Atheists have no legitimate basis for morality

February 7, 2018, 3:42 am

Agree6 Disagree18

25%
75%

The debate "Atheists have no legitimate basis for morality" was started by Ematio on February 7, 2018, 3:42 am. 6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

Ematio posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments, AnnaLee posted 1 argument, TreyO posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

Ematio, Slymcfly, FiddleStorm, nivasprashanth and 2 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Akm, AnnaLee, lachlan, TreyO, chris3412, sarahcrlav, trippyclouds and 10 visitors disagree.

Why is this in the science section? It's better fit in the religion or philosophy sections.

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

your point is that it wouldn't be your god. but that is not answering my question to you.

is god the source of morality, or simply it's enforcer?

clearly god has commanded a man to kill before, and judged the persons actions as correct when he raised his knife over his son at gods command.

it was but a test, but the correct answer was to follow gods order no matter what.

3 months, 1 week ago

your opinion of what god is comes from a book written by men. your morals are no less subjective than anyone else's, yours were just written by guys who died a long time ago.

3 months, 1 week ago

Are you not understandinh my point sir?

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

But is murder bad because god said, or is it independently bad?

because if it's bad because god said so, then if god says go forth and murder, it's not god that is no longer good, but murder that's no longer bad.... kinda like when god told (Isaac or Abraham) to kill his son, he expected him to listen until he was told
to stop. maybe it's good long term like limiting our population or strengthening our species, how would we justify questioning infinite wisdom.

and if something is good or bad independent of God's word, then what is it decided by? is it still objective?

3 months, 1 week ago
Ematio
replied to...

There is flaw in that reasoning. My belief in a Christian dictates that if God were to do that, it would either not be God, or that what I believe isn't good. God is Good, so he cannot act out if line with that

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

of course. without an all knowing father figure there can be no objective morality.

however that depends on the existence of this figure. it also raises questions as well. is his word morality because he said so, (meaning he can change it at will, like he always intended to command that murder is good in the year 2020, it was all part of his plan, will you question it?)

Or does he say so, because it is moral (meaning the morality is independent of his word... And then where does it come from and can we go directly to the source?)

3 months, 1 week ago

I'm not saying we don't have morals. I believe that God wrote this law on our hearts, and having it written down was to set it in stone. I'm arguing that the Atheist has no basis for objective morality

3 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

That's not really a moral thing, but a popular and flawed description of natural selection. survival doesn't even mean staying alive, but having as many viable offspring as possible. it's survival of the species, the individual could die in a day.

ants dominate the insect world not because of individual fitness but because of their cooperation. there are many ways to survive and prosper.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

if you need a book and someone watching you to tell you how to be moral your morals aren't so good to begin with. There is so much you can learn from the people around you and I'm pretty sure empathy is a good reason to be kind.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

But how about the idea of survival of the fittest?

3 months, 2 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

considering we believe dolphins to be sentient, I believe yes.

there are many theories on that. the law of universally is one I remember. it states an action is moral if it can be done universally with no contradiction. the example I heard related to theft but rape works great as well. you can't both be raping each other, would it even be rape at that point? thus it is immoral.

I don't like it because it seems stupid, but i haven't thought if a situation it doesn't come out ok yet.

also utilitarianism where it's all about the action that does the most good or least bad.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

What makes your choice and rationality more of a basis of morality than mine?

Concerning the rape issue, is it wrong for a dolphim to rape another dolphin?

3 months, 2 weeks ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

no

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Nemiroff, should rape be legal?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

historybuff, you're lumping people under that assumption who don't act that way. If the text says not to do it, but the people are doing, you know who's at fault there. The people are at fault for not obeying the command

3 months, 2 weeks ago

everyone has morality. it is just subjective. Christian morality is interesting. despite their religious text telling them not to judge and to treat others as they would want to be treated, they still condemn everyone who doesn't fit their narrow perspective of morality.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

So you think people who worship God have morality?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

how legitimate can God's morality be to someone who doesn't believe in God?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

choice and rationality

3 months, 2 weeks ago
Discuss "Atheists have no legitimate basis for morality" philosophy science society
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.