Atheists: A hypothetical question

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
There's no objective right or wrong, by definition of subjective morality. If no one see's it as wrong, no one see's it as wrong. If someone see's it as wrong, then it is wrong, in the eyes of the person seeing it as such.

We don't really have any example of what an objective morality would be like. And yet, regardless of the lack of that, we can easily see right or wrong. I don't see why people seem to think arguments of morality are weakened by a stance that it's ultimately subjective.

Fairly simple explanation, thanks.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
[Also, at least one guy would be smart enough to figure out that if he stood on the women's side on this particular vote, he would have a better chance than any of the other guys, to get some consensual, and possibly even from all 3 women.

Lol, that's thinking ahead!

Anyway, the reason I started this thread is because it seemed to me that the atheists were having a hard time answering the morality question in that video. I think it is good to talk about this and get views from all sides so that each can see where the other is coming from. It's a very interesting subject to me.

Hard to say for certain.

I agree that our current morals come from an evolving society. In your example, I would not agree that majority rules because the end effect is inhumane. In order for a majority to rule (in this example), I would say that they would only win IF, and it's a big IF, the 'winning' result did not result in inhumane treatment.

Now, on that same island, if the majority agreed that eating fruit only every-other day was a good way to conserve, yes the majority would win that one, because it did not involve any humans being subjected to inhumane conditions.

You do not need religion to tell you to basically treat others as you would want to be treated. Sure, some of the religions preach this, but contained within the same book are rules that contradict this.


EDIT: and in your example, I would say that the majority of people would vote to not rape anyone, man or woman. I could be wrong, but from my knowledge, the majority of people do not condone rape, they condemn it. Doesn't matter if it's the rape of a man, woman or child.

Originally posted by Daemonicon
Hard to say for certain.

I agree that our current morals come from an evolving society. In your example, I would not agree that majority rules because the end effect is inhumane. In order for a majority to rule (in this example), I would say that they would only win IF, and it's a big IF, the 'winning' result did not result in inhumane treatment.

Now, on that same island, if the majority agreed that eating fruit only every-other day was a good way to conserve, yes the majority would win that one, because it did not involve any humans being subjected to inhumane conditions.

You do not need religion to tell you to basically treat others as you would want to be treated. Sure, some of the religions preach this, but contained within the same book and rules that contradict this.


EDIT: and in your example, I would say that the majority of people would vote to rape anyone, man or woman. I could be wrong, but from my knowledge, the majority of people do not condone rape, they condemn it. Doesn't matter if it's the rape of a man, woman or child

Another good response. But, I think you meant in your edit, "I would say that the majority of people would vote NOT to rape anyone.... (at least that's what I hope you meant)

After-thought addon.

Also, for your example, we unfortunately would need to more about the people. I hate to say it, but if it were a group of hardcore muslims, the woman would lose every time.

If your group consisted of secular humanists, then no person would be harmed I would bet.

Sad to say, but outside influences would impact this island of would-be adventurers. I hate it, but it's the world we live in.

reply to post by Hydroman



Sure did, and fixed that. Was hoping to catch it before anyone noticed it.

Oh well Glad you understood my message.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by SwissMarked
So far as what you said about "who's God is better... it's all the same God... just different roads to get there... the God of Islam is the same as that of Judaism and the same as Christianity and the same as blah blah blah... it's all a matter of "who you follow to get there"...

And Zeus, Vishnu, etc. are the same as well? How do you know this?

I'm speaking of the major "western" religions and their offshoots... 54% of the world believes in "The God of Abraham" including but not limited to Christians, Jews, and Muslims... about 30% are "other gods" and about 16% don't believe in anything... I know this because I have done extensive research into various religions for the better part of the last 25 years...

Originally posted by SwissMarked
I'm speaking of the major "western" religions and their offshoots... 54% of the world believes in "The God of Abraham" including but not limited to Christians, Jews, and Muslims... about 30% are "other gods" and about 16% don't believe in anything... I know this because I have done extensive research into various religions for the better part of the last 25 years...

Right, but humanity has had many other gods all throughout history. You shouldn't just look at current beliefs. There have been many societies come and go, and many gods as well. We should learn from ALL of them.

Here's my question...

Why won't god heal an amputee? He has cured the sick, he has healed the blind and has even raised the dead. But no matter how deserving or innocent, there are no accounts of spontaneous regeneration...

"I prayed real real hard and my cancer went away..." gods miracle is fact

"I prayed real real hard and my husband came out of a 10 year coma..." gods miracle is fact

"I prayed real real hard and my leg just grew right back..." and this one sounds absurd to you right ?

This thread is great. It is really making me think about this a lot. To add to the thread, here is a great video from the Late Mr. Hitchens. In it, he breaks down the biblical 10 commandments, and replaces it with a list of 10 commandments that are better suited for our time, and are written from a secular point of view. Can't watch it enough.




Edit: The world lost a great, great mind when Christopher passed.

Originally posted by richierich931
Here's my question...

Why won't god heal an amputee? He has cured the sick, he has healed the blind and has even raised the dead. But no matter how deserving or innocent, there are no accounts of spontaneous regeneration...

"I prayed real real hard and my cancer went away..." gods miracle is fact

"I prayed real real hard and my husband came out of a 10 year coma..." gods miracle is fact

"I prayed real real hard and my leg just grew right back..." and this one sounds absurd to you right ?

I understand, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Sorry.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Also, I don't like filling in the gap with "god". Ancient people did that, and now god has been removed from many of those gaps. Who's to say it won't happen in the future with other questions we are unsure about?

The "gap" was created by Atheists, or rather, non-believers, for there never was a gap to begin with. The Bible still stands firm and true today, 2000 years later, even when deeply dissected and studied - in fact, for anyone who does commit such time to learning the Bible, they find that it becomes more and more likely that God really does exist.

As far as your original post, the Bible sums it up fairly well, with the greatest commandment - love.
Is it possible that there are people in this world who think Love is immoral? Hardly likely, but if there were; they do not know what Love really means.

The "Ten Commandments" for example, were not just "decisions" made by God flipping a coin. They are the very NATURE of God. As such, it is said that Love is the greatest commandment, because with love, all of the other commandments are fulfilled. You do not harm others if you love them.

That makes you think, what are true virtues, and what are true vices? I do believe there can only be one answer, to all of Life's questions, just as 2 + 2 will always equal 4 (in base 10), never will it equal infinity. So, I believe that the only "true" morals can be those that don't seek to satisfy yourself, but to satisfy others - in other words.. the "virtues", if you will - selfless, forgiving, respectful, meek, humble, loving.. vices? Prideful, vengeful, selfish, hatred..

The virtues I listed are what you do for others, out of love. You care for your brethren, and even your enemies..
The vices I listed, are those which stem from Pride. All from pride. Those characteristics come from someone who is only seeking to satisfy their own flesh.

So, for example.. in other societies, cultures, religions, etc.. when it is deemed "okay" to steal, is that based out of Love? or of Hatred? in other societies, cultures, religions, etc.. when it is deemed to righteous to sacrifice yourself to another being, even a complete stranger.. to help them, so that their lives may be made easier, is that based out of Hatred? or of Love?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
The "gap" was created by Atheists, or rather, non-believers, for there never was a gap to begin with. The Bible still stands firm and true today, 2000 years later, even when deeply dissected and studied - in fact, for anyone who does commit such time to learning the Bible, they find that it becomes more and more likely that God really does exist.

Not necessarily. I use this example a lot, but egyptians believed that the sun was pulled across the sky by their god who was riding in a chariot. So, not understanding how the sun moved across the sky, they inserted, "god does it".

When famines hit, "god did it".

When drought hit, "god did it".

When lightning struck, "god did it".

reply to post by Hydroman



I know it's off topic, but on the subject of your post.

I'm glad most of us have gotten past the whole "XXXX happened...so God did it"

If we continued to think like that, we would still be back 2000 years ago. Realizing that God didn't do it allows us to study and learn. Studying and learning allowed us to advance technologically. Technology has changed the world. If we still just accepted "God did it" we would never have wondered, and never have advanced. Of this, I am certain.

Funny to me how many believers are quick to just accept scientific medicine, or use any form of technology. (Sorry, I'll stop here)

Originally posted by Daemonicon
Funny to me how many believers are quick to just accept scientific medicine....

Some don't, and bad things have happened. But yeah, that's off topic.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Lionhearte
The "gap" was created by Atheists, or rather, non-believers, for there never was a gap to begin with. The Bible still stands firm and true today, 2000 years later, even when deeply dissected and studied - in fact, for anyone who does commit such time to learning the Bible, they find that it becomes more and more likely that God really does exist.

Not necessarily. I use this example a lot, but egyptians believed that the sun was pulled across the sky by their god who was riding in a chariot. So, not understanding how the sun moved across the sky, they inserted, "god does it".

When famines hit, "god did it".

When drought hit, "god did it".

When lightning struck, "god did it".

And I've always said that God is the reason, science explains how.

If you asked me today, WHY does the Sun rise? I would say, "God wanted it that way."
If you asked me today, HOW does the Sun rise? I would say, "It actually doesn't. The Earth rotates, giving the appearance that the Sun is rising, when it's really not."

That's not a gap, they just didn't know how to explain these situations back then, but they were never really wrong to begin with. Note: not talking about Egyptians. Obviously they were wrong. However, if you could show me a section in the Bible that is wrong (historically, geographically, mathematically, etc), please do.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
As far as your original post, the Bible sums it up fairly well, with the greatest commandment - love.
Is it possible that there are people in this world who think Love is immoral? Hardly likely, but if there were; they do not know what Love really means.

I agree, love is powerful. If we all had love for each other, it would conquer all evil. It would even conquer god.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
That's not a gap, they just didn't know how to explain these situations back then, but they were never really wrong to begin with. Note: not talking about Egyptians. Obviously they were wrong. However, if you could show me a section in the Bible that is wrong (historically, geographically, mathematically, etc), please do.

Historically, snakes and donkeys don't talk.
Mathematically, length x hair does not equal physical strength.
A donkey's jawbone would not last long enough to kill 1000 soldiers
Geographically, where is the garden of Eden?
Historically and Geographically, there wasn't a world wide flood.
Historically, Mathematically, and Geographically, the earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

reply to post by Hydroman


Historically, and medically, men are not made from dirt. Women are not made from ribs. The Earth is not flat, nor is it the center of the universe.

Morality is strictly a personal thing. It is defined by own individual makeup, experiences, reasoning and education/indoctrination. Unfortunately, it is the last one that usually has the most influence over people. There really is no moral or immoral just simply things we like and things we don't.

Take for instance those scientists. Let's jump ahead several generations. During the course of their upbringing all the girls are taught that it is considered a great honor to be raped and especially if it is done by someone of high standing and add to that any girl who is raped and bears a child will receive special honors among the tribe. The boys are also taught the same. So is rape still immoral if both parties accept it? After all the boys think they are doing a good thing and the girls see it the same way now. To an outsider the answer is probably still no but that is due to our own pre-established judgments.

Relying solely on a deity or authority for morals, to me, is the most dangerous, malleable and useless form. Let us say that whatever deity it is, in this case, I will use the Bible and in the Bible it is written that rape is o.k. What then? What happens if a specific deity came down and spoke to all its' believers and changed the rules and said now it is ok to rape. There are no lies, no trickery involved, it is the straight up truth from that deity. Is rape now moral?

It is the ability to put ourselves in others places that allows for common sense to rule. I do not kill people randomly because I value my life, and the life of my friends and I can see the value in that and would not want to take that from others. I would feel that way regardless of what any deity said. So to me an atheists "moral value" is stronger than one who relies on a deity to dictate theirs. I would like to think that in a different world and in a different set of circumstances I would see killing as still wrong but if I was raised and indoctrinated differently that may not be the case.

In a nutshell real morality does not exist because it is something that can be changed through various means. There is only like and dislike.