There's Probably No Dawkins...

[73109]

No, because majority view would keep things in check...relative to what the majority feel as "normal."

[Omega]

No, because majority view would keep things in check...relative to what the majority feel as "normal."

In other words: everyone recognizes and respects a universal moral code on the most basic of level. We are each born with the same fundamental moral code which we intuitively recognize and adhere to. We can say objectively that raping a little girl is absolutely and intrinsically wrong and deviating from the moral code. We have a term for those who claim otherwise; they are known as "psychopaths". (Many atheists shoot themselves in the foot with the problem of evil; they assert that an act - say malevolent murder - is objectively evil or immoral while making two contradicting mistakes and assumptions of their worldview all the while; 1) they deny the existence of objective morality and accept subjective morality - and, 2) by claiming that an act is evil or immoral, they are unknowingly implying that there is an absolute, objective standard of absolute good from which to deviate from to cause an evil or immoral act.)

The answer to the question of whether objective morality exists is quite obvious (I'd obviously say yes).

The real question is how and why objective morality came into existence.

[GuineaPig]

Really?  It's obvious objective morality exists?

I have no idea how someone can think this.

[73109]

I might respond with a real response, I might not. I definitely will by tomorrow. Now, I have to study for 2 big tests.

[El JoNNo]

If I may chime in on these topics...

Homosexuality:
There are many hypothesis' regarding the cause or evolutionary need for homosexuality. Here are some I've heard that I can remember. I am not sure of the official titles of these hypothesis' but I will give them descriptive names for the sake of making it easier to read and discuss.

Lack of hormones: A mother has multiple children of the same sex the first is given enough testosterone/estrogen to become the designated sex. As the mother continues to have children her body isn't able to produce the needed amount for each child there after and the amount is lessened more and more.   

The protector: Basically the gay ones were left behind to defend the women while the straight ones went out hunted/gathered/conquered. The reason is; they could be trusted not to have sex with the women.

Simple abnomality/Genetic weakness: Title says it... Shit happens... I have blue eyes, my eyes are light sensitive. Were the weakness comes in to play for homosexuals is the want of the same sex potentially weakning there chances for passing on there genes. Not weakness as in inferior.

I've heard others I just can't think of them now.


As for morality:

73109 I think we are on the same page but I don't think you are representing it well because of your short answers. There is absolutly no such thing as objective morality, either born in us nor mandated from on high.

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

Morality guided by evolution by natural selection:

In a lifeless empty universe there is no morality; what gives way to morality are minds. The ability to comprehend or evolve out of suffering, death and lack of use is very much a driving force in evolution. In fact Carl Sagan once said "the secret of evolution is time and death". This has been happening althroughout human history. When we were Bonobos we had to take what was needed for the betterment of the tribe due to the real threat of exstinction. As we evolved tribes grew bigger and bigger we no longer had the threat of death due to wild life. There was a community; we bought sold and traded but technology was still poor. So we had slaves and superstition to explain the universe.

As technology and better living progressed there was no longer the need for slaves. Sure they revolted and stood up for there rights and won with supporter on both sides. But none of it would have happened if we had not evolved a better why of life through society and technology. Now we are beginning to make ground with gay rights.

Suffering is the bases of morality. The need to spread the genetic code the realization that no one needs to suffer at the hands of another anymore. Will there still be abnormalities in this evolution? Yes, there will. Whether it arises through homosexuality, psychopathy or maybe just maybe - and I'm saying this because I am seeing a trend in society for androgyny - an new human that is asexual. But we will still evolve and change our morality based on that evolution. What happens if we develop the technology to read minds of suspected criminals? There is nothing in the bible dictate what we should do with such technology. But we do have minds and a democratically evolving process

[73109]

I still need to give an intelligent response to Omega on morality...I'll do it eventually. I'm tired now.

[El JoNNo]

I still need to give an intelligent response to Omega on morality...I'll do it eventually. I'm tired now.

Fair enough.. I wasn't taking a shot at you btw.

[73109]

Ok, time for some anti climactic response.

   I need to start this post off by stating that I do not believe in a God, nor do I believe in an absolute moral code. There are atheists out there that do, but I don't. Now, I must say that I do believe Darwinian evolution probably has ingrained in us a way in which we will innately act. (Even that is up for debate.) The problem is, just because we act in a certain way, what makes it moral? My main issue with discussing objective morality is that morality can't be measured. It is a word that was created, shaped, and defined by man, and man can't be omniscient to know what good or bad really is. So, the question is, what is morality and how do we measure it? Any response any one gives me will be contrived and not exact. Why? Because there is nothing to be exact about. Even if it does exist, which I highly highly doubt, we can never know it. We have no absolute good in this world. What we do have is a set of acts that we will most likely follow that have been ingrained in us for millions of years, but these are neither immoral or moral. They just are.

My personal view on morality is a sociological one. Why do we consider certain things immoral? I believe that our choices lie in our ignorance. What is the one thing many humans fear above all else? Death. Why do we fear death? Because we fear the unknown. Existence is all we know, and we are scared shitless of not being here anymore, of no longer being conscious. So, what do we do? We realize that we don't want to end the existence of others, because we don't want others to end our existence. So, follow the logic and you have murder being an immoral act. Same can be said for stealing, rape, etc, but the question is...what makes these immoral and not arbitrary? The answer is simple. Absolutely nothing.

At a very basic level, all our actions are meaningless, and it is up to us to define our meaning. Others might define meaning for us, and that is where our situation can get a bit sticky. In the end, our actions are merely actions, and nothing makes them innately good or evil, people's misguided perceptions do. The only difference between Hitler's killing of 11 million people and my hugging of 11 orphans is human perception, fear of innocence, and sympathy toward the innocent.

I also must add that Omega stated that anytime an atheist tries to conform to a moral code, they are reaching toward a higher, objective morality. This is simply not true. I can follow what I want, and someone else can follow whatever code they want. In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm going to live my life along my subjective moral code, and that's that. I do not claim to have more knowledge than anyone, and there in lies my whole point. We are finite creatures and our knowledge is limited. Who are we to allocate absolute anything?

[Omega]

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.

[73109]

I suggest you look into Russell's Teapot.

[El JoNNo]

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.

By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.

[Omega]

Ok, time for some anti climactic response.

   I need to start this post off by stating that I do not believe in a God, nor do I believe in an absolute moral code. There are atheists out there that do, but I don't. Now, I must say that I do believe Darwinian evolution probably has ingrained in us a way in which we will innately act. (Even that is up for debate.) The problem is, just because we act in a certain way, what makes it moral? My main issue with discussing objective morality is that morality can't be measured. It is a word that was created, shaped, and defined by man, and man can't be omniscient to know what good or bad really is. So, the question is, what is morality and how do we measure it? Any response any one gives me will be contrived and not exact. Why? Because there is nothing to be exact about. Even if it does exist, which I highly highly doubt, we can never know it. We have no absolute good in this world. What we do have is a set of acts that we will most likely follow that have been ingrained in us for millions of years, but these are neither immoral or moral. They just are.

My personal view on morality is a sociological one. Why do we consider certain things immoral? I believe that our choices lie in our ignorance. What is the one thing many humans fear above all else? Death. Why do we fear death? Because we fear the unknown. Existence is all we know, and we are scared shitless of not being here anymore, of no longer being conscious. So, what do we do? We realize that we don't want to end the existence of others, because we don't want others to end our existence. So, follow the logic and you have murder being an immoral act. Same can be said for stealing, rape, etc, but the question is...what makes these immoral and not arbitrary? The answer is simple. Absolutely nothing.

At a very basic level, all our actions are meaningless, and it is up to us to define our meaning. Others might define meaning for us, and that is where our situation can get a bit sticky. In the end, our actions are merely actions, and nothing makes them innately good or evil, people's misguided perceptions do. The only difference between Hitler's killing of 11 million people and my hugging of 11 orphans is human perception, fear of innocence, and sympathy toward the innocent.

I also must add that Omega stated that anytime an atheist tries to conform to a moral code, they are reaching toward a higher, objective morality. This is simply not true. I can follow what I want, and someone else can follow whatever code they want. In the end, it doesn't matter. I'm going to live my life along my subjective moral code, and that's that. I do not claim to have more knowledge than anyone, and there in lies my whole point. We are finite creatures and our knowledge is limited. Who are we to allocate absolute anything?

I appreciate the fullness in your input.

But what does that conclusion leave you with?
You can no longer judge anything as "right," "wrong," "evil," "unjust," etc. You are embracing nihilism. Imagine if the whole world was like this? No one would be able object to murder, rape, genocide, etc. You'd be lost in a sea of irrelevant subjectivity! It would be stating that our moral code is shaped by our feelings or perceptions, therefore rendering all value judgments of right and wrong complete insignificant and relative.

And why would this alternative be unacceptable or least desirable over the alternative of objective morality? I'd say there's at least two reasons why:

1.) First would be because it is a false worldview; that is to say that I am convinced that there really are objective moral duties and values. For example - the Holocaust is not just wrong and immoral according to Western idealism or democratics. In other words, had the Nazis won WWII and subverted all under their worldview, their actions in the Holocaust would still be wrong.

2.) It leads to an unimaginably unlivable worldview. One cannot live a meaningful, happy or consistent life if morality were decided by the whims of ones' feelings.

[Omega]

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.

By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.

Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.

Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.

[73109]

People would still live similar lives even if they were aware that their was no objective moral code. My personal moral code is in fact similar to many, but why is that? I examined my surroundings and devised a code I wanted to live by. As long as we are humans, most of us will still follow some similar moral code because of our genes, surroundings, way of life, etc. But once again, just because we follow a similar code, it doesn't make it right.

It would be stating that our moral code is shaped by our feelings or perceptions, therefore rendering all value judgments of right and wrong complete insignificant and relative.

This is what I'm getting at. With all due respect dude, I don't understand why you keep feeding me my worldview back to me and think it is going to change my mind.

1.) First would be because it is a false worldview; that is to say that I am convinced that there really are objective moral duties and values. For example - the Holocaust is not just wrong and immoral according to Western idealism or democratics. In other words, had the Nazis won WWII and subverted all under their worldview, their actions in the Holocaust would still be wrong.

How can you make such a call? I'm not baiting, but my issue with an objective moral code is that when it comes to being human, we can't know everything. Hell, we can't know a small amount of things. How can you know this?

[El JoNNo]

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.

By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.

Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.

Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.

None of this makes any sense. We both agree that the bible has good and evil in it. You claim that god gives us morality, I claim that it is an evolved morality. On both accounts of morality it is ultimately us that choose what we follow both as individuals and as a society.

Since the bible has good and evil, we must discern what we follow of that book. Making what we choose to follow as a moral guide line to be morally true to us regardless of if the bible has it within it's pages or not.

So I still say that it is logically sound that the bible is not needed as a moral guide line. We decide what is moral and not the bible. Further more if it is that God instills morals into all of us, there is still no objective morality as our morals have changed and are continuing to do so. Not only do they change as a whole but they are also different from person to person and are different from country to country.

[Super Dude]

I'll take the on high route first because it needs less explanation. I'll also be using the bible as it is the dominant religious text of the thread. In the OT there are some deplorable examples of morality, if morality was objective those would be true today. This isn't the case most christians, most would argue against stoning there unruly child. So even god has no objective morality.

There is a common misconception among atheists regarding Christians / Catholics, etc. We do not derive or claim to derive morality from the Bible; we believe it is mandated by God and inscribed in each one of our minds at the genesis of life.

By that logic then we are the arbiters of morality, you are just claiming God gave it to us. So what the Bible has to say on anything moral is completely moot.

Not quite. The Bible contains truths about morality. Yet it also contains many commandments which would be deemed immoral as well. Meaning that the Bible cannot be the sole source for our morality.

Also, I said "mandated". As in "established" by God. We are no more the arbiters of morality as we are the arbiters of who goes to heaven or hell.

None of this makes any sense. We both agree that the bible has good and evil in it. You claim that god gives us morality, I claim that it is an evolved morality. On both accounts of morality it is ultimately us that choose what we follow both as individuals and as a society.

Since the bible has good and evil, we must discern what we follow of that book. Making what we choose to follow as a moral guide line to be morally true to us regardless of if the bible has it within it's pages or not.

So I still say that it is logically sound that the bible is not needed as a moral guide line. We decide what is moral and not the bible. Further more if it is that God instills morals into all of us, there is still no objective morality as our morals have changed and are continuing to do so. Not only do they change as a whole but they are also different from person to person and are different from country to country.

I am a confused agnostic and I endorse this message.