Wiploc

Some theists can say that is immoral. Others can say it is not. They can both base their cases on scripture.

Atheists are in the same boat; some of us can say not respecting parents is bad, and others can say different, depending on the circumstances.

What I want to know is why you think religious people have a leg up on morality, if you do. Why is it okay for theists to have unfounded or logically contradictory moralities, but not atheists?

Or, if you actually think your morality is more logically defensible than atheist morality, I'd like to hear an explanation. Do you?
crc

Hawkingfan

I wouldn't label the person immoral just because he grew up not respecting or disobeying his loving parents. But is the act of disrespecting your loving parents immoral? Yeah, probably. Again, referring to evolution, the kid might get ignored by his parents or tribe and wouldn't last very long on his own, so he would be naturally dettered from continuing to do it.

alek0

Why should act of disobeying loving parents be immoral? Parents often want what they think is the best for their child, and they can be wrong. Children and parents do not necessarily have compatible personalities, and what would make parents happy and what is in their opinion the best is not necessarily what would make their child happy and what is the best for their child.

Am I immoral person for disobeying my parents and not choosing to study medicine as they wanted me to do?

Also, I would like to ask - are all parents good and loving? I don't think that bible leaves an option "it is OK to disobey and disrespect your parents if they are abusing you".

Violent Messiah

Adam Who

So you are saying that ultimately, nothing can be labelled as unversally good nor bad? This argument is now diverting to objectivism and subjectivism. Perspective is everything isn't it?

So Hitler committing genocide against the Jews cannot be concluded as immoral?

If there's no objective morality, then why did you bother to state this

And others. If the nature of morality is subjective, then why refute my statements?

The other michael

Why not just include the entire lifetime of the parents and their child. From every minute detail including dad's reaction to the child's first word, mom's anger when the child received an F in his report card, dad's lectures on dating, mom's preference for fashion.

If i am to include what you are just saying. why stop there? There will be others who will view my question as lacking in information and the end result - I cannot ask a valid question - none of us can.

What I asked needs just a pragmatic answer.

K

Violent Messiah:

Do we need stone tablets from an invisible deity to know that we find Hitler's actions reprehensible?

If our ancestors hadn't found genocide so disgusting, our species would have died out long before we could have had this conversation.

Violent Messiah

K

If you had read my whole post including the statement of Adam who to which I replied, you'll see that the remark you selected was specifically arguing the idea of subjective reality.

AdamWho

Violent Messiah

Yes, that is what I am saying. There is no absolute / objective morality.


If you don't value human life then you won't think this is immoral if you value human life then you will think it is immoral.

Morals reflect the individuals values.

The universe does not have values hence doesn't have morals only individuals can have values and morals. People can group together with common values and create a moral code but ultimately it is based on the individual.

Not in a universal sense, only from the persective of an individual or group of individuals with like values.

1. Because I don't think you understand the basis for an individuals values and morals.
2. I believe that it is very important for atheists to think about these issues instead of rejecting the idea of morality just because religious nuts have highjacked the concept.

I have already given you a pragmatic answer, but I will make it even clearer:

1. Write down what you value: such as love, good food, warm bed, lots of friends, your freedom, ect. These are your values.
2. Weigh each of these items. For instance: personal freedom (not jail) would probably rank higher than a new car.
3. Find a way to maximize your values. For instance: Since I want lots of friends then I have to be nice to people; this process is called ethics
4. The guidelines you establish from this are call morals. Morals are chosen based on values

K

Violent Messiah:

I'm ok with calling it subjective morality, but I don't think I'd label it subjective reality.

And the only reason I posted is because you seem to be so amazed that people could be disgusted by Hitler's actions without having a god to tell them to be disgusted.

No magic is required. It's evolutionary!

Violent Messiah

Adam Who:

So you are saying that atheists and theists alike cannot have an objective basis for morality?

Everything's relative.

Okay. You answered my question, as far as atheists are concerned.

If you read it, you'll notice it was addressed to the other michael.

K:

Sorry, typo error. Wat i rili wanted to say was subjective morality.

Good thing you included the word SEEM in ur statement - coz i dont think i was implying it. I was just asking....

meritocrat

As an agnostic I base my 'ethical code' on whether others' rights are infringed.

For example, take the Ten Commandments.

I don't kill other humans as I believe in a right to life. I don't steal as I believe in property rights.

As for pooh-poohing the 'golden rule', your hero Jesus actually advocated it.