yield the most productive and efficient society. NOT the most morally sound one... Efficiency is one thing..Proper morality is another.

[Another brick in the wall]

Well, if a society is productive and efficient, the quality of life is good and immigration is positive, doesn't that equate better happiness? No one immigrates to countries where life is miserable. I see your point that happiness is largely a matter of preference, but there seeem to be things that the vast majority of humans enjoy.

[Tulkas]

I see your point as well. I realize there are things a vast number of things people enjoy. But as a whole, the spectrum of morality is subjective. These vast number of things people enjoy, seem like more of a natural occurance rather than a morality issue.

[Another brick in the wall]

I guess we've beat this topic to death. Why don't you start off with another?

[Tulkas]

Hehe Agreed :)

[Little Earth Stamper]

I consider morality to be essentially subjective, because I honestly don't see how it could be otherwise.

By which I mean, I know in my heart that certain things are wrong; torturing babies, for example. Why is it wrong? Well, because it hurts people. Why is hurting innocents wrong? Well, we can explain how societies that discourage this kind of behavior are more succesful then those that don't, and therefore it's in your best interest not to hurt innocents.

The problem I have with this is that baby murdering would still be wrong, even if you were in a situation which pretty much assured that it wouldn't do you harm. Even if you get away with it, that doesn't make it right.

Now, the way Christians tend to handle this is to appeal to an absolute authority; Morality stems from god, who has the final word.

The problem with this is that it means that god could, if he wanted, declare baby torture to be a moral activity. And frankly, I can't see how anybody could ever convince me that this was true. how would god demonstrate that he has the authority to override deep-seated moral principles? I can't think of a way.

In other words, we're stuck with moral reletavism, whether we like it or not. Fortunately, humans mostly tend to be on the same wavelength about morality.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Oh, and as for the other question, I'd say, yes, there most probably is truth.

[Lurker]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
The statement "Action A. is good" is not a statement of truth, but of subjective opinion, in the same way that the statement "Star Wars was a good movie" is not a statement of truth.

One man may say "Star Wars is one of America's greatest filmmaking accomplishments," While another may say "Star Wars was juvenile crap".

Neither of those statements can be proven true in the same way that a statement like "whales have hair" can be proven true.

[Lurker]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
The statement "Action A. is good" is not a statement of truth, but of subjective opinion, in the same way that the statement "Star Wars was a good movie" is not a statement of truth.

One man may say "Star Wars is one of America's greatest filmmaking accomplishments," While another may say "Star Wars was juvenile crap".

Neither of those statements can be proven true in the same way that a statement like "whales have hair" can be proven true.
It's not about proving which statement is true or false. You don't need to know the answer in order to follow the logic.

I'm making a truth claim with each statement so I don't see anything wrong with the initial statements themselves. From what you are saying I think your response would fall in line with #2 - morals don't exist at all, it's just an illusion, a matter of taste/preference.

Your reasoning sounds pretty good until I think about it in those terms. "Joe isn't doing anything wrong. He just prefers raping women over dating them. He dislikes the whole dating scene."

Doesn't sound right to me. How about you?

[Tulkas]

Sounds like evidence of moral subjectiveness to me

[Rhinoqulous]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
Some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Language Games (http://www.california.com/~rathbone/word.htm) can explain conflicting truth claims. It's too complicated to go into here, but a Language Game is a Form of Life, and a "Truth" is a rule relevant to a particular Form of Life/Language Game. So if you accept this interpretation of Language Games, both societies would be making "true" statements, but only as they pertained to their own society.
Rhinoq

[Lurker]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
Some interpretations of Wittgenstein's Language Games (http://www.california.com/~rathbone/word.htm) can explain conflicting truth claims. It's too complicated to go into here, but a Language Game is a Form of Life, and a "Truth" is a rule relevant to a particular Form of Life/Language Game. So if you accept this interpretation of Language Games, both societies would be making "true" statements, but only as they pertained to their own society.
Rhinoq
I totally agree with you about the word games we all play. Lawyers have made a career out of it! In the case of morality, there are plenty of instances where the answer to a moral question is highly subjective because we don't have a clear answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer beyond our reach.

Then we come to the more clear cases of morality. Here logic and life experience tell me that there is only one correct answer to the question "should I rape another person?". My experience tells me that if you answer "yes" then you are wrong, not as a matter of preference, but as a matter of absolute fact - you're wrong. In instances like this, language games don't seem to enter the picture. I can't imagine anyone saying the answer to this question is a matter of preference - like choosing vanilla over chocolate.

[Rhinoqulous]

I totally agree with you about the word games we all play. Lawyers have made a career out of it! In the case of morality, there are plenty of instances where the answer to a moral question is highly subjective because we don't have a clear answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer beyond our reach.
A Language Game is NOT a word game, it is a Form of Life. Christianity is a Language Game, as are all other religions. American Society/Culture is a Language Game, etc. The rules of Language Games are agreed upon by players (members of a society/religion/Form of Life), and once the rules have been set, they are no longer subjective.

Then we come to the more clear cases of morality. Here logic and life experience tell me that there is only one correct answer to the question "should I rape another person?". My experience tells me that if you answer "yes" then you are wrong, not as a matter of preference, but as a matter of absolute fact - you're wrong. In instances like this, language games don't seem to enter the picture. I can't imagine anyone saying the answer to this question is a matter of preference - like choosing vanilla over chocolate.
If you had been raised in a society/culture where woman were not considered to be "persons", you would have no problem with this rape scenario. But, as you said, you have been raised in our current Form of Life, and hence rape is a violations of a rule.

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

If you had been raised in a society/culture where woman were not considered to be "persons", you would have no problem with this rape scenario. But, as you said, you have been raised in our current Form of Life, and hence rape is a violations of a rule.
I see your point though it seems all cultures are gravitating toward the position where rape is wrong so there seems to be this underlying sense of morality inside us that says it's wrong. I still maintain that there is a correct answer to the question of rape regardless of how enlightened a particular culture may be. I find it hard to accept as fact the idea that raping is strictly a matter of taste/lifestyle.

Continuing on....

I'd expect those of you who think this way to not judge anyone, even christians, yet you constantly do. Why? That's the part that bugs me. On the one hand you say morality is relative, on the other hand you say this other group was evil/immoral/wrong.

I adhere to a fixed set of morals even though I may not understand everything clearly. Because of this I judge you, me and everyone else by this standard. I may be wrong about morality being absolute (I don't think I am) but at least I am behaving consistantly.

[Philboid Studge]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
It seems like you are locked into the words "moral" and "immoral," treating them as absolutes and expecting us to do the same. I can say that certain societies/cultures were (or are) horrible -- by my way of thinking -- but absolute right or wrong don't enter into it.

Ponder the Arnold Bennett line: "All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." It doesn't matter whether it was the Canaanites tossing babies onto pyres or Nazis pushing Jews into ovens, these people really thought they were doing the best thing. (The Canaanites were just following their religion.)

I can judge their behavior to be horrible, if only because I wouldn't want me or mine treated in such ways. I don't see why my judgment would bug you. YOU, on the other hand, have no business judging anybody, lest ye be judged!

[Lurker]

It seems like you are locked into the words "moral" and "immoral," treating them as absolutes and expecting us to do the same. I can say that certain societies/cultures were (or are) horrible -- by my way of thinking -- but absolute right or wrong don't enter into it.

Ponder the Arnold Bennett line: "All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the best thing to do." It doesn't matter whether it was the Canaanites tossing babies onto pyres or Nazis pushing Jews into ovens, these people really thought they were doing the best thing. (The Canaanites were just following their religion.)

I can judge their behavior to be horrible, if only because I wouldn't want me or mine treated in such ways. I don't see why my judgment would bug you. YOU, on the other hand, have no business judging anybody, lest ye be judged!
I think we're nearing the end of this discussion - or maybe we've already gone past the end. Anyway, I can only say that I disagree with most of you.

Regarding your "judge, lest ye be judged" comment. Clearly jesus required people to make moral judgements so how does this verse fit into the equation. I like the way this commentator summed it up.

"He (jesus) is warning us about a fault-finding spirit, a negative attitude that causes us to pick at others for the things we do not like in them, to accuse them, blame them and complain to them because they do not live up to our expectations. This preoccupation with faults expresses itself in a twofold way: First, we are inclined to emphasize the faults of others rather than their strengths. Second, we are inclined to emphasize the faults of others rather than our own. The one word that sums it up is criticism.

I think judging is a good thing, however we should not get too carried away with it. Christians are just as guilty as non-christians so it's not like I'm any better than you. The moment I start acting like I'm better than you is the moment I've crossed over the line that jesus was talking about.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'd expect those of you who think this way to not judge anyone, even christians, yet you constantly do. Why? That's the part that bugs me. On the one hand you say morality is relative, on the other hand you say this other group was evil/immoral/wrong.

I adhere to a fixed set of morals even though I may not understand everything clearly. Because of this I judge you, me and everyone else by this standard. I may be wrong about morality being absolute (I don't think I am) but at least I am behaving consistantly.
I'm saying morality as a whole is relative (or at least based on context), but particular moral rules are as objective as you can get. Your fixed set of morals are no more fixed than mine, otherwise you'd be fine with stoning adulterers in the street. The "fixed" moral rules change throughout time, to reflect the "standards" of a society.

Rhinoq

[Little Earth Stamper]

Little E. (and others)
Give me your thoughts on post 220 (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738&p=15). I'm curious how relativism fits into the situation as that would mean both societies are making true statements. I don't see how that can be possible but I'm willing to hear you out.
The statement "Action A. is good" is not a statement of truth, but of subjective opinion, in the same way that the statement "Star Wars was a good movie" is not a statement of truth.

One man may say "Star Wars is one of America's greatest filmmaking accomplishments," While another may say "Star Wars was juvenile crap".

Neither of those statements can be proven true in the same way that a statement like "whales have hair" can be proven true.
It's not about proving which statement is true or false. You don't need to know the answer in order to follow the logic.

I'm making a truth claim with each statement so I don't see anything wrong with the initial statements themselves. From what you are saying I think your response would fall in line with #2 - morals don't exist at all, it's just an illusion, a matter of taste/preference.

Your reasoning sounds pretty good until I think about it in those terms. "Joe isn't doing anything wrong. He just prefers raping women over dating them. He dislikes the whole dating scene."

Doesn't sound right to me. How about you?
I didn't say I liked it, i said it was inevitable. Your entire case for rape being immoral rests on the fact that you know in your heart it's immoral. Mine too. It's sickening.

But Joe has a conviction deep in his heart that rape is just fine.

Clearly, personal conviction is not sufficient for determining objective truth.

So what do you have besides a personal conviction that rape is wrong?

[fromsanzabar]

Tenspaces,

Note that i said "cursory nibble." Upon more reading, i'm sure i'll come across more citations.

Some have said that laws aren't in place to impose morality but to maintain order or to accomplish more efficiently what is in our best interest as humans. Who says that order is good and what constitutes an orderly system? Also, why is it in our interest to live? Perhaps in the long run Earth would be better off if we were gone.

While i am making my opinion known, my first goal is not to push my point, but to further understand those of the various Atheists here. I really do think that i have no business telling someone they're wrong until i understand their system of thought so well that i can explain it better than they can (and in a way that neither scandalizes nor misrepresents them) I find such discussion to be enjoyable.

SCH

[Another brick in the wall]

Morality is based on crude estimates of what most people want: happiness and long life. I can't think of a reason to live other than the fact that I enjoy being alive and if by following some rules I can live longer and better, I see no reason not to follow them. If these rules conflict with the ability of others to live as well as I do, something must be changed. The golden rule is not a perfect concept but I think it's a pretty decent one.