they = the people continuously posting and agreeing with videos espousing the views i listed. namely avril la queen

happy?

We're getting there ! You're not insulting the whole thread anymore. Maybe you'd like to actually participate in our conversation now ? What do you think of morals in atheism (if you're atheist)
Subjective ? Objective ?

I am an atheist but I can't say I've thought of morality much. I think I would lean towards the side that argues that they are subjective, as human society is too complex a phenomenon for there to be a single standard morality model.

I'm on this side as well.

"If morality is subjective, why is it then wrong for Islamist countries to do what they do if it fits within the realms of their morality? Of their views of right and wrong?"

Communion sis, you're kinda making the point that morality IS subjective there. I, born and living in France would say it's wrong. But do you think people living there would think it's wrong as well ? There's plenty of people coming from Islamic countries that are 100% convinced that women should be inferior to men, and that gays should be killed.

Not entirely subjective, though. I adhere to basic ideals of fairness, justice equality, etc that cannot be sufficiently justified under some philosophical lenses.

The concept of fairness is universal, but is the meaning of fairness ?

educate ha!

The concept of ethics is so much more complicated than saying something is automatically wrong or right without any justification. I reject that idea and say it really depends on the case. And the percentage always varies. Pedophilia and rape, for example is unethical 100% of the time because of the multiple reasons that you find in every case like concent, physical and mental damage etc.. I know it's wrong because it never benefits society or any individual. It doesn't need law or religion to convince someone that those things are wrong and immoral.

Murder one the other hand is debatable. I don't believe in death penalty, per se, but murder can be ethical at times. It depends on how you look at it.

It's not very simple to say doing a bad thing=always wrong which is what subjective morality is all about.

And there's no correlation between that and atheism. Because atheism isn't a set of beliefs in the first place, and atheists themselves think differently and view morality differently.

This can also be applied to theists. What do (a)theist pedophiles, killers and rapists think about these moralities? To them it might be acceptable because it benefits them.

If something is objectively true, then it was always true, even before we were aware of it, even if we disagree with it. That is to say X is bad, it was always bad, and will always be bad.

If something is subjectively true, then it is neither good or bad. It is neutral. That is to say X is not truly bad, it's only the view people have of it that makes it seem bad.

If you're arguing that morality is subjective, then, again, you're saying that certain things are not absolutely right or wrong, though they can be looked as such by a society. You're essentially saying that pedophilia, rape, murder are not bad in and of themselves, we as a society just consider them bad. To say anything else is to argue that some moral law already existed before we were aware of it, that an objective moral law/standard existed.

Lmfao oh plz

But science doesn't show us that it's NOT okay either.
Science does not have an opinion on any "right or wrong" belief.

How do you as a science-based Atheist justify keeping people who waste resources alive?

If you then can say - well, the human mind can produce empathy and construct morality, and we follow that, then how come this concept is not allowed elsewhere? You trust the human brain to construct fallacious arguments of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' on something MADE UP like "morality", but three genders is where you draw the line? lmao

Come off it. You can't reject things like many genders, constructionist beliefs, etc. and then say we just allow morality because it benefits you. You're a hypocrite and a fraud then. Either you reject all aspects of constructionist thought and believe we are beasts with no purpose besides to survive and meet our physical needs and that there are biologically 2 sexes and we as a physical species work solely to fulfill our physical needs regardless of morals, or you're a fraud and a liar.

The human brain is powerful enough to let our CONSTRUCTED MORALITY outweigh our PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL NEEDS (people will starve for their children, people will help others even if it hurts them) and all you can say is that it's due to the mind, but then you can't believe or accept that the human brain is powerful enough to CONSTRUCT LIMITLESS GENDERS & that it can outweigh that reality of the TWO BIOLOGICAL SEXES to people, with people truly believing and identifying outside of a gender binary?

So you are an anti-truther of the reality of the brain and are REJECTING the human mind?

But the age of consent laws, which govern the limits of pedophilia, also vary around the world. So, in that sense, pedophilia isn't 100% 'wrong' if the two participants, let's say a 16 year old boy and his 30 year old sugar daddy, submit to the situation consensually.

Cause I know at 14 or 15 I wanted some 20-something year olds I saw on TV or my friends older siblings or even their fathers.

I think ya'll are overcomplicating it to try and encompass "most" cases. Simply put, 'morality' is defined individually AND under a collective code. What one believes is personally wrong or right doesn't have to correspond to what another believes is wrong or right or even what society delineates as right or wrong. But as long as you choose to live in that society, you either adhere to it's moral code or challenge it at the risk of the consequences.

In history, this has happened for both "good" and "bad" morals weaving in and out of society. Homosexuality going from good in Ancient Greek times, to bad in Roman times, to acceptable-ish in Renaissance times, to deplorable in Victorian times, back to acceptable in modern times kind of illustrates the flux of morality as it pertains to society. And, of course, we can see how people's personal attitudes sometimes change over homosexuality once they find that a loved one is gay or lesbian. That goes to detail the flux of morality as it pertains to the individual.

Morality doesn't exist as absolute in either a religious or atheist construct. Religions are some of the most hypocritical when it comes to morality, actually (but that's a different topic). We kind of just go with the flavor of the moment based on the "greater good" (which plays a larger role in determining societal morality).

An example besides homosexuality... since it's been run into the ground... let's take killing.

Murder = bad is one of the most steadfast moral points our society adheres to. Why? Because it makes sense in a larger context. If everyone is killing, then society has no focus on progression cause it breeds resentment and desires for revenge. So we enter into a civil code that murder is wrong and punishable (in some cases by even the equivalent act of murder unto the murderer, in some cases it's 'morally' wrong).

Meanwhile, we can engage in deadly conflicts that include massive wars with terrible body counts. But no one bats an eye... why? Well we've decided it's okay to kill in self defense. In the context of individuals, self-defense is rather clear and cut (though Trayvon vs Zimmerman really ****s you up huh?), but in the sense of opposing governments, does that self-defense mean in retaliation to destruction of property, threat to our allies, a captured civilian? It's a lot less clear. But we go out and kill each other using abstractions like "freedom" to justify our deeds. When in reality, the end result is the same.

So in a sense, killing is okay, but it's also not okay.

And for this reason, I don't fault people who gravitate to religion in order to drum up clearer guidelines to living. It can be too much to navigate sometimes. But then at the end of every religion are people who do recognize this inherent disorder to life and skew (not that it had a proper orientation to begin with) morality to benefit personal or specialized needs.

As would happen with any leader of any a-religious assembly of people (like government for example). To give two stark examples, The Catholic Church has historically been corrupt and wishy washy in moral sense. Russia, when irreligion was officially state policy during the Soviet Union, was also very corrupt and wishy washy in a moral sense. Basically, two sides of the same coin.

The only major difference I see between atheism and religion is that atheism is inherently premised on the ability to question these kinds of orders. Because we recognize the fallibility of the characters behind the ideas. Whereas religion REALLY wants to present their theories and opinions as the ultimate "truth" from an infallible source. That MASK makes a lot difference.

Love guns. I don't see the need to take away self defense measures, but I do think we need reasonable limits on who can have access to them. As well as maybe what's allowed on the streets (i.e. no grenades, automatic weapons, and such).

Simply looking at the patterns, they kind of are.

It's true that they don't always have to be, but at this point in society, it's more likely than not influenced by racial bias associating some connotations and stereotypes with certain minorities.

I personally don't mind it, but yeah, there's a level of ownership you gotta take if you're going to espouse those beliefs.