Morality without religion or god(s)

[Moonbeam]

Think of it this way Atreus, your morals do not exist:

Once two monks were walking along in the forest and one turned to the other and said, everything is an illusion."

Not long after a rhino charged the down the path they were on. The monk who had spoken ran up a tree, but the other deep in wonder at the fact that everything is an illusion didn't run and was, of course, run down by the rhino. Bruised and damaged and laying on the ground he looked up in the tree and said, 'I thought you said everything is an illusion."

Yes said the monk in the tree. "My ruining up here was an illusion too."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are lost, hopefully not on purpose for the sake of obfuscation/confusion in order to "win." Go read the posts in order, or stop bothering me. I have discussed things with you before, and this is exactly what happened last time. You mischaracterize arguments and you redefine words to your benefit.

I haven't redefined anything. You simply do not know what it means for something to be "objective."

Exactly!

That was a question for you -- one that supposes "objective morality" exists -- to demonstrate the usage of said "objective morality" to evaluate moral propositions.

Your inability to answer is indicative of the falsity of your position.

I think you understand, but refuse to accept. Either wrong is wrong or it isn't. If wrong isn't wrong, the we are not talking about morality or good and evil.

My position is not that "wrong isn't wrong."

We are talking about personal preference. If you think that which defines good and evil is merely personal preference and held to as a belief, then you are not talking about morality.

That is precisely what morality is. You have only asserted, baselessly, that this is not true.

If my preference is to kill people, who are you to say that I am wrong?

I am myself, a conscious being with values.

B/C you have a preference that killing is wrong? If this isn't how you believe, please tell me why you think killing without "justification" is wrong.

Because I value human life.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

First: :thumbsup:

But secondly, this is why I can't be an atheist. I can't accept that morality is truly without any objective basis. Apart from being a contradiction in terms, the implications are horrifying if this is true.

"I do not like the consequences of X being true, so X must be false."

Yeah, that's some great reasoning, right there. Yessiree, Bob.

 

[Steeplerot]

Its all here you Christians and thesists are the actual atheists..heathens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

Pretty deep stuff

 

[Ausm]

 

[ch33zw1z]

Nice Ausm, LOL...

 

[soulcougher73]

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"- Strawberry Fields Forever

 

[Jeff7]

First: :thumbsup:

But secondly, this is why I can't be an atheist. I can't accept that morality is truly without any objective basis. Apart from being a contradiction in terms, the implications are horrifying if this is true.

Some would find it at least as horrifying to think that the God described in the Bible is real. He professes benevolence and love, but his actions are of a malevolent, cruel, sadistic, and uncaring entity - one who himself is able to act without higher restraint. If there's no higher or objective basis for God's behavior, then the foundation of that "objective basis" for human morality is entirely absent.
The only other option there is to then say, "God's objective morality is adequate" - which itself finds its foundation in a blind leap of faith.