since you’re here, do you have any thoughts on atheism lacking objective morals without an agreed-upon moral code given by revelation / authority? @Kernelpanic
Morality is subjective. We’ve evolved to generally be pro social, so we can usually work together. It feels good to help others because or brains give us neurochemical reinforcement. This trait was selected because social groups who have good relationships and collaborate have historically had an edge.
Secular countries have less crime and are more peaceful than religious countries. It might feel like you need religion to keep you acting like a good person, but that’s not what makes someone act in an ethical way.
Many atheists are kind, loving people, and many religious people are self-centered and hateful. Religion causes death and suffering throughout the world, although it’s not as bad as it used to be.
It might feel like you need religion to keep you acting like a good person, but that’s not what makes someone act in an ethical way.
certainly a person could choose to act ethically without religion (as defined by religion), but religion defines what ethics even is… without some definition, it’s just my subjective opinion of what ethics is versus yours, hence people could choose to act “unethically” since it’s just their opinion of what ethics is.
Religion causes death and suffering throughout the world
Militant atheism with communism has created a lot of death and suffering (Communism is officially atheist). However, for the atheist, who lacks objective morality, a system that causes more death and suffering isn’t necessarily even less preferable to one that causes less, because again there is no objective standard.
I definitely think the philosophy of atheism opens up a lot of cans of worms…
Even with religion ethics is relative. For example, what’s considered acceptable has changed drastically within Christianity over it’s history. A couple hundred years ago Christian leaders were burning women alive for “being witches.” Today that’s absolutely unthinkable.
Yes, many millions were murdered by Stalin and Mao, but it was rarely for their religion. Whereas many millions have been killed throughout history specifically because of their religion.
Not having an objective standard doesn’t make people go crazy and start chopping heads off. We’ve evolved to generally be pro social, so usually our internal moral compasses guide us regardless. Look at highly atheist countries in Western and Northern Europe, they’re not only doing fine, they’re more advanced and peaceful than highly religious countries.
since you’re here, do you have any thoughts on atheism lacking objective morals without an agreed-upon moral code given by revelation / authority? @Kernelpanic
Morality is subjective. We’ve evolved to generally be pro social, so we can usually work together. It feels good to help others because or brains give us neurochemical reinforcement. This trait was selected because social groups who have good relationships and collaborate have historically had an edge.
This can be really problematic, from allowing taking lives to stealing to abusing kids…
I haven’t read up on any atheists who have tried to reign in on the chaos. I guess it would be “might makes right” so anything goes under atheism?
Secular countries have less crime and are more peaceful than religious countries. It might feel like you need religion to keep you acting like a good person, but that’s not what makes someone act in an ethical way.
Many atheists are kind, loving people, and many religious people are self-centered and hateful. Religion causes death and suffering throughout the world, although it’s not as bad as it used to be.
certainly a person could choose to act ethically without religion (as defined by religion), but religion defines what ethics even is… without some definition, it’s just my subjective opinion of what ethics is versus yours, hence people could choose to act “unethically” since it’s just their opinion of what ethics is.
Militant atheism with communism has created a lot of death and suffering (Communism is officially atheist). However, for the atheist, who lacks objective morality, a system that causes more death and suffering isn’t necessarily even less preferable to one that causes less, because again there is no objective standard.
I definitely think the philosophy of atheism opens up a lot of cans of worms…
Even with religion ethics is relative. For example, what’s considered acceptable has changed drastically within Christianity over it’s history. A couple hundred years ago Christian leaders were burning women alive for “being witches.” Today that’s absolutely unthinkable.
Yes, many millions were murdered by Stalin and Mao, but it was rarely for their religion. Whereas many millions have been killed throughout history specifically because of their religion.
Not having an objective standard doesn’t make people go crazy and start chopping heads off. We’ve evolved to generally be pro social, so usually our internal moral compasses guide us regardless. Look at highly atheist countries in Western and Northern Europe, they’re not only doing fine, they’re more advanced and peaceful than highly religious countries.