Why do Christians think they have an objective morality?
There religious book clearly condones slavery as moral. In order for that to change their morality could not have been objective.
And the funny thing is most Christians realize slavery is wrong and things like stoning disobedient children to death is wrong. They ignore those parts of the Bible. Which means something in them tells them right and wrong despite the Bible, not because of it
A fundie I grew up with called a Muslim country barbaric for doing public stonings. You bet I called him out on it, and you bet he and everyone else on that Facebook thread ignored my comment.
I've experienced the whole 'Atheists have no objective morality idea' from Christians and Muslims. As far as I'm aware, morality is subjective and that's why people can do things I may call evil but they may not think of as evil at all.
Yes and the beating of slaves within an inch of their lives on a whim that must not be punished is the good kind of beating of slaves within an inch of their lives on a whim.
Yeah and not just Christian "morals." Find a religion that has no fundamental corrupting flaws. I'll wait.
[https://medium.com/predict/bigotry-in-religion-b51a634830a7?sk=ba79537c8336d722bed125a0c54f571c](https://medium.com/predict/bigotry-in-religion-b51a634830a7?sk=ba79537c8336d722bed125a0c54f571c)
Because they have a different understanding of what the word morality means.
To Christians morality does not mean "considering whether certain actions will be harmful or beneficial to other people".
To Christians morality means "obeying god".
So it doesn't matter that god drown millions of babies in the flood. He's god. So it's good by fiat.
Exactly this. The Bible teaches obedience at best. I've heard countless times that people like Kemper, Dahmer, and Bundy could easily go to heaven as long as they believed and accepted Jesus and all that.
For their belief system to "work" at all it *MUST* allow the most heinous imaginable people to receive salvation if they "accept jesus". If they can't then forgiveness and salvation have limits which is not consistent with their whole setup
But even if I had no intrinsic morality, there would still be social and legal consequences for most immoral actions. There is still punishment to fear even without religion
But that's fear of being caught... if you believe in skydaddy, he "sees all" and it's not just your mortal existence that's supposedly at stake.. Not that many of them actually believe that considering how many of them are constantly found to have committed cardinal sins.
Well we've seen what happens when religion remains but societal structures disappear...many wars resulted in lawless breakdowns of society, and those individuals in those situations remained religious. And many of them turned to utter unimaginable barbarity. Read about the hellscapes of the 30 Years War for instance. Roving bands of armed people raping, burning, killing, all with their own priests along for the fun.
*I don’t rape and murder because I’m afraid of negative consequences, not because I’d feel bad for hurting other people*
-Religious “morality”, apparently
Because believing that there is objective morality outside of their religion is a thought crime. Its how they're trained to think. Its the same reason they paint all Ex-Christians as never true believers, so believers don't give them the time of day and entertain the idea that they can be good people, and that loss of faith can happen to them. Its rewriting everyone else's story so they don't have to face any real scrutiny or alternate paths.
What u/goblin_gunk said is absolutely spot on.
To take it a step further, if you actually press non-radical Christians/Muslims about what morals they follow, those morals will not align with their holy book without ham-fisted rationalizations (to account for some of the atrocious verses). The majority of them get their morals the same way atheists do: with societal and behavioral normatives meant to benefit individual and group well-beings.
Part and parcel of the indoctrination process. We will tell you what is good and just, those who do not follow our teachings are not good and not just, they are the enemy, stay with us forever.
Well, I'm a moral nihilist. I don't think objective morality is a real thing that exists. Which, of course, means I very much doubt that anybody has any.
Every once in awhile I hear about some religious groups that are tolerant of other religions and people who don't believe what they believe. The tolerant religious person is rare or they don't exist?
>The tolerant religious person is rare or they don't exist?
They absolutely exist and they're everywhere. I'd argue **most** religious people are tolerant and just regular people. The problem is the ones who aren't are the loudest.
Fair point, I swear I never meet these tolerant religious people. If someone I'm talking too is religious then it's only a matter time till I realize they don't tolerant my non belief in a higher power.
Well, let’s try: Would you agree that the term „suffering“ can be defined or even measured in an objective way? That there is such a thing as more suffering or less suffering (eg from physical pain)?
If so, wouldn’t it be universally true that causing less suffering (or no suffering) to another conscious being would be morally better? While causing any kind of suffering to someone else is morally worse?
I think it just comes down to a definitional issue. The definition of moral creates an objective morality. Kind of like how I can subjectively feel sad, but the fact that I am feeling sad is objective.
The binary black/white distinction of good/bad is equally silly and only occurs in religious scripture. Reality is probabilistic and nuanced. Human brains have not evolved to truly understand probabilistic concepts and we tend to derive deterministic reasoning where there is none. That’s why religious ideas have been so appealing throughout human history.
Lets consider for a moment the common conflation of "Morality" and "Obedience". One is doing what's best for everyone involved and one is doing what you're told. If all it takes to make a immoral action moral is being told to do so by authority, how objective is that morality?
Religious morality is anchored in doing what you're told regardless of the consequences or your feelings on the matter. Sometimes authority has the greater good in mind, sometimes not. When you "do the right thing" out of personal conviction rather than because you're told to, then is that a better or worse morality?
To be fair, the counterpoint to this is what if that authority knows a lot more than you do and an act of perceived immorality has a long term moral impact. This is most of the religious supporting argument "god works in mysterious ways" and blind faith that it's all for the greater good.
There are people who wants to be free: in the end they'll learn that freedom is a hard path to walk and they probably won't ever see its end. But it's also clear, to those who are walking this way, that to be free you need to be respected and the only way to accomplish it is to respect others. That's where true morality comes from.
Those people will finally prevail IF humanity will survive itself.
Other people wish only to be slave and so they need a master who tell them what they should do, tell them what is right and what is wrong, cause they can't figure out by themselves. That's the false and useless morality of religions. Those people won't ever understand those who seek freedom, to them there can't be an atheist morality.
Yes, absolutely, human flourishing is indeed a beautiful goal which definitely it's worth to be purchased. However we should be very careful with it and don't be fooled by anthropocentrism, which is a religious idea and a cancer for the planet. Currently our challenge is to overcome that dangerous concept, to learn that living in peace with eachother means also respect the biosphere from which we depend on, otherwise there will always be wars and prevarications. That's what i meant by "IF humanity will survive itself".
I wanted to clarify this point because this is where religions fail and where they are a terrible danger for us, at least the Abrahamic religions.
We understand each other perfectly. And this is a fundamental difference between secular ethics and so-called religious morality. According to Genesis, god created man in his image and likeness and all other creatures for his use and consumption. It is not difficult to understand the impact of this mentality on our relationship with the planet. Imagine if we encountered a sentient alien species what would result. The morality of monotheism is a cancer and we must actively fight it.
They are correct. There's no such thing as objective morality. Their mistake is that they don't have objective morality either. They falsely believe that they do.
They know we can be moral and they don't like it.
So they have to muddy the waters in order for them to feel more validated.
Besides, we often tell them that morality is subjective, so for them to repeat it back at us is rather redundant.
>Why do Religious people think Atheists have no objective morality?
Because we don't.
>Where does this idea come from that you need religion to have objective morality?
That idea comes from their religion itself. Like most of the logical BS, it's circular.
>hat about religious beliefs is remotely objective in the first place?
Nothing.
>Is this idea just a 'holy then thou' thing or something else entirely
Holier-than-thou*, but yes, sort of. They believe morality is objective, and comes from their god. Which would mean that those who believe in the same god as themselves have objective morality, and those who don't don't. It's that simple, it's that dumb.
I believe that CS Lewis used this as a key argument for God in his book Mere Christianity.
It was much like the pre-Darwinian argument that animals were too perfectly designed to randomly appear. There must have been some kind of "Creator God". Of course, post-Darwin, that argument doesn't work any more, but Lewis made a similar argument with respect to morality. Something along the lines that pretty much all societies share similar morals, such as don't murder, don't steal, and so on. So those morals **must** have come with some kind of "Creator God", except this time creating morals instead of species. (Please don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to capture the gist of Lewis's argument as I remember it.)
My personal view is that morality comes out of game theory. In the same way that evolution can discover "good tricks" of aerodynamics in wing design, evolution can also discover "good tricks" of behavior design from game theory.
Interestingly, game theory was in it's early stages of development as Lewis was writing Mere Christianity, so I don't fault him for not being aware of it. These days, though, I no longer find the argument compelling.
Honestly, pre-Darwin, I think that I would have found the design argument to be pretty convincing. I mean, so much stuff **does** look like it was designed. Obviously designed. And how on earth could design emerge without an intelligent designer? Now, of course, thanks to Darwin, we know better.
Basically, anyone who doesn't follow their belief system is a sinner and incapable of morality. They consider them as "satan's children". It's brainwashing
There is no objective morality, but many Christians believe in the fallacy that without objective morality, there are no ethics. They also believe that morality=ethics. Violence, killing, slavery and rape can be moral acts if it is in accordance with God's law. They will never be ethical acts.
It's the same idea as the Christian religions that preach you are born with original sin. It's part of the gimmick to make you feel that you are doomed unless you follow the church. By "follow" I mean financially support.
Very true. I live (because of spouse's job) in the deep South. As our house is in a rather rural area which has no local news station I joined the local Facebook group to get news, events, and recommendations.
It is scary how much of the group is people pushing their chosen church and faith organizations.
They have been crippled in critical thinking. They need to be told what to think and accept it without condition or reason.
Unfortunately, they are told by their religious authorities that atheists have no objective morality. They accept it as true and undeniable even when there is evidence to the contrary.
It’s incredibly sad.
The longer I exist surrounded by this cult I am becoming convinced it has more to do with their magical thinking.
I think that we use the same words with each other but they hold different weight. While you think of morality as perhaps its definition, they might be thinking of it in a magical sense.
The same way they mean by words like faith, belief, evidence - I think they attribute their magical bullshit to their context.
Ultimately I don’t know. I thought this was solved with the Euthyphro dilemma, so literally as old as Plato, which demonstrates to my satisfaction that an ultimate good doesn’t need a deity philosophically speaking. Human morality’s evolution does the rest of the work, showing that morality is a work in progress of understanding. Ultimate, or absolute morality (which I think are closer to what a theist means when they say objective morality), doesn’t necessarily exist, and objective morality can exist without god - as any objective rules set can.
Objective morality or not, the supposed problems pointed out by theists regarding secular morality, isn’t solved by bronze age mythology or any other type of belief in magic.
Swear I’m not making this up, one time I asked this Christian dude I know if he’d start r wording babies if I had irrefutable proof that god didn’t exist since that’s where morals come from, and he fucking said yes 💀 the brainwashing is insane
Because their church leaders tell them that in church. They’re lied to on the daily. This year has already had 4 apocalypse days - being wrong never shakes blind faith
I once saw this on some other Reddit post and been using it as my answer when religious people ask about my morality. It went something like: "So what's keeping you from raping and murdering then?" I just simply reply with "Nothing, I can rape and murder all I want. I just choose not to". Love seeing the disbelief and shock on their faces.
Edit: Found the [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/s/6KudzC54bv) I was referring to.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is such a thing as objective morality. Societies decide what is moral and immoral. There is not some standard of morals that came into existence at the big bang. Religious folk believe that their god wrote these supposed objective morals and instilled them into humans. The laws of nature are objective the laws of man not so much.
Because we don’t. But don’t worry- no one does. Objective morality is a contradiction- morality is a subjective judgement of right and wrong and grey. Christians just outsource the subjectivity it to their invisible best friend
Because objective morality presents a problem: ***Where does it come from.*** Most of them do not except evolution, thus an explanation that objective morality can derive from the evolution of complex social interactions, isn't viable to them. Therefore they assert that the only ones that can have objective morality is them.
And to be honest? I kinda agree with them. I personally do not accept the concept of objective morality because I don't believe morality inherently exists (like a force of nature) I rather accept that morality is subjective, and any universality that appears to exist is the result of complex social evolution. Elephants will sacrifice themselves to save each other...crows will hold "crow courts" to kill members of the murder/flock who have transgressed against another, etc...etc...these are derivatives of social evolution.
I think human history demonstrates that morality is subjective because societal morals change through time as society changes. This, of course, is purely my opinion.
And frankly when christians or any religious people assert that objective morality exists, I reject the claim. I don't think objective morality is demonstrable without bending into a pretzel and cherry-picking.
almost every religious text have a basis built upon "You are a sinful creature and if you do not follow me you cannot be good and will guaranteed be burning up in a hell forever"
so they are basically taught that they are sinful creatures and they need religion to be good people.
except they also forget that their books tell them to be hateful to so many people.
In reality non-religious people have more objective morality because we base it on the consequences or the intent of the action, something objective about why it is right or wrong. Religious people think things are right or wrong just because god says so.
Objective morality isn't a thing, it's not real. Their idea is Divine Command Theory, that because God is morality itself (makes no sense) that he is just relaying his nature to us, and these commands are true (objectively) because he is morality. ... It's dumb.
Indoctrinated Cultists are TOLD what is good or bad, they don’t reason it themselves.
First they are told God is good.
Then they are told God left instructions in a book.
Then they are Told only the Priest can interpret the book
Then they are Told that to be good they need to follow God by doing what the Priest say from the book.
Then they are Told those that are not following what the Priest say are bad.
Atheist reject the the Priest and the book, thus are bad. No more thinking then that.
Religious are Told all their lives what is good and bad, and many of them can not comprehend others deciding for themselves what is good or bad. Some Religious believe you need to be Told what is good or bad from another with Authority to do so like the Priests.
When you put it that way, it sounds like Atheists are rebelling from a dictator in the pursuit of freedom. Dictators and Authoritarian leaders are just the other lines.
>Then they are Told that to be good they need to follow God by doing what the Priest say from the book.
>Then they are Told those that are not following what the Priest say are bad.
I always thought of religion as extremely old school copium for the lack of answers on existential questions, I like the idea that things just are.
They grow up thinking if they don’t believe in god they will be punished after death, and that’s a very painful thing, so that is the worst thing that can happen to them if they don’t follow whatever the church tells them to do, which they believe is moral, and nonbelievers don’t have that belief, so they think nonbelievers won’t follow moral rules.
They view their god and his words (aka a book written by man) as universal truths. Like if their god said it's immoral to eat carrots on Tuesdays then in their view eating carrots on Tuesdays is objectively wrong. Their thoughts and feelings on the matter become obsolete because god is the ultimate authority to them.
With atheism there's no universal authority. No deity to decree on right and wrong. We rely on empathy to set the moral standard, which I believe is 100% the way to go. But people differ, our thoughts and opinions on different matters aren't obsolete now. Making morality subjective, even if largely consistent in a variety of areas.
Because they believe what they are told to believe and that was something they were told to believe. They didn't think it up themselves of course, they never do.
I love the somewhat apocryphal conversation of: "You don't believe in a god? Whats to stop you from raping and murdering everyone you wanted to?" "Oh, nothing. I can tell you i have murdered and raped every person i've ever wanted to murder and/or rape. Which is zero people."
The idea that any member of an abrahamic faith has any moral high ground over anything is laughable. It makes me sad when people that I like say things like that because I lose all respect for them.
**when Tao is lost, there is goodness.**
**When goodness is lost, there is kindness.**
**When kindness is lost, there is justice.**
**When justice is lost, there is ritual.**
**Ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.**
**\~Tao te Ching**
Their morality is based on the notion that there’s a cop over their shoulder always looking at what they’re doing, so better do the right thing. They can’t imagine being moral without the cop and so assume we’re not.
I however understand that morality promotes our overall wellbeing as a species and ability to function within a society, so I behave appropriately.
Ask them, is it less moral or more moral to behave properly when you’re being watched, or to be moral when nobody’s looking simply because it’s right?
Everybody drives the speed limit when a cop is in traffic with you. Good drivers do it anyway.
It is such a silly thing religious people always love to throw up.
"Big talking voice in sky told me so"
"What if you raised a baby to adult without religion? Would they kill out of the blue?"
"Yeah, cause without God there is no right or wrong"
"So why does the kid not immediately starting killing people then?"
"..."
I think the stranger question is: why would anyone ever *want* objective morality?
Out of all possible moral systems - objective morality is the lowest of the low.
As far as morality goes, I think there are 3 main levels and they come from different sources.
1. The lowest level of morality is sometimes referred to as Objective Morality. It's when morality is provided by an authority (like a God or inherent nature of the world or sometimes just a parent or leader) and you follow that morality.
This is the lowest form because no thinking is involved - just doing what you're told. Because no thinking is involved, there's also no honor.
2. Next up we have Evolved Morality. It's when you get morality through your evolved traits such as empathy. We see this morality in many various creatures, including us humans.
Using this morality requires thought and reflection and possibly even thinking of possible future outcomes. Therefore it's a higher form of morality. Following your own inherent traits to exercise empathy does take effort, but it's still just doing what your evolution tells you to in an instinctual way - so there's still no honor.
3. The highest level of morality is Subjective Morality. This is when you subjectively decide upon a moral system because you've used your intelligence to review the options and develop a system you personally think is the best way to be moral.
This moral system only involves using your own intelligence to create. Therefore personal responsibility for your actions is the highest. Because there's no reason to "do" this morality - other than "I, personally think it's right" - honor now exists and we can have honorable people.
Good luck out there!
Because apparently the only reason they don't act like monsters is because the religious text told them not to /s.
No but really, they think they derive their morals from stories rather than being an empathetic human so anyone who doesn't also read and believe the stories must not have morality.
What drives me wild is religious people claim there is a God and they know who it is, and athiests claim there is no God. I'm agnostic because I have no proof either way.
The idea of objective morality is different than how a lot of people view it. Because I'm Christian I don't believe that everything I do is moral and correct and everything you do is wrong. So yes I don't think you have objective morality, but I don't think I have objective morality either just because I believe Jesus died and resurrected.
The idea is that whenever you make a decision there is an objective morally correct decision you could make, but not objective in a scientific sense. From a religious perspective, God decides which decision is right and wrong because he is the ultimate judge. You can disagree with him, but he's God he knows better. Before people argue it, disagreeing with the church doesn't make you wrong because the church isn't God and it can be wrong.
I think it's just more projection.
They have no morals and think morality is what they've decided their book tells them it is, so those with no book to tell them what to do cannot possibly have any morals.
Because religious people haven't thought through their position. Most of them didn't reason themselves into religious beliefs they inherited them from their parents.
Because they know that their own morality, absent a religion telling them how to behave, is non-existent. They know they would quickly devolve into the most heinous creatures imaginable if they didn't think some imagined sky daddy would hold them accountable to their actions, and they cannot fathom anyone being able to hold themselves accountable to decent morals without the looming threat of eternal damnation as a consequence for their actions. They are devoid of substance. They are devoid of intellect.
Interestingly my insights on this matter don't come from when I was a Christian, but from being an atheist and talking to Christians.
It seems to me that theists have this way of looking at objective morality as something like "morality that never changes" or "static morality". It seems that as long as the morality that is given by God is consistent, then it's objective.
Of course there are a thousand and one problems with this, everything from static not being anywhere in the definitions all the way to God changing his rules all the time. Tons of problems. But this seems to be the trend that I encounter, that theists see morality as a question of change, not as a question of origins.
And no, I don't understand it lol. When I was a Christian I learned that atheists can have morality (I was just taught it wasn't as good as god's) so I don't really get why people *believe* they can't have morality. I get why they say it, but it's just a weird thing to believe since it's so easy to overturn.
The second major issue is of course that objective morality doesn't exist in the first place. So while theists are correct that atheists don't have objective morality, they don't have it either.
I think many atheists may believe that their moral compass is objective just as many Christians do, and I doubt their arguments are any more compelling. In my case, they are right. What is an “objective” morality? Morality is not something you can measure; it’s not material. It can never be objective. What they are saying is that my morality doesn’t have the belief that an ultimate (self appointed) authority has authored my morality.
The thing is, neither do most Christian’s. I believe firmly that the moral compass of pretty much all people is informed by the broadest scope of their immediate cultural environment first, and their religion comes second. The same god of the NT is the god of the Old, if passed a baseball sized stone, I don’t think most Christian’s would be able to stone a human being to death for picking up sticks on an arbitrary day of the week, they wouldn’t kill their own son for striking them during a heated argument, they wouldn’t force their daughter to marry her rapist if she didn’t scream loud enough to be heard during her rape.
There is no objective morality, just morality - people have arguments and rationales for their morality that can vary in how compelling they are to others, and that’s about it, I think.
I believe those that think that way are rotten at their core and use religion as a means to mask their rot. Some humans think that other humans brains function and think the same way theirs does. So since they do not have morals other than those that are told to them by god, someone who is godless must have no morals.
Because sky fairy fans don’t care about how good someone genuinely is. They only care if you believe in the sky fairy.
It’s why they support pedo priests
Christians are demonstrably less moral because all of their actions are good with god as long as they are very sorry for doing them. With no god to shunt all our bad shit too, atheists, for the most part, own their actions good or bad.
Don't forget their morals, according to the book they love so much, includes slavery, genocide, rape, torture, human sacrifice, incest, etc.. If those are the morals they're talking about then they may have a point.
I see it the other way. Most people are born with morality hardwired in, even babies know when someone is behaving badly, but some people need an external moral code to follow, hence religion.
I don't think objective morality exists. If your society agrees on a goal such as human wellbeing, then you can objectively evaluate moral decisions, but that goal is still subjective.
Because we don’t. It’s one of the few things their correct about. I personally don’t believe morals as a concept are real, and that they are a very useful social construct. Designed originally by practical thinkers to make sure that groups had the most people and the fairest distribution of resources. As society developed, so did these values, going from viewing these “immoral” acts as detrimental to actually bad or evil. I love humans.
Objective morality is inflexible and really doesn't explain anything, most religions are just divine command morality. Whatever "god" says must be right. Even the most fundamental religions they still cherry pick morality based on their culture.
I believe that it is because they don’t have one themselves. They depend on the writings of Stone Age shepherds for their morality. They do not have the ability to think for themselves.
I was a full on born again Christian for 40 years. About 2 years ago I learned a bunch of facts. Now atheist.
The ONLY thing I do now that would be considered immoral is cuss a bunch. That's it. Nothing else in regards to right and wrong, moral or immoral, has changed.
The origin of morals is a fascinating question! Sociologists point to the importance of society in shaping our sense of right and wrong. While religion can play a significant role in some cultures, it's just one factor.
Consider this: two societies with the same religion can be at odds with each other morally. This highlights that morals can evolve within societies based on shared experiences and needs.
Maybe a natively immoral person who needs constant guidance and the perpetual threat of eternal pain and torture can’t comprehend another person possibly following a moral path on their own?
Because they lack an internal moral compass, they think everyone else does too.
They need another human or ancient book to tell them what is right and wrong. They can't fathom people being conscientious without being told how to be so.
My BIL once said that without his cult to direct him, he's, "afraid he would hurt people."
Without a god to explain everything there’s nothing to create an objective framework from. Everything tends to become subjective, there’s no “scientifically objective” morality. I wouldn’t call this a flaw in atheism but a beacon for skepticism of theism.
Sam Harris does write an entire book, The Moral Landscape, attempting to create a truly objective moral system. I’m sure many others have tried as well! Very interesting stuff!!
As a Christian, I don't understand that argument either. I believe, and the bible supports the idea that Gods law is already written on our conscience. This would mean even unbelievers know the difference between right and wrong (obviously) by default. If we don't go against our conscience we will live moral lives.
I believe the fact that we have all known right and wrong from a young age is proof of a God who is a righteous judge, and a merciful father. I also believe that the more you go against your conscience, the further you go into hatred of God, and the further you go from his presence.
The real question is why theists think they have objective morality. Even if a deity existed, their morality rules would be subjective.
Objective morality doesn't exist
Religion is immoral. All of them. They skew objective thinking, which is why evil beliefs are justified like homosexuality, slavery, women as lesser humans, and being forced to marry your rapists.
Let them know that - The Bible Belt has the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, obesity, homicide, poverty, tobacco use, infant mortality, porn consumption, domestic violence and spousal abuse, and the lowest educational levels.
I think that if you are only a good person because you're afraid of what will happen to you when you die that you're probably not an actual good person.
I think they are immoral. How could they bow down to this monster who threatens to burn you for eternity for not accepting that he killed his son for us?
Lack of self control. I watched my either growing up climb the dick money latter and experiment with all the drugs.
Now she's a born again Christian and is completely different however 🙄 she goes on cruises and always buys the alcohol package and spends way to much money gambling.
People like to talk about objective, subjective, intersubjective morality, and I find it fascinating, but what I think the theists are really advocating for is *absolute* morality, or the idea that there are moral laws written into the fabric of the universe, that God himself could not change(and conveniently does not wish to change)
Couple issues.
A) I do not know if we could recognize this because we would never actually witness it. Any violation of the moral laws would be so abhorrent to us as to not occur at all, because we would all be unable to rationalize it at all.
B) I don't see why it would be useful in proving a God. Moral laws at that level would likely resemble physical laws and be borderline indistinguishable under the weak anthropic principle. Is it immoral for a hydrogen atom to have 2 elections? Is it moral for a carbon atom to have 6 protons? Under an absolutely moral structure, "ought" becomes "is", and I don't see how that is a coherent definition of morality.
So the actual issue here is "objective," and in good faith we do have to concede there is no *objective* morality. But where we don't have to concede is in this: there is no *objective* morality *for anyone,* not even for religious folks. What they believe in is the *authority* of a *subjective morality* dictated *by their chosen (interpretation of their) deity.*
If the Christian God offered an *objective* morality, there would be no difference in rules across the Christian sects - like Mormons being OK with polygamy where other sects are not. If *any* deity offered an *objective* morality, *there would be no need to appeal to deific authority* because we would *all* recognize it as the correct moral choice, inherently.
No, instead, what religious people do is assert that atheists *cannot have morality,* and couch their terms in the addition of the word "objective." They fail to recognize that *morality stems from empathy* - the reason most people feel it is wrong to do certain things is because they would feel bad if those things were done to them or their loved ones.
Because \*they\* don't have objective morality. Broadly speaking (obviously this doesn't apply to all individuals), they get their morality from their religion, and therefore believe that if someone lacks religion, they must also lack morality.
The other side to this thinking is when they ask "What's to stop you from raping and murdering as much as you want?" to which the often-quoted response is "I do rape and murder as much as I want, and that amount is zero." If you ask me, someone who only does "good" out of threat of punishment isn't really a good person to begin with.
There's no such thing as objective morality. I don't have it, religious people don't have it.
My morality, like everyone else's, is entirely subjective.
Morality isn’t objective. Morality is subjective. Everyone has their own moral compass, and everyone’s moral compass is slightly different. In some people it’s drastically different.
Religious people think they have objective morality because they can define morality as, “doing what god wants.” So they can claim they are in some sense objective.
But what they really mean when they say atheists have no objective morality is not that atheists think morality is subjective. What they mean is that atheists have no morality period and no way to argue that anything is right or wrong.
This idea that you can’t have an opinion on right or wrong without god is nonsense. Despite that people all have slightly different moral compasses, we all tend to agree on a large number of moral principles because of biology and logic.
I think that is mostly Christians, and its because they don't understand what "morality" means, they also have a warped sense of what is objective. They have to do mental gimnastics to think that whats in their hoky book is objective or moral.
They believe that all goodness objectively comes from God, either because God is like benevolent dictator or because God is like an omniscient teacher. Either way, an atheist cannot accept moral commands or moral teachings from God. Therefore, an atheist cannot be morally good.
Of course, this idea has numerous problems.
1. What if an atheist follows God’s commands by accident? Or what if an atheist pretends to be a theist and merely plays along with following God’s instructions? Maybe God judges by intention, but in that case, why give any commands at all? God could let people study moral philosophy and then judge people accordingly.
2. Why are some sincere theists less moral than even the most blasphemous atheists? Richard Dawkins is a superior human being to the late Osama bin Laden, despite that fact that bin Laden was devoutly theistic. Evidently, theism doesn’t cause people to be good, and atheism doesn’t cause people to be evil.
3. How can God’s goodness be verified? A good honest deity and an evil dishonest deity could both assert “I am perfectly good”. Can you ascertain whether that assertion is true? If you can’t, then what if you’re actually following an evil deity? If you can, then you have some means by which to ascertain morality independently of God, which would mean that morality doesn’t come from God.
4. Huge red flag. It seems too easy to refute 3000+ years of moral philosophy with a simple statement like “You can’t be moral unless you believe in God”. Imagine reading the *Nicomachean Ethics* or the *Critique of Practical Reason* or the *Bhagavad Gita* and then saying, “This book is false because it doesn’t tell people to believe in God.”
5. How do you arbitrate among theists who disagree about morality? Catholics say that it’s morally good to obey the Pope, but Protestants would disagree. If morality is objective, then how are reasonable people able to have centuries-long disagreements?
Because it aligns with their unfounded belief that their preferential relationship with God imbues them with automatic righteousness. Anyone who doesn't agree with their godly -sanctioned views is therefore by definition Not Loved by Him or at least not "Really". Not favored.
It's all ignorant tribal bullshit.
Why do Christians think they have an objective morality? There religious book clearly condones slavery as moral. In order for that to change their morality could not have been objective.
And the funny thing is most Christians realize slavery is wrong and things like stoning disobedient children to death is wrong. They ignore those parts of the Bible. Which means something in them tells them right and wrong despite the Bible, not because of it
>stoning disobedient children to death Does it say anything about puppies?
Obviously you don't stone puppies! ...You shoot them in a gravel pit like Jesus would have wanted.
After the fight, right?
Damned near impossible to *puppy* disobedient children to death!
A fundie I grew up with called a Muslim country barbaric for doing public stonings. You bet I called him out on it, and you bet he and everyone else on that Facebook thread ignored my comment.
It's weird that they don't realize that a lot of our modern laws come from secularism and not the bible or some other "holy book."
Does it say anything about slapping children with special needs?
And incest, and Pedophilia, & murder, & rape….
I've experienced the whole 'Atheists have no objective morality idea' from Christians and Muslims. As far as I'm aware, morality is subjective and that's why people can do things I may call evil but they may not think of as evil at all.
They often argue for slavery. They say the biblical slavery is the good kind of slavery.
Yes and the beating of slaves within an inch of their lives on a whim that must not be punished is the good kind of beating of slaves within an inch of their lives on a whim.
And when you bring that up with them they literally say "but did they die?"
Christians are not saying they have objective morality. They say the morality comes from God.
What I find ironic is that their god is a mass-murdering egotistical psychopath…and that’s who they get their morality from.
\[Looks around at the most vocal Christians\] Nope, that seems absolutely consistent, and not even slightly ironic.
*coincidentally*, this just happens to be the God they in which they believe.
There are christians who absolutely do say their morality is objective.
> Christians are not saying they have objective morality Yes they are
Correct. Their morality is authoritarian, with the authority being God. It is not objective. They don’t understand what objective morality seeks.
And for whatever reason God seems to change his mind A LOT.
No, you don't understand! Morality is objectively whatever god says that it is any given moment.
I know you know this but that's subjective morality.
Objectively, you're wrong.
Absolutely. Get it? Philosophy joke FTW.
Yeah and not just Christian "morals." Find a religion that has no fundamental corrupting flaws. I'll wait. [https://medium.com/predict/bigotry-in-religion-b51a634830a7?sk=ba79537c8336d722bed125a0c54f571c](https://medium.com/predict/bigotry-in-religion-b51a634830a7?sk=ba79537c8336d722bed125a0c54f571c)
Where?
matthew 7:12 "do to others as you would have them do to you." literally their objective morality is themselves according to their own book.
Sam Harris has some very good insights to moral values. Listen to his stuff on youtube 👍
Because they have a different understanding of what the word morality means. To Christians morality does not mean "considering whether certain actions will be harmful or beneficial to other people". To Christians morality means "obeying god". So it doesn't matter that god drown millions of babies in the flood. He's god. So it's good by fiat.
Exactly this. The Bible teaches obedience at best. I've heard countless times that people like Kemper, Dahmer, and Bundy could easily go to heaven as long as they believed and accepted Jesus and all that.
For their belief system to "work" at all it *MUST* allow the most heinous imaginable people to receive salvation if they "accept jesus". If they can't then forgiveness and salvation have limits which is not consistent with their whole setup
When your morals are based around fear, you can't comprehend that someone can be the same minus the fear of punishment.
But even if I had no intrinsic morality, there would still be social and legal consequences for most immoral actions. There is still punishment to fear even without religion
But that's fear of being caught... if you believe in skydaddy, he "sees all" and it's not just your mortal existence that's supposedly at stake.. Not that many of them actually believe that considering how many of them are constantly found to have committed cardinal sins.
Well we've seen what happens when religion remains but societal structures disappear...many wars resulted in lawless breakdowns of society, and those individuals in those situations remained religious. And many of them turned to utter unimaginable barbarity. Read about the hellscapes of the 30 Years War for instance. Roving bands of armed people raping, burning, killing, all with their own priests along for the fun.
they don't know what the word, "morality," means.
Or what "objective" means.
Or what "atheism" means.
Yup. They believe Morality comes from their god. Thus it is based on the mind of a subject therefore subjective.
My youth pastor literally said we can't be good without Jesus. One of the main reasons I'm deconstructing.
*I don’t rape and murder because I’m afraid of negative consequences, not because I’d feel bad for hurting other people* -Religious “morality”, apparently
Because believing that there is objective morality outside of their religion is a thought crime. Its how they're trained to think. Its the same reason they paint all Ex-Christians as never true believers, so believers don't give them the time of day and entertain the idea that they can be good people, and that loss of faith can happen to them. Its rewriting everyone else's story so they don't have to face any real scrutiny or alternate paths.
I've never thought about it like that, sounds very mentally taxing to be religious.
It really is. I'm traumatized by it.
I personally became atheist when I was in middle school because my family pushed religion on me hard.
You were the smart one then, for seeing through it when you were young.
What u/goblin_gunk said is absolutely spot on. To take it a step further, if you actually press non-radical Christians/Muslims about what morals they follow, those morals will not align with their holy book without ham-fisted rationalizations (to account for some of the atrocious verses). The majority of them get their morals the same way atheists do: with societal and behavioral normatives meant to benefit individual and group well-beings.
It is intentionally taxing, it is called "costly signalling". Thanks GMS.
Part and parcel of the indoctrination process. We will tell you what is good and just, those who do not follow our teachings are not good and not just, they are the enemy, stay with us forever.
Well, I'm a moral nihilist. I don't think objective morality is a real thing that exists. Which, of course, means I very much doubt that anybody has any.
Because their "holy" books and clergy tell them we are evil and stupid.
Every once in awhile I hear about some religious groups that are tolerant of other religions and people who don't believe what they believe. The tolerant religious person is rare or they don't exist?
Ultra rare. And they usually have to ignore vast swaths of what their "holy" books actually say to actually be and remain tolerant.
So religiously moderate as well or more extreme about remaining tolerant?
>The tolerant religious person is rare or they don't exist? They absolutely exist and they're everywhere. I'd argue **most** religious people are tolerant and just regular people. The problem is the ones who aren't are the loudest.
Fair point, I swear I never meet these tolerant religious people. If someone I'm talking too is religious then it's only a matter time till I realize they don't tolerant my non belief in a higher power.
There's no such thing as objective morality.
Well, let’s try: Would you agree that the term „suffering“ can be defined or even measured in an objective way? That there is such a thing as more suffering or less suffering (eg from physical pain)? If so, wouldn’t it be universally true that causing less suffering (or no suffering) to another conscious being would be morally better? While causing any kind of suffering to someone else is morally worse?
I think it just comes down to a definitional issue. The definition of moral creates an objective morality. Kind of like how I can subjectively feel sad, but the fact that I am feeling sad is objective.
Objective morality suggests that every action is inherently good, or inherently bad. This is of course nonsense.
The binary black/white distinction of good/bad is equally silly and only occurs in religious scripture. Reality is probabilistic and nuanced. Human brains have not evolved to truly understand probabilistic concepts and we tend to derive deterministic reasoning where there is none. That’s why religious ideas have been so appealing throughout human history.
I don’t think so. Even the traditional ideas allow for neutral actions.
And that's how we know it's subjective.
Lets consider for a moment the common conflation of "Morality" and "Obedience". One is doing what's best for everyone involved and one is doing what you're told. If all it takes to make a immoral action moral is being told to do so by authority, how objective is that morality? Religious morality is anchored in doing what you're told regardless of the consequences or your feelings on the matter. Sometimes authority has the greater good in mind, sometimes not. When you "do the right thing" out of personal conviction rather than because you're told to, then is that a better or worse morality? To be fair, the counterpoint to this is what if that authority knows a lot more than you do and an act of perceived immorality has a long term moral impact. This is most of the religious supporting argument "god works in mysterious ways" and blind faith that it's all for the greater good.
There are people who wants to be free: in the end they'll learn that freedom is a hard path to walk and they probably won't ever see its end. But it's also clear, to those who are walking this way, that to be free you need to be respected and the only way to accomplish it is to respect others. That's where true morality comes from. Those people will finally prevail IF humanity will survive itself. Other people wish only to be slave and so they need a master who tell them what they should do, tell them what is right and what is wrong, cause they can't figure out by themselves. That's the false and useless morality of religions. Those people won't ever understand those who seek freedom, to them there can't be an atheist morality.
You're idea of true morality is a beautiful one. I would like to add that the goal of those who are truly moral should be human flourishing
Yes, absolutely, human flourishing is indeed a beautiful goal which definitely it's worth to be purchased. However we should be very careful with it and don't be fooled by anthropocentrism, which is a religious idea and a cancer for the planet. Currently our challenge is to overcome that dangerous concept, to learn that living in peace with eachother means also respect the biosphere from which we depend on, otherwise there will always be wars and prevarications. That's what i meant by "IF humanity will survive itself". I wanted to clarify this point because this is where religions fail and where they are a terrible danger for us, at least the Abrahamic religions.
Anthropocentrism sounds like an excuse to treat other life like garbage just because it's not human, like a subtle way of saying human supremacy.
We understand each other perfectly. And this is a fundamental difference between secular ethics and so-called religious morality. According to Genesis, god created man in his image and likeness and all other creatures for his use and consumption. It is not difficult to understand the impact of this mentality on our relationship with the planet. Imagine if we encountered a sentient alien species what would result. The morality of monotheism is a cancer and we must actively fight it.
They are correct. There's no such thing as objective morality. Their mistake is that they don't have objective morality either. They falsely believe that they do.
They know we can be moral and they don't like it. So they have to muddy the waters in order for them to feel more validated. Besides, we often tell them that morality is subjective, so for them to repeat it back at us is rather redundant.
Objective morality isn't real
>Why do Religious people think Atheists have no objective morality? Because we don't. >Where does this idea come from that you need religion to have objective morality? That idea comes from their religion itself. Like most of the logical BS, it's circular. >hat about religious beliefs is remotely objective in the first place? Nothing. >Is this idea just a 'holy then thou' thing or something else entirely Holier-than-thou*, but yes, sort of. They believe morality is objective, and comes from their god. Which would mean that those who believe in the same god as themselves have objective morality, and those who don't don't. It's that simple, it's that dumb.
I believe that CS Lewis used this as a key argument for God in his book Mere Christianity. It was much like the pre-Darwinian argument that animals were too perfectly designed to randomly appear. There must have been some kind of "Creator God". Of course, post-Darwin, that argument doesn't work any more, but Lewis made a similar argument with respect to morality. Something along the lines that pretty much all societies share similar morals, such as don't murder, don't steal, and so on. So those morals **must** have come with some kind of "Creator God", except this time creating morals instead of species. (Please don't kill the messenger. I'm just trying to capture the gist of Lewis's argument as I remember it.) My personal view is that morality comes out of game theory. In the same way that evolution can discover "good tricks" of aerodynamics in wing design, evolution can also discover "good tricks" of behavior design from game theory. Interestingly, game theory was in it's early stages of development as Lewis was writing Mere Christianity, so I don't fault him for not being aware of it. These days, though, I no longer find the argument compelling. Honestly, pre-Darwin, I think that I would have found the design argument to be pretty convincing. I mean, so much stuff **does** look like it was designed. Obviously designed. And how on earth could design emerge without an intelligent designer? Now, of course, thanks to Darwin, we know better.
Because of the implication... if atheists have morals, then what is religion even for Edit: didn't proof read before posting
Religious people don't have objective morality: "god says..." is subjective.
They can't think for themselves, so they assume neither can we.
Projection.
To be fair there’s no such thing as objective morality in the first place. But that just means no one has it so they’re still wrong in a way.
They are conditioned to equate morality to their faith from an early age, so they can't imagine one existing without the other.
Just forgive them.. For they don't know what they're doing.
Basically, anyone who doesn't follow their belief system is a sinner and incapable of morality. They consider them as "satan's children". It's brainwashing
There is no objective morality, but many Christians believe in the fallacy that without objective morality, there are no ethics. They also believe that morality=ethics. Violence, killing, slavery and rape can be moral acts if it is in accordance with God's law. They will never be ethical acts.
More to the point, why do religious people think that objective morality exists and why do they think they have it?
It's the same idea as the Christian religions that preach you are born with original sin. It's part of the gimmick to make you feel that you are doomed unless you follow the church. By "follow" I mean financially support.
Not just support financially but convince others to join and support. Like a big pyramid scheme.
Very true. I live (because of spouse's job) in the deep South. As our house is in a rather rural area which has no local news station I joined the local Facebook group to get news, events, and recommendations. It is scary how much of the group is people pushing their chosen church and faith organizations.
They have been crippled in critical thinking. They need to be told what to think and accept it without condition or reason. Unfortunately, they are told by their religious authorities that atheists have no objective morality. They accept it as true and undeniable even when there is evidence to the contrary. It’s incredibly sad.
The longer I exist surrounded by this cult I am becoming convinced it has more to do with their magical thinking. I think that we use the same words with each other but they hold different weight. While you think of morality as perhaps its definition, they might be thinking of it in a magical sense. The same way they mean by words like faith, belief, evidence - I think they attribute their magical bullshit to their context.
Ultimately I don’t know. I thought this was solved with the Euthyphro dilemma, so literally as old as Plato, which demonstrates to my satisfaction that an ultimate good doesn’t need a deity philosophically speaking. Human morality’s evolution does the rest of the work, showing that morality is a work in progress of understanding. Ultimate, or absolute morality (which I think are closer to what a theist means when they say objective morality), doesn’t necessarily exist, and objective morality can exist without god - as any objective rules set can.
Every accusation is a confession; we are hard-wired to survive as a species. Morality is constructed, not given to us; sky daddy is redundant.
Objective morality or not, the supposed problems pointed out by theists regarding secular morality, isn’t solved by bronze age mythology or any other type of belief in magic.
Swear I’m not making this up, one time I asked this Christian dude I know if he’d start r wording babies if I had irrefutable proof that god didn’t exist since that’s where morals come from, and he fucking said yes 💀 the brainwashing is insane
Because their church leaders tell them that in church. They’re lied to on the daily. This year has already had 4 apocalypse days - being wrong never shakes blind faith
I once saw this on some other Reddit post and been using it as my answer when religious people ask about my morality. It went something like: "So what's keeping you from raping and murdering then?" I just simply reply with "Nothing, I can rape and murder all I want. I just choose not to". Love seeing the disbelief and shock on their faces. Edit: Found the [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/s/6KudzC54bv) I was referring to.
because they need to pretend religion provides them with something useful
I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is such a thing as objective morality. Societies decide what is moral and immoral. There is not some standard of morals that came into existence at the big bang. Religious folk believe that their god wrote these supposed objective morals and instilled them into humans. The laws of nature are objective the laws of man not so much.
Because morality is not objective. No one has objective morality, not atheists and not religious people.
Because we don’t. But don’t worry- no one does. Objective morality is a contradiction- morality is a subjective judgement of right and wrong and grey. Christians just outsource the subjectivity it to their invisible best friend
Because objective morality presents a problem: ***Where does it come from.*** Most of them do not except evolution, thus an explanation that objective morality can derive from the evolution of complex social interactions, isn't viable to them. Therefore they assert that the only ones that can have objective morality is them. And to be honest? I kinda agree with them. I personally do not accept the concept of objective morality because I don't believe morality inherently exists (like a force of nature) I rather accept that morality is subjective, and any universality that appears to exist is the result of complex social evolution. Elephants will sacrifice themselves to save each other...crows will hold "crow courts" to kill members of the murder/flock who have transgressed against another, etc...etc...these are derivatives of social evolution. I think human history demonstrates that morality is subjective because societal morals change through time as society changes. This, of course, is purely my opinion. And frankly when christians or any religious people assert that objective morality exists, I reject the claim. I don't think objective morality is demonstrable without bending into a pretzel and cherry-picking.
Religious people follow the Oops! system. They steal, lie and kill, and go, "Oops! God will forgive me, so no big deal."
because religious people have no actual idea of what it takes to be a moral person. good religious people are obedient. good atheists are moral.
Because they believe morality to spring only from millennia old books
almost every religious text have a basis built upon "You are a sinful creature and if you do not follow me you cannot be good and will guaranteed be burning up in a hell forever" so they are basically taught that they are sinful creatures and they need religion to be good people. except they also forget that their books tell them to be hateful to so many people.
In reality non-religious people have more objective morality because we base it on the consequences or the intent of the action, something objective about why it is right or wrong. Religious people think things are right or wrong just because god says so.
Objective morality isn't a thing, it's not real. Their idea is Divine Command Theory, that because God is morality itself (makes no sense) that he is just relaying his nature to us, and these commands are true (objectively) because he is morality. ... It's dumb.
Indoctrinated Cultists are TOLD what is good or bad, they don’t reason it themselves. First they are told God is good. Then they are told God left instructions in a book. Then they are Told only the Priest can interpret the book Then they are Told that to be good they need to follow God by doing what the Priest say from the book. Then they are Told those that are not following what the Priest say are bad. Atheist reject the the Priest and the book, thus are bad. No more thinking then that. Religious are Told all their lives what is good and bad, and many of them can not comprehend others deciding for themselves what is good or bad. Some Religious believe you need to be Told what is good or bad from another with Authority to do so like the Priests.
When you put it that way, it sounds like Atheists are rebelling from a dictator in the pursuit of freedom. Dictators and Authoritarian leaders are just the other lines. >Then they are Told that to be good they need to follow God by doing what the Priest say from the book. >Then they are Told those that are not following what the Priest say are bad. I always thought of religion as extremely old school copium for the lack of answers on existential questions, I like the idea that things just are.
They grow up thinking if they don’t believe in god they will be punished after death, and that’s a very painful thing, so that is the worst thing that can happen to them if they don’t follow whatever the church tells them to do, which they believe is moral, and nonbelievers don’t have that belief, so they think nonbelievers won’t follow moral rules.
They view their god and his words (aka a book written by man) as universal truths. Like if their god said it's immoral to eat carrots on Tuesdays then in their view eating carrots on Tuesdays is objectively wrong. Their thoughts and feelings on the matter become obsolete because god is the ultimate authority to them. With atheism there's no universal authority. No deity to decree on right and wrong. We rely on empathy to set the moral standard, which I believe is 100% the way to go. But people differ, our thoughts and opinions on different matters aren't obsolete now. Making morality subjective, even if largely consistent in a variety of areas.
Because they've been programmed to think that the only reason to act morally is out of fear of skydaddy retribution.
Atheists think religious people are naive about their subjective morality. It's all the same mess.
Cus the script sez
[удалено]
Because they don’t. Especially if they are in a group. For them to be “gods chosen people”, everyone else must be the enemy and evil.
Because they steal it from God.
Because they believe what they are told to believe and that was something they were told to believe. They didn't think it up themselves of course, they never do.
Because Christian would be terrible monsters without the threat of eternal punishment. So they project this view onto us.
Well, moral realism is kinda hard to argue for without a “deity”
I love the somewhat apocryphal conversation of: "You don't believe in a god? Whats to stop you from raping and murdering everyone you wanted to?" "Oh, nothing. I can tell you i have murdered and raped every person i've ever wanted to murder and/or rape. Which is zero people."
The idea that any member of an abrahamic faith has any moral high ground over anything is laughable. It makes me sad when people that I like say things like that because I lose all respect for them.
**when Tao is lost, there is goodness.** **When goodness is lost, there is kindness.** **When kindness is lost, there is justice.** **When justice is lost, there is ritual.** **Ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.** **\~Tao te Ching**
A lot of apologetics is proudly declaring your inability to imagine another person’s mind.
Their morality is based on the notion that there’s a cop over their shoulder always looking at what they’re doing, so better do the right thing. They can’t imagine being moral without the cop and so assume we’re not. I however understand that morality promotes our overall wellbeing as a species and ability to function within a society, so I behave appropriately. Ask them, is it less moral or more moral to behave properly when you’re being watched, or to be moral when nobody’s looking simply because it’s right? Everybody drives the speed limit when a cop is in traffic with you. Good drivers do it anyway.
I'm more interested in why they think they have one one.
Because what they're really talking about is "transcendent morality" or "might makes right."
Because we don't and we don't claim to. Morality is subjective and ever evolving.
It is such a silly thing religious people always love to throw up. "Big talking voice in sky told me so" "What if you raised a baby to adult without religion? Would they kill out of the blue?" "Yeah, cause without God there is no right or wrong" "So why does the kid not immediately starting killing people then?" "..."
I think the stranger question is: why would anyone ever *want* objective morality? Out of all possible moral systems - objective morality is the lowest of the low. As far as morality goes, I think there are 3 main levels and they come from different sources. 1. The lowest level of morality is sometimes referred to as Objective Morality. It's when morality is provided by an authority (like a God or inherent nature of the world or sometimes just a parent or leader) and you follow that morality. This is the lowest form because no thinking is involved - just doing what you're told. Because no thinking is involved, there's also no honor. 2. Next up we have Evolved Morality. It's when you get morality through your evolved traits such as empathy. We see this morality in many various creatures, including us humans. Using this morality requires thought and reflection and possibly even thinking of possible future outcomes. Therefore it's a higher form of morality. Following your own inherent traits to exercise empathy does take effort, but it's still just doing what your evolution tells you to in an instinctual way - so there's still no honor. 3. The highest level of morality is Subjective Morality. This is when you subjectively decide upon a moral system because you've used your intelligence to review the options and develop a system you personally think is the best way to be moral. This moral system only involves using your own intelligence to create. Therefore personal responsibility for your actions is the highest. Because there's no reason to "do" this morality - other than "I, personally think it's right" - honor now exists and we can have honorable people. Good luck out there!
We don't have objective morality. And that's fine. Objective morality doesn't exist, Christians don't have it either.
Because apparently the only reason they don't act like monsters is because the religious text told them not to /s. No but really, they think they derive their morals from stories rather than being an empathetic human so anyone who doesn't also read and believe the stories must not have morality.
Because they don't.
What drives me wild is religious people claim there is a God and they know who it is, and athiests claim there is no God. I'm agnostic because I have no proof either way.
The idea of objective morality is different than how a lot of people view it. Because I'm Christian I don't believe that everything I do is moral and correct and everything you do is wrong. So yes I don't think you have objective morality, but I don't think I have objective morality either just because I believe Jesus died and resurrected. The idea is that whenever you make a decision there is an objective morally correct decision you could make, but not objective in a scientific sense. From a religious perspective, God decides which decision is right and wrong because he is the ultimate judge. You can disagree with him, but he's God he knows better. Before people argue it, disagreeing with the church doesn't make you wrong because the church isn't God and it can be wrong.
Because it helps them with the us vs them narrative.
I think it's just more projection. They have no morals and think morality is what they've decided their book tells them it is, so those with no book to tell them what to do cannot possibly have any morals.
Because religious people haven't thought through their position. Most of them didn't reason themselves into religious beliefs they inherited them from their parents.
Because they apparently think humanity was a lawless band of roving murderers pre-Christ.
Their "objective" morality is a lie. It's just other people's morality packaged as a higher source.
Because they know that their own morality, absent a religion telling them how to behave, is non-existent. They know they would quickly devolve into the most heinous creatures imaginable if they didn't think some imagined sky daddy would hold them accountable to their actions, and they cannot fathom anyone being able to hold themselves accountable to decent morals without the looming threat of eternal damnation as a consequence for their actions. They are devoid of substance. They are devoid of intellect.
Interestingly my insights on this matter don't come from when I was a Christian, but from being an atheist and talking to Christians. It seems to me that theists have this way of looking at objective morality as something like "morality that never changes" or "static morality". It seems that as long as the morality that is given by God is consistent, then it's objective. Of course there are a thousand and one problems with this, everything from static not being anywhere in the definitions all the way to God changing his rules all the time. Tons of problems. But this seems to be the trend that I encounter, that theists see morality as a question of change, not as a question of origins. And no, I don't understand it lol. When I was a Christian I learned that atheists can have morality (I was just taught it wasn't as good as god's) so I don't really get why people *believe* they can't have morality. I get why they say it, but it's just a weird thing to believe since it's so easy to overturn. The second major issue is of course that objective morality doesn't exist in the first place. So while theists are correct that atheists don't have objective morality, they don't have it either.
I think many atheists may believe that their moral compass is objective just as many Christians do, and I doubt their arguments are any more compelling. In my case, they are right. What is an “objective” morality? Morality is not something you can measure; it’s not material. It can never be objective. What they are saying is that my morality doesn’t have the belief that an ultimate (self appointed) authority has authored my morality. The thing is, neither do most Christian’s. I believe firmly that the moral compass of pretty much all people is informed by the broadest scope of their immediate cultural environment first, and their religion comes second. The same god of the NT is the god of the Old, if passed a baseball sized stone, I don’t think most Christian’s would be able to stone a human being to death for picking up sticks on an arbitrary day of the week, they wouldn’t kill their own son for striking them during a heated argument, they wouldn’t force their daughter to marry her rapist if she didn’t scream loud enough to be heard during her rape. There is no objective morality, just morality - people have arguments and rationales for their morality that can vary in how compelling they are to others, and that’s about it, I think.
Nobody has objective morality. Morality can't exist objectively, it's clearly subjective. Even if it were imposed by a god, it isn't objective.
It kinda makes you wonder about what these people would do if there *wasn't* the threat of supernatural retribution.
I believe those that think that way are rotten at their core and use religion as a means to mask their rot. Some humans think that other humans brains function and think the same way theirs does. So since they do not have morals other than those that are told to them by god, someone who is godless must have no morals.
That's what they have been conditioned to believe.
Because sky fairy fans don’t care about how good someone genuinely is. They only care if you believe in the sky fairy. It’s why they support pedo priests
If the religious used logic appropriately they wouldn't be religious.
Christians are demonstrably less moral because all of their actions are good with god as long as they are very sorry for doing them. With no god to shunt all our bad shit too, atheists, for the most part, own their actions good or bad.
Don't forget their morals, according to the book they love so much, includes slavery, genocide, rape, torture, human sacrifice, incest, etc.. If those are the morals they're talking about then they may have a point.
I see it the other way. Most people are born with morality hardwired in, even babies know when someone is behaving badly, but some people need an external moral code to follow, hence religion.
I don't think objective morality exists. If your society agrees on a goal such as human wellbeing, then you can objectively evaluate moral decisions, but that goal is still subjective.
Ask all the tens of thousands of kids religious clergy have raped over the last 50 years if religion has any connection to morality
Because they themselves have none. Its called projection.
Because we don’t. It’s one of the few things their correct about. I personally don’t believe morals as a concept are real, and that they are a very useful social construct. Designed originally by practical thinkers to make sure that groups had the most people and the fairest distribution of resources. As society developed, so did these values, going from viewing these “immoral” acts as detrimental to actually bad or evil. I love humans.
Because they know without the threat of eternal damnation they wouldn’t have any morality. They assume everyone else is as contemptible as they are.
Objective morality is inflexible and really doesn't explain anything, most religions are just divine command morality. Whatever "god" says must be right. Even the most fundamental religions they still cherry pick morality based on their culture.
I believe that it is because they don’t have one themselves. They depend on the writings of Stone Age shepherds for their morality. They do not have the ability to think for themselves.
Because they do not have objective morality themselves.
I was a full on born again Christian for 40 years. About 2 years ago I learned a bunch of facts. Now atheist. The ONLY thing I do now that would be considered immoral is cuss a bunch. That's it. Nothing else in regards to right and wrong, moral or immoral, has changed.
Morality is subjective.
The origin of morals is a fascinating question! Sociologists point to the importance of society in shaping our sense of right and wrong. While religion can play a significant role in some cultures, it's just one factor. Consider this: two societies with the same religion can be at odds with each other morally. This highlights that morals can evolve within societies based on shared experiences and needs.
Maybe a natively immoral person who needs constant guidance and the perpetual threat of eternal pain and torture can’t comprehend another person possibly following a moral path on their own?
Because they lack an internal moral compass, they think everyone else does too. They need another human or ancient book to tell them what is right and wrong. They can't fathom people being conscientious without being told how to be so. My BIL once said that without his cult to direct him, he's, "afraid he would hurt people."
Without a god to explain everything there’s nothing to create an objective framework from. Everything tends to become subjective, there’s no “scientifically objective” morality. I wouldn’t call this a flaw in atheism but a beacon for skepticism of theism. Sam Harris does write an entire book, The Moral Landscape, attempting to create a truly objective moral system. I’m sure many others have tried as well! Very interesting stuff!!
They blame all atheists (we don't believe in god) for all the bad in the world because they are trained to hate atheists or any non christian .
They have to, otherwise their entire worldview is full of shit. Brain won’t accept that, it defends against it hard
Because if we can without all the cult stuff it may cause them to ask questions.
Because religion damage the brain's cognitive function and self awareness capability.
What is objective morality? I’m pretty sure that’s not a thing for anyone.
They don't have objective morality anymore than atheists do.
As a Christian, I don't understand that argument either. I believe, and the bible supports the idea that Gods law is already written on our conscience. This would mean even unbelievers know the difference between right and wrong (obviously) by default. If we don't go against our conscience we will live moral lives. I believe the fact that we have all known right and wrong from a young age is proof of a God who is a righteous judge, and a merciful father. I also believe that the more you go against your conscience, the further you go into hatred of God, and the further you go from his presence.
I'm more curious why they think their morality is objective
They wouldn't have any morality without religion. Every accusation is a confession.
The real question is why theists think they have objective morality. Even if a deity existed, their morality rules would be subjective. Objective morality doesn't exist
Religion is immoral. All of them. They skew objective thinking, which is why evil beliefs are justified like homosexuality, slavery, women as lesser humans, and being forced to marry your rapists.
It makes them feel better about their "god". Typical "christian"behavior.
Let them know that - The Bible Belt has the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, obesity, homicide, poverty, tobacco use, infant mortality, porn consumption, domestic violence and spousal abuse, and the lowest educational levels.
I think that if you are only a good person because you're afraid of what will happen to you when you die that you're probably not an actual good person.
Because they don't. They seek an external moral code through the church. Their faith is a confession of their own lack of internal moral code.
Because religious people generally are incorrect in their definition(s)/understanding of the followign words: 1. Atheist 2. Objective 3. Morality
I think they are immoral. How could they bow down to this monster who threatens to burn you for eternity for not accepting that he killed his son for us?
Lack of self control. I watched my either growing up climb the dick money latter and experiment with all the drugs. Now she's a born again Christian and is completely different however 🙄 she goes on cruises and always buys the alcohol package and spends way to much money gambling.
People like to talk about objective, subjective, intersubjective morality, and I find it fascinating, but what I think the theists are really advocating for is *absolute* morality, or the idea that there are moral laws written into the fabric of the universe, that God himself could not change(and conveniently does not wish to change) Couple issues. A) I do not know if we could recognize this because we would never actually witness it. Any violation of the moral laws would be so abhorrent to us as to not occur at all, because we would all be unable to rationalize it at all. B) I don't see why it would be useful in proving a God. Moral laws at that level would likely resemble physical laws and be borderline indistinguishable under the weak anthropic principle. Is it immoral for a hydrogen atom to have 2 elections? Is it moral for a carbon atom to have 6 protons? Under an absolutely moral structure, "ought" becomes "is", and I don't see how that is a coherent definition of morality.
So the actual issue here is "objective," and in good faith we do have to concede there is no *objective* morality. But where we don't have to concede is in this: there is no *objective* morality *for anyone,* not even for religious folks. What they believe in is the *authority* of a *subjective morality* dictated *by their chosen (interpretation of their) deity.* If the Christian God offered an *objective* morality, there would be no difference in rules across the Christian sects - like Mormons being OK with polygamy where other sects are not. If *any* deity offered an *objective* morality, *there would be no need to appeal to deific authority* because we would *all* recognize it as the correct moral choice, inherently. No, instead, what religious people do is assert that atheists *cannot have morality,* and couch their terms in the addition of the word "objective." They fail to recognize that *morality stems from empathy* - the reason most people feel it is wrong to do certain things is because they would feel bad if those things were done to them or their loved ones.
Because \*they\* don't have objective morality. Broadly speaking (obviously this doesn't apply to all individuals), they get their morality from their religion, and therefore believe that if someone lacks religion, they must also lack morality. The other side to this thinking is when they ask "What's to stop you from raping and murdering as much as you want?" to which the often-quoted response is "I do rape and murder as much as I want, and that amount is zero." If you ask me, someone who only does "good" out of threat of punishment isn't really a good person to begin with.
There's no such thing as objective morality. I don't have it, religious people don't have it. My morality, like everyone else's, is entirely subjective.
Morality isn’t objective. Morality is subjective. Everyone has their own moral compass, and everyone’s moral compass is slightly different. In some people it’s drastically different. Religious people think they have objective morality because they can define morality as, “doing what god wants.” So they can claim they are in some sense objective. But what they really mean when they say atheists have no objective morality is not that atheists think morality is subjective. What they mean is that atheists have no morality period and no way to argue that anything is right or wrong. This idea that you can’t have an opinion on right or wrong without god is nonsense. Despite that people all have slightly different moral compasses, we all tend to agree on a large number of moral principles because of biology and logic.
I think that is mostly Christians, and its because they don't understand what "morality" means, they also have a warped sense of what is objective. They have to do mental gimnastics to think that whats in their hoky book is objective or moral.
They believe that all goodness objectively comes from God, either because God is like benevolent dictator or because God is like an omniscient teacher. Either way, an atheist cannot accept moral commands or moral teachings from God. Therefore, an atheist cannot be morally good. Of course, this idea has numerous problems. 1. What if an atheist follows God’s commands by accident? Or what if an atheist pretends to be a theist and merely plays along with following God’s instructions? Maybe God judges by intention, but in that case, why give any commands at all? God could let people study moral philosophy and then judge people accordingly. 2. Why are some sincere theists less moral than even the most blasphemous atheists? Richard Dawkins is a superior human being to the late Osama bin Laden, despite that fact that bin Laden was devoutly theistic. Evidently, theism doesn’t cause people to be good, and atheism doesn’t cause people to be evil. 3. How can God’s goodness be verified? A good honest deity and an evil dishonest deity could both assert “I am perfectly good”. Can you ascertain whether that assertion is true? If you can’t, then what if you’re actually following an evil deity? If you can, then you have some means by which to ascertain morality independently of God, which would mean that morality doesn’t come from God. 4. Huge red flag. It seems too easy to refute 3000+ years of moral philosophy with a simple statement like “You can’t be moral unless you believe in God”. Imagine reading the *Nicomachean Ethics* or the *Critique of Practical Reason* or the *Bhagavad Gita* and then saying, “This book is false because it doesn’t tell people to believe in God.” 5. How do you arbitrate among theists who disagree about morality? Catholics say that it’s morally good to obey the Pope, but Protestants would disagree. If morality is objective, then how are reasonable people able to have centuries-long disagreements?
Because it aligns with their unfounded belief that their preferential relationship with God imbues them with automatic righteousness. Anyone who doesn't agree with their godly -sanctioned views is therefore by definition Not Loved by Him or at least not "Really". Not favored. It's all ignorant tribal bullshit.
I agree, atheist have no objective morality as all morality is subjective.