Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]

What is morality other than doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do?


[/ QUOTE ]

On whose authority is something right?

[ QUOTE ]

Because they need the concept of hell, a never-ending punishment for their sins, to force them to act in a moral way


[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get this stuff?

Re: atheistic morality
 

"What is morality other than doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do? What would believing in God or a god have to do with that?"

What makes something right? Is it odd that just about every civilization throughout history has had basically the same set of values. (Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, do unto others, etc.) It's as if there is some prevalent standard that pre-exists. See the first chapter of MERE CHRISTIANITY by C.S. Lewis for a great discussion of this.

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
My initial argument was that there can be no such thing as an absolute, ultimate and objective standard of morality (such as the one the Christian religion proclaims) within an atheistic philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
There can be no such thing as an absolute, ultimate and objective standard of morality within a theistic philosophy.

Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to. But the notion that we should do whatever God tells us to is itself a moral claim. Why should we do whatever God says? Because God says so? That's circular.

The existence or non-existence of any gods has no bearing on whether moral rules are objective or subjective. (In fact, the idea that moral rules are whatever God wants them to be is an obviously subjective moral view. The truth or falsity of objective moral rules would not depend on whether anyone agreed with them.)

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]


What makes something right? Is it odd that just about every civilization throughout history has had basically the same set of values. (Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, do unto others, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

not any odder then every civilization having a specific creation story. or stone tools and fire for that matter. maybe language is a better example. i dont think anyone claims that language is in and of itself some great objective truth, just a mechanism that allows humans to thrive.

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it odd that just about every civilization throughout history has had basically the same set of values. (Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, do unto others, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it odd that the members of just about every civilization throughout history have had basically the same anatomical traits -- five fingers on each hand, a spleen, etc.?

I don't think either one is odd. They're exactly what you'd expect within an evolutionary framework.

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]

Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to. But the notion that we should do whatever God tells us to is itself a moral claim. Why should we do whatever God says? Because God says so? That's circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's circular. All reasoning about absolutes is circular for finite beings. If you reject God but invent an abstract, impersonal moral code that you claim we "ought" to obey, you are also reasoning in a circle. We have no other option.

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are 68 requirements for the galaxy to support life on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum...efault/lol.gif

Of the 68 listed, zero appear to be absolutely essential. The problem is that you're thinking of "life" in too narrow a fashion. There's no rule that life has to be carbon-based, or oxygen-breathing, or moderate-temperature-seeking, or any of the other things your analysis assumes.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in -- an interesting hole I find myself in -- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" -- Douglas Adams

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to. But the notion that we should do whatever God tells us to is itself a moral claim. Why should we do whatever God says? Because God says so? That's circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's circular. All reasoning about absolutes is circular for finite beings. If you reject God but invent an abstract, impersonal moral code that you claim we "ought" to obey, you are also reasoning in a circle. We have no other option.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP seems to think theistic moral philosophies and atheistic moral philosophies differ in that respect.

They don't.

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to.

[/ QUOTE ]
That should read " . . . whatever God tells us to."

Re: atheistic morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to. But the notion that we should do whatever God tells us to is itself a moral claim. Why should we do whatever God says? Because God says so? That's circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's circular. All reasoning about absolutes is circular for finite beings. If you reject God but invent an abstract, impersonal moral code that you claim we "ought" to obey, you are also reasoning in a circle. We have no other option.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP seems to think theistic moral philosophies and atheistic moral philosophies differ in that respect.

They don't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is a good example of why science and religon should stay within their respective seperate spheres. I dont think any athiest should say for certain that there is no objective right or wrong. i agree that the other explanations for a belief in objective truth(evolution) are far more convincing than an actual objective truth. but that does not prove it is not possible.

religons make specific assertitions all the time that belong in the scientific realm and that can be easily refuted using science. science shouldnt do the same thing and make definitive statements about a lack of God or objective truths when the most they can show is that they are extremly unlikely or not necassary.

science allows for a God who was the "first cause" type of thing. the religous realm deals with absolutes. a qualified statement even if its 99.999% probable, has no business in the realm of absolutes.