apeman

well i can think of a couple straight up...

1) no moral surety.

2) the decline of aesthetic judgement.

any thoughts?

Keith&Co.

As long as a putative god allows two or more interpretations of what God's moral code is, we do not have moral surety.

There are those that are SURE that god does or doesn't want any particular thing, or will allow some sort of justification at least some of the time, but it doesn't make it objectively compelling.

apeman

the idea that God has a moral code gives certain religions an advantage over atheism. there can be no sure morals in atheism because atheism has no focus, it's cause is denial not acceptance.

Keith&Co.

They claim an advantage. But none can actually show that the moral code they espouse has any supernatural sponsor.
All atheism has is a lack of belief in a deity. If atheism is correct, there are no 'sure morals' because all moral codes are invented by humans, no matter who they claim the author is. But atheists don't claim any 'sure morals' or absolute morals or whatever.

apeman

the fact that they believe their morals have a supernatural source is enough for moral surety.

atheists can't say that murder is wrong for everyone.

RexT

Whether god is real or perceived is not the issue here. The issue is belief, and beliefs are certainly real and play a huge role in shaping society.

ETA: in this world there is no certainty but the perception thereof. Some live and thrive in uncertainty, while others are set off balance by it. The latter is clearly the majority, as confirmed by the overwhelming number of religious. An abrupt upset in this balance would not go well I think.

Laurentius

What is wrong with Asimov, Hemingway?



Or with the painting above?
(Bucharest Facade, oil painting by Feodoroff, 2007)

Mageth

Is whatever you mean by "moral surety" really a good thing? Are fixed morals really a good thing? Things change, you know; in my opinion, one's moral system should be flexible to adapt to conditions. Fixed moral systems based, for example, on ancient religious texts may not be flexible enough to adapt. Not to mention the fact that each situation you encounter is unique - a fixed moral system, based on some ancient religious text for example, may be insufficient to answer all moral questions.

How so?

In any case, here's a consequence of "God theory":

- moral surety

That, for sure, has caused a freakin' lot of grief in this world.

Mageth

It gives some religions a fixed moral code. Is that an advantage? I'm certainly not convinced. Some religion's fixed moral codes aren't that nice, as an example.

Atheism per se says nothig about morals, other than perhaps, because an atheist lacks belief in god(s) an atheist lacks belief in a God-given moral code.

There are other sources of moral codes. And again, I'm not at all convinced that a fixed moral code is desirable in any case. On the contrary, I believe that a flexible moral system is preferable.

I'm sure that I and others have gone over this thoroughly with you before. It's certainly been beaten to death in many threads.

Mageth

No, it is not. Think about it, why don't you?

I'm an atheist. I say murder is wrong for everyone. "Wrongful homicide" is implicit in the freakin' definition of murder, for cryin' out loud! And no exceptions are given in the definition of murder. So murder is wrong for everyone.