Symbol of Humanism with a question mark.
Having the benefit of the Bible and the ten commandments as a guide, I stuggle to see where the atheist might get his morality from because it is not externally revealed to him in any way. The code of ethics that the atheist believes in is internal meaning he draws it from his own self, his knowledge and experience, to create a rule of behavior that is universally applicable to all mankind. This is called humanism and it is the most widely accepted philosophy on ethics among atheists. And if we are to consider that the atheist does not believe in humanism, that man determines his own morality, that what other options are there? If God does not make the rules and man does not make the rules then the only other option is to say that there are no rules to begin with. And this is the very absence of morality that I believe is consistent with atheism. So for now, let's focus on humanism and its pros and cons.
Humanism does not dictate to us a specific set of laws but more of a guideline by which such laws might be made. Principles of humanism involve doing what is best for the individual and the collective group and to avoid doing harm to others. Humanists are also concerned with treating all life with dignity, the responsible use of natural resources, and an ethical treatment of animals. It promotes the well-being of humankind and the planet as a whole. Sounds good, doesn't it? In fact many prominent intellectuals over the last century have become members of the AHA, American Humanist Association, including Isaac Assimov and Kurt Vonnegut who were both presidents of the organization and a number of Nobel prize winners.
But as compelling as humanism may sound on the surface, objections are bound to arise. Are there not conceivable moral dilemmas that humanism might not be able to solve? What about something as simple as telling a lie? What if someone tells a lie that doesnt result in the harm of another in order to avoid punishment for one's self? Does that situation not fit the code of humanism? After all, humanists dont believe in abstract concepts such as justice that need to be upheld for their own sake. Only what is good for the individual and what is good for the whole exist. Some might argue its good to uphold justice for the benefit of all. But justice in this case would simply be the law, not an abstract concept. Humanists certainly advocate upholding laws. But if you can lie and get away with it and not hurt anybody and it doesnt break a law, why not do it? Wouldn't this lie be morally permissable or "right" according to humanism?
We know that one of the criteria for knowing what is morally right according to humanism is the absence of harm done to another. What happens when there is a conflict between doing good for the individual and what is perceived as harmful to the collective group? Certainly, what is harmful can be subjective, right? There are many types of harm. Physical harm, emotional harm, perceived harm, etc. Since hurt feelings are so subjective, is it okay to hurt someone emotionally to get what one wants? Hurting someone's feelings is not an illegal act. It might refer to a perception of emotional pain resulting from a breach of trust or verbal abuse or some perceived offense. Certain degress of verbal abuse are illegal. For instance you can not threaten to kill someone or insult a police officer. But there is no law against such things as violation of trust and that is exactly why adultery is perfectly legal in this country.
Marriages are legal and binding by law but adultery, that which breaks a marriage, is not illegal. So, how might the humanist view adultery? If we are not breaking the law, we have to examine if it does harm to another. Again, this comes down to perceived emotional harm based on breach of trust. Since the harm done is merely hurt feelings it is difficult to establish as true harm. Does not adultery harm the sanctity of marriage itself? Ah, but again the atheist does not believe in marriage as a sacred institution. From the humanist view adultery can only be wrong if it dissolves a marriage if a stable marriage contributes to a stable society. But doesnt divorce accomplish the same thing? Divorce is perfectly legal and perfectly accepted by humanists. Let's take a slightly different approach on this same issue.
If atheism leads us to humanism, then humanism also traces its roots to evolution. A belief in evolution is even listed as one of the six points of humanism under the current version of the Humanist Manifesto, so this should be undisputed. If we look at evolutionary theory we find that one of the closest kin to human beings is the monkey. Monkeys are notoriously promiscuous creatures, preferring multiple mating partners and mostly showing no signs of monogamy. If rampant, undiscerning procreation furthers the goals of evolution and this behavior is modeled in our closest evolutionary ancestor, then why is adultery wrong for human beings?
I imagine this argument would pose a significant challenge for the humanist, atheist or evolutionist. And instead of me putting words in their mouth I invite them to share their answers here, in the comments section.
For more info:
Comments
I cannot believe you actually studied philosophy! Your mind is apparently utterly preprogrammed with credulous mystical nonsense. I've bookmarked this story for no other reason than to observe the inevitably scathing rebuttals you are about to experience! I personally won't waste my time refuting your indefensible position. I know beyond any doubt, people believe what they want to believe. You clearly have no chance of ever comprehending the value of morality based on reality.
Religion is fiction poor boy. Prepared to ignore a tidal wave of salient points from the community of realists.
"why is adultery wrong for human beings?"
Duh!
It is only wrong if someone else is harmed!
Christians can however reconcile their consciences by telepathically apologising to their imaginary friend and then sleeping easy.
Why is the sex life of other people so important to you? Hmmm.
Anyway by choosing only the "Top Ten" you free yourself from the nonsense that follows in the following sixty or so. You work from an "abridged set".
Furthermore the top ten aren't that brilliant either.
Curse this inability to edit posts.
Should be choosing the"top Ten Commandments"
"Having the benefit of the Bible and the ten commandments as a guide"
They are better described as a crutch and an obstacle. The many of the moral implications of the Bible are abhorrent and ten commandments are sorely lacking. Where in the Bible is slavery specifically denounced? Where is gender equality promoted? Where is child rape condemned?
The bible contains more evil than any other book ever published - incitements to slavery, misogyny, witch-burning, genocide, rape and death penalties for petty "crimes". No moral person can possibly be using the bible in its entirety as a moral guide.
So, how do Christians figure out that "Thou shalt not Kill" is moral but "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is not?
If you're using some sort of moral compass to tell the difference, all that atheists need to do to be moral is to throw out the book (along with its contradictions, inaccuracies and bronze age mythology) and keep the compass.
Actually, atheists are far more moral than Christians. If you're not murdering because of a fear of eternal hellfire, that's fear - not morality. If you're not committing adultery so that god will be nice to you, that's not morality - it's sycophancy. But atheists who live moral lives do it because they think it's the right thing to do.
Your group has better morals? List goes on forever but only 1k letters allowed
James Bakker —
Bakker left his PTL Ministries empire in 1987 after admitting an extramarital affair with Jessica Hahn, a former church secretary. He served five years in federal prison on fraud and conspiracy charges for illegally soliciting millions of dollars from followers.
Jimmy Swaggart — Resigned from the Assemblies of God in 1988 after a fellow preacher released photos of Swaggart with a prostitute. In 1991, he was stopped for a traffic violation while driving in a red-light district in California with a woman who said she was a prostitute.
The Rev. Henry J. Lyons —
Lyons was forced out as leader of the National Baptist Convention USA after his then-wife set fire to a waterfront mansion he secretly owned with his mistress. He was convicted in 1999 of swindling millions of dollars from companies that wanted to do business with members of the denomination and was sentenced to five years in
Six responses so far and no one has dared to tackle the argument at hand. Attacking Christianity does nothing to respond to the issue of how does an atheist justify that adultery is wrong? So far Kieran has offered"atheists who live moral lives do it because they think it's the right thing to do". I agree with this statement. But this is whimsical. Atheists may leave moral lives but they do it in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.
Also, what is very interesting about humanism is that it is based on human understanding and experience which is subject to CHANGE. This is far from a moral absolute. This allows for the possibility that one day murder may be considered a virtue. Would widespread famine be considered such a change in circumstances as to justify cannibalism? Do we draw lots to see which one of us is stoned to death and eaten?
Lying?
It's interesting that most Christians I've discussed this with will assert that "Thou shall not give false testimony" refers to perjury, not lying.
If this commandment were referring to lying then it poses dilemmas for everyone, including Christians. e.g. A man comes to your door, armed with a gun, and says he's going to kill your parents. You know that your parents are upstairs. He asks you where your parents are.
Now, do you lie or answer honestly? It is hard to conceive of lying as being objectively or absolutely wrong/evil in a situation like this.
As for the "monkeys are promiscuous therefore humans should be promiscuous" argument, I could also assert some asinine parallel about the bible arising out of polygamous cultures therefore we should be polygamous.
This is an example of a non-sequitur.
The significant challenge that your arguments pose is trying to figure out how you came up with them in the first place.
No room to list the countless Christian Conservative Republican congressmen that are either having extramarital affairs and/or praying on their young male interns... I guess as long as they repent in the House of the Lord for it, "it's all good" as they say.
How about the Amish puppy mills? Or does morality not extend to the non-human cohabitants of this planet? Remember, All Dogs Go to Heaven...
Personally I think a better question would be can a Christian be moral? As I've seen very little evidence of morality in most of them I've ever come across, but lots of bullying and lying of the kind you find in this writers article.
JKL,
Good point about lying. Specifically, we are talking about the kind of lie one might tell in order to avoid punishment or just consequence. This lie does not hurt anyone its merely told to avoid a punishment. As Christians believe in upholding the principle of justice, this lie would be considered wrong but according to humanism, I believe since there is no victim here this lie is considered permissible.
To All,
Examples of individual Christians who break the civil law or moral law do not invalidate the law in anyway.
If a humanist had committed a crime this would not indicate that humanist views were flawed in any way, only that the individual had failed to live according to them.
"Would widespread famine be considered such a change in circumstances as to justify cannibalism? Do we draw lots to see which one of us is stoned to death and eaten?"
Well, if you're stranded in the middle of the highest range in the world, I'd say cannibalism is justified, only if you feed from the corpses, no need to stone to death to someone, e.g:
The crash of the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 in 1976.
If you disagree, you can preach your christian values to the survivors...
"Six responses so far and no one has dared to tackle the argument at hand"
Rubbish, blatantly untrue!
I DID answer the question:
""why is adultery wrong for human beings?"
Duh!
It is only wrong if someone else is harmed!"
It was the second post, did you miss it or just choose to pretend it wasn't there!
"Good point about lying. Specifically, we are talking about the kind of lie one might tell in order to avoid punishment or just consequence..." - S. Meehan
Why would humanists not uphold the principal of justice? Humanists may not think that justice is cosmically arbitrated, but that doesn't mean that they are tolerant of people perverting justice.
And I'd be interested to hear some specific examples of these punishment avoiding, victimless lies. Because I don't know if I'd consider the situations you're thinking of as a) actually being victimless or b) actually being unjust.
And the fact that Christianity and Humanism may reach different conclusions on moral issues isn't much of an issue. If you look at the supposed quandary you've proposed, it reduces to the proposition: How does Humanism justify the moral positions espoused by Christianity?
Which is absurd.
The difference is that Humanists do not hide behind their Humanist beliefs... But those of faith do try to across as "holier than thou"... Not much point in arguing this with you.
Your innate conscience tells you the difference between right and wrong. If someone doesn't have a conscience, then he or she is a sociopath, and religious instruction can't fix that.
Belief in an invisible supernatural being, unseen and unheard, who supposedly possesses powers like a magical fairy, has no bearing on someone's character and ethics.
Oh, and by the way, Jesus was actually a wizard, he was given magical powers to perform miracles.
Ugh, the reason we atheists come out swinging like this is because we're so tired of being told or have it implied that WE'RE the ones without morality. Our point is, let's accept your point, for the sake of argument, that we don't have morality, we can still point out that you don't have a good moral system either.
If you truly wanted to know how we get our morals, if you truly wanted to ask an honest question (try Google), you should have asked an atheist. You should have asked before you did your little analysis which is riddled with holes from the very beginning. This whole post could have been one question. But no, you wanted to imply that we had no basis for morality.
Maybe we're being sensitive here, but this is something that really strikes to atheists' cores. For a group of people who truly care about morality, who don't slavishly follow an old book, but actually do the hard work and figure it out for themselves, to tell us we have no morals is the height of insult.
Onto the substance.
"If God does not make the rules and man does not make the rules then the only other option is to say that there are no rules to begin with."
I am confused how you got here. Man does make the rules. We didn't rule that out. We are all moral agents to a greater or lesser extent.
"he draws it from his own self, his knowledge and experience, to create a rule of behavior that is universally applicable to all mankind"
This is too broad of a statement, but true in a general sense. For the most part, a person's morality applies to themselves. When groups of people agree on morals, they can forms groups of like minds, and come up with rules to apply to their group. If you don't like the rules, you can work within to change them, or leave the group. These groups can become very large, covering nations. We may one days extend the group to the entire planet, in fact, foreign policy often times involves this aspect.
"Are there not conceivable moral dilemmas that humanism might not be able to solve?"
There are such dilemmas in any system. However, there are more often dilemmas that have just not been yet solved. The upside of humanism, however, is that we are working toward the best system we can, even if perfection is unreachable. This is far more preferable than cold absolute laws handed down with no explanation for why they exist other than God's will.
"if you can lie and get away with it and not hurt anybody and it doesn't break a law, why not do it?"
You are looking for simplistic answers, like thou shall not lie. Life is not simple, and just because being a humanist often involves deep pondering, doesn't mean it's bad. Who are you lying to? What about? Are they close to you or are they a stranger? I support honesty. However, an absolute rule like no lying is immoral. What if it's an abusive boyfriend asking where their girlfriend is? Any example is going to involved a nuanced explana
"the atheist does not believe in marriage as a sacred institution."
But that does not mean we don't respect it. We simply believe nothing to be sacred. Atheists get married just like everyone, and we have lower divorce rates to go with it.
"From the humanist view adultery can only be wrong if it dissolves a marriage if a stable marriage contributes to a stable society."
I'm not sure what this means. Adultery is wrong for the reason you stated, breach of trust. It doesn't matter how that affects society. However, a law against adultery would affect society in the sense that it involves the government in your personal life where it doesn't belong. Stable relationships are healthy for most human beings. However, if two people wish you have an unstable relationship, or sleep with other people, it is not our place to tell them not to, since no one is being harmed.
"Divorce is perfectly legal and perfectly accepted by humanists."
Well first off, divorce is perfectly legal by U.S. law. Humanists don't decide legal policy for the nation. It is acceptable to us with good reason, which is that to not allow divorce is barbaric. It is wrong to force someone to stay bound to someone they no longer wish to be married to. There are grounds for divorce; abuse, estrangement, adultery, and loss of love. Do you have some sort of secular argument against divorce?
"If atheism leads us to humanism, then humanism also traces its roots to evolution. A belief in evolution is even listed as one of the six points of humanism under the current version of the Humanist Manifesto, so this should be undisputed"
Humanism is not like the a religion. The Humanist Manifesto is no like the Bible. It is one groups view. You can be a humanist and not accept evolution. Humanism traces it's roots as far back as ancient Greece, over 20 centuries before Origin of Species.
That's one big pile of straw.
Now if you want to know what atheists actually think and believe how about you ask some instead of making stuff up?
"If rampant, undiscerning procreation furthers the goals of evolution and this behavior is modeled in our closest evolutionary ancestor, then why is adultery wrong for human beings?"
You are confusing an is with an ought. We are under no mandate to model ourselves after monkeys. What is good for them may not be good for us. Nor must we, nor could we, seek to "further the goals of evolution". Evolution has no goal, it's just occurs, in the same way erosion does not have the goal of wearing down rocks, it just happens.
Studying our evolutionary history does, however, give us insight into how our morals may have developed.
Hopefully, I helped "tackle the argument at hand". These were not "a significant challenge", in fact they are rather tired and old, and us atheists have been over these points hundreds of times.
On the contrary, religion is an unsuitable foundation for morality because it relies on supernatural explanations. In doing so, it limits our ability to understand the natural world, and thus is prone to error, which makes its derived moral norms unreliable.
Any moral system must at least be in accordance with what we know about the natural world. That means removing any supernatural phenomena, faith and dogma, or at least any explanations that are incompatible with our best understanding of the natural world.
If you choose to believe any religious text, say the Bible, is an infallible tool for understanding the natural world, then you're not capable of making any reliable contribution to a debate about morality.
Life has the meaning that an individual assigns it. I don't live by Biblical morality because I consider myself a good person.
Altruism is not evident. Each individual can only act in their own perceived best interests (correct or otherwise).
In a civilization it is in each individuals best interest to help one another. Social contracts existed prior to, and apart from, Jewish & Christian cultures.
Laughing, smiling, and kindness (in its many forms) releases polypeptides in the brain that prolong & refresh life.
I'd connect these endorphins to evolution and back to their contribution to individual & species survival, but I bet you're smart enough to do that yourself.
As a humanist I can shed some light on the marriage issue for this somewhat confused author. Marriage in and of itself is a meaningless institution. What is meaningful is the caring and trust and commitment itself of the relationship. It goes beyond such artificial concepts of "marriage" broken by "adultery" to a more general principle of honesty and compassion in all relationships you have. If there is an understanding between two people that leads to certain mutual expectations then breaking that will cause pain and dissapointment which is clearly negative. Its all part of the humanist path of living your life in an honest transparent compassionate way. This can mean being in a monogamous relationship or not but your life can not involve the deception of others. Our evolutional relationship to non monogamous primates such as Bonobos is completely irrelevant.
Who is more moral; the Soldier who is a Christian who sacrifices himself to save his comrades in part because he believes in an afterlife and that his actions will help secure a place in heaven, or the soldier who is an atheist who in sacrificing himself to save his comrades is sacrificing EVERYTHING with no prospect of an afterlife, reward?
You certainly make a good argument in favour of adultery! You didn't mean to do that, did you?
Dee,
Actually that was my intention. If a belief leads us to a questionable moral outcome, perhaps it is time to question the belief.
Brent,
Then marriage to a humanist is any mutually agreed upon arrangement between two intimate parties. There is nothing inherently monogamous about marriage itself in the humanist view, and adultery as such ceases to exist. In one marriage, couples may agree to have sex with others and this is okay, and in another marriage they agree to be monogamous. This is the exact absence of moral absolutes within humanism that I have attempted to demonstrate. Thank you for helping to make it more clear.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best...
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson (letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814)
I think your opening statement "Having the benefit of the Bible and the ten commandments" makes a strong argument FOR atheism. Which ten commandments do you mean (EXODUS 20:3-17 or EXODUS 34:12:26)? Most christians don't seem to know there are two sets and that the actual ten commandments (the second one) offers little in the way of moral guidance. Furthermore, which version of the bible do you follow? How do you choose between the many conflicting edicts within a given version? Are eating shellfish and homosexuality "abominations" or not? Is it okay to kill your disobedient son or not?
People of reason (atheist, humanist, etc.) simply have justifiable concern over how these decisions can be rationally made.
I'm curious... There are lots of religions in the world with varying moral codes. (Several supporting polygamy for example. Some tribal religions supporting things that would make your hair curl.) Since those ethical codes differ from your Christian values, are they valid? After all, they are given by a god (just not yours).
If yes, then you are saying that you believe in and respect the gods of all these other religions in addition to your own. If not, then what you are really saying is that it's not just atheists you find immoral, but anyone who doesn't get their code from your god. That's about 4 billion people.
BTW, nature is much more complicated than you might imagine. There are many species that practice monogamy. And altruism is fairly common. What is in your best evolutionary interest is not necessarily hedonistic.
How can Christians speak of right and wrong when they think it perfectly acceptable that others (namely Jesus) pay for their wrong doings. And what sort of moral person would give birth to a child while knowing that child stands a high chance of being tortured - in hell - for eternity, for committing finite "crimes" during its finite life. Any moral person wouldn't gamble with another's well-being in that way - they'd refrain from having children. Of course, even with the prospect of hell hanging other them, Christians continue to give birth to countless generations - knowingly endangering them with eternal torture. Something no moral person would do.
"This is the exact absence of moral absolutes within humanism that I have attempted to demonstrate."
But we have something similar to moral absolutes, in your words:
"Principles of humanism involve doing what is best for the individual and the collective group and to avoid doing harm to others."
The problem here is the humanist moral absolute don't support your christian moral absolutes, and you believe that's wrong.
Sorry, we have a moral different than you, like the other 4 billion people in this world.
Meehan, I think you & Brent are saying the same thing about humanism & marriage, such that; those that do no base their unions upon the Judaic-Christian god, base their marriages upon something else.
Nothing wrong with that. But, you seem to be upset that Atheists have better chances of staying in a monogamous marriage than Christians. Isn't that a strange fact?
You're so upset about it that you're going to strange & unusual cases. I'm surprised you haven't said that without your god in every marriage, people will start marrying their pets.
Bret, Blackout, Fritz, & Tim. Good points. But he thinks we're wrong about EVERYTHING just because we're not Christian. He has already condemned us to Hell, what care have we.
All I know is that my wife & I will be married until death do us part.
"Since the harm done is merely hurt feelings it is difficult to establish as true harm."
Pain itself is just a feeling. Feelings definitely count as harm.
"Are there not conceivable moral dilemmas that humanism might not be able to solve?"
Definitely. Are there no conceivable moral dilemmas that Christian ethics can't solve? If you had a time machine and the ability to rescue Jesus from his torture on the cross before he died, would you?
The answer is that people, christians and atheists, inherantly develop a broad sense of right and wrong (morality if you insist) before they get to age 4 and it continues to develop as they age. They get this first from their parents, then with their peers on the playground, and then from the greater communities to which they belong. Humans are social beings and morality is merely the rule sets we need to abide by to be part of a community and keep that community functioning together. Contrary to what religion tells you, this rule set is far less a function of which holy book you believe and more a function of the culture to which you are a member.
The bible was merely a formalization of societies rule set circa 500 BC - 100 AD. Much of it is pretty universal with other cultures (don't kill your neighbor). That said, most Christians conviniently choose to ignore moral rules set out in the bible, like how to treat your slaves, if they run against their current culture.
In terms of atheism, marriage is not a sacred thing, more of a legal contract between two people. If you define "Adultary" as a married man making out with someone who is not his wife, that is generally considered a bad thing in society because someone is getting hurt (the wife, kids, etc). If you define Adultary to include premarital sex or common law marriages, you are entering into a gray-area of societies moral code. Some say its bad, others just say "Be carefull". Maybe the Atheist marriages are more likely to succeed then their Christian fundamentalist counter-parts because they are able to give married life a trial run before they commit ...
If you really wanted to understand what others consider right / wrong. (Drop the whole moral/Ethics/Evil nonsense) Then you should be comparing selective judgments together. Apples to Apples so to speak.
Secondly, you have completely left out “reasonable”.
Example – Telling a lie.
You claim that telling a lie is wrong because your god says it is wrong. You don’t tell lies because if you do your god will punish you.
I don’t tell lies because my mother and father told me it was wrong. Sometimes I was punished for telling lies; sometimes I experienced the consequences of telling lies. Either way, the outcome was negative. This equals bad and I don’t tell lies.
The part of the equation you have left out is you were taught not to lie by your guardians. And I would argue that they got them from their guardians, and so forth and so on all the way back to before your god was even created. Thus you received your morals from the same place I did.
Peace
TK
Good job Shane demonizing evil atheists, why dont you replace the word " atheist" with "Jew" and reread your article.
Guess what Shane, my godless moral code is this.. "If it feels good, do it"
It feels good when I:
Avoid running over a cat.
Help my elderly.
Make people laugh.
Live healthy.
Forgive people.
Help some one in need.
Supporting my family.
Dont litter.
haveing sex with my wife of 15 years.
getting phone calls from people I love.
peace.
love.
helping other people grow and be happy.
doing good things.
being out in nature.
hugging trees.
education.
creating art.
and dumping a big load in the loo.
Again Shane replace the word " Atheist" with " "Juden".. do yourself a favor and open your eyes to the fact that us Jews are no different than you, and we dont steal your children for sacrifice.
Grow up and stop hiding your extreme ignorance behind your self righteous mis education.
You wrote: "...I stuggle to see where the atheist might get his morality from because it is not externally revealed to him in any way."
I have a similar struggle.
I struggle to see where a Christian can decide that God was Good and Satan was Evil, because it is not revealed to him in any reliable way.
So, how did you figure out that God was Good and Satan was the Deceiver?
Did you just believe the first supernatural creature that talked to you? You heard God first, and He said, 'don't trust that one, he's a deceiver.' -- If Satan had talked to you first, would you have your entire morality inverted?
The Bible quite clearly proscribes the death penalty for disobedient children, for witches, for beastiality, for worshipping another god, for breaking the Sabbath, for adultery, for incest, for homosexuality, for blasphemy, for stealing slaves, for not being a virgin on the night of the wedding and for rape victims who don't cry out loudly enough.
Are they your moral absolutes?
If not, you must have formed your moral values independently of biblical rules.
As do we atheists.
Killjoy,
"Feels good" is never a sufficient basis for determining what is moral for obvious reasons. Your list of what feels good could be completely opposite for someone else:
It feels good when I run over a cat
It feels good when I help only myself
It feels good when I eat unhealthy
It feels good to not apologize
It feels good to have sex with my neighbors wife of 15 years
Do you see the problem?
Palm Pete,
Bestiality, witchcraft, children disobeying their parents, idolatry are all still considered wrong according to modern Christian standards. That fact that we no longer impose the same penalty for these crimes is because they are no longer crimes. At one point the Jews was under a civil law to observe these things. We as gentiles are under no such law. But the principle is still observed.
John M,
Cultures differ according to moral values. History has shown us that racism can be a cultural bias that can lead to genocide. If morality depends on culture then who is to say which culture is right? Again, we are back to the lack of absolutes within atheist ethics.
proscribes should be prescribes
Typo of the most horrible kind, one letter reverses the complete meaning.
"Bestiality, witchcraft, children disobeying their parents, idolatry are all still considered wrong according to modern Christian standards."
So, tell us, why the modern christian standards don't accept the death penalty for that acts? The Bible say that... your god command you to do that in their sacred word, you're not consequential with your source of moral.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!