Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this all what the OP wanted to ask, and begin the discussion.
The next part is, if Atheists believe in the existence of morality (be it personal subject, or however you want to describe it), do they have an evidence that this personal subject morality exist?
If yes, please provide the evidence.
If no evidence, then what's the basis of their belief in the existence of this morality?
Since the moral code of an Atheist is a personal subjective code, it is easy to provide evidence. All the Atheist has to do is quote his or her own beliefs and say they are proof of morality.
The problem lies in the fact that one Atheist may believe in abortion upon demand, another may not agree under any circumstances, while a third might want to limit it to a set number of weeks.
Since the moral code of an Atheist is a personal subjective code, it is easy to provide evidence. All the Atheist has to do is quote his or her own beliefs and say they are proof of morality.
The problem lies in the fact that one Atheist may believe in abortion upon demand, another may not agree under any circumstances, while a third might want to limit it to a set number of weeks.
Good!
I stated the same in slightly different terms when I stated that logic is dynamic. It may vary from person to person or group to group
So how do we attempt to resolve this problem?
We tend to go with the majority.
Out of 350 million Americans if 200 million believe that abortion is logically immoral then a voting may result in legislation where we are going to say, you are right - abortion is morally wrong - so we will ban it.
Whether abortion is immoral or moral? There is no physical tangible evidence to prove it either way. So resort to logical assertions - and go with the majority.
It’s finally getting a little interesting after 25 pages.
Let’s take a step back to see where we at.
ALL atheists believe in the existence of morality.
No Atheist is able to provide a physical, tangible or a scientific evidence to prove the existence of morality.
What Atheists tend to agree is that evidence of existence of morality is a logical one, and not a physical or scientific one.
Is there a right or wrong? Looks like not for all Atheists.. ... so you tell me?
Perhaps you need to read #192 again (and #190) and think about what was said. That morality is socially constructed, that good and bad (right and wrong) are in the mind. They even told you in simple terms they follow moral rules, that they 'don't like rape and cheating and bullying and i do like love and freedom and sex (as long as it's consensual, between people of mature age)'.
But as you evaded answering my question, here it is again. Why did you ask does morality exist in the atheist world when you knew the answer, that you yourself know some atheists who follow a moral code?
So you agree morality is a human concept, and therefore exists for humans (which includes atheists). So again, why did you ask the question when you knew the answer?
Since the moral code of an Atheist is a personal subjective code, it is easy to provide evidence. All the Atheist has to do is quote his or her own beliefs and say they are proof of morality.
The problem lies in the fact that one Atheist may believe in abortion upon demand, another may not agree under any circumstances, while a third might want to limit it to a set number of weeks.
So you believe that all christians have the same moral code?
I know faithful christians who have totally different moral beliefs about major moral issues. And btw, as a christian, be a good boy and follow the rules of the forum. That should be easy.
Both camps seems to believe in the existence of morality and both camps practice morality in some form. (And whether one camp’s morality is better than the other, is not the question here)
Excellent, so now you have the answer to your question and we can close this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Now, ...
Oh ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Atheists claim to have a “lack of belief” in the existence of God primarily because there is no evidence.
What if they apply the same logic to the existence of morality?
Except we have evidence for morality. You even admitted you had evidence for morality, you have seen atheists being moral. So using the same logic, your argument fails because the premise when applied to morality fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
The evidence to prove the existence of morality is the question here.
And after 22 pages, some of us seem to be arriving to a somewhat agreeable common ground that there is no physical, tangible evidence to prove the existence of morality - and I guess science cannot prove the existence of morality, or can it?
So physical people obviously doing good things is not physical, tangible evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
So we come to agree that the evidence of morality - if there ever is one - has to be a logical one, and not physical/tangible.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Logic itself is then dynamic. Something that’s logical to one person may not be logical to the other person.
That is not a problem with the logic, that is the problem with the person who can not understand the logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
So to address this issue, we tend to lean towards sticking with the majority. Whatever is logical to the majority is considered logically correct.
No, what is logically sound is considered logically correct. Why people (including atheists, ) are moral beings is because they (including atheists, ) usually do not like seeing pain and suffering in others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
If 80% of the world’s population agrees that taking an innocent life is immoral and wrong while 15% believe it to be morally OK (and 5% have no say), then we are staying with the majority - and accept that taking an innocent life is morally wrong.
Do we agree up till here?
The question is why we stay with the majority. Is it because it simply is the majority, or for some other reason? Hint, we do not eat because the majority of people eat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) are moral beings is because they (including atheists, 