I've never heard of an atheist, or even a group of atheists, saying that they and they alone have the ability or right to decide what is moral action for entire societies. Rather, what comes up frequently is the call by atheists that morality should be decided secularly and rationally. "Coveting thy neighbor's wife" isn't considered an immoral action because the bible says so, but because its effects (unwanted attention, fixation, paranoia, jealousy) are considered by most people to be negative. The secular approach to morality is that actions should be judged on how they affect human health and happiness. Murder, theft, violence and rape, are all very negative things for the victim, and so any population that desires maximum health and happiness will take steps to guard against them by defining such actions as immoral. The thing that makes us think this way is not god, it is empathy, or the ability to predict and internalize the emotions of other people.
Moral authority doesn't intrinsically come from government. The function of government is to add stability to society, be it caring for the less fortunate, organizing for military defense, distributing resources, or upholding laws. People give powers to their governments for specific purposes through laws, in this case, so that acts deemed immoral by the citizens can be investigated and if necessary punished from an impartial distance. A majority of people do not want to be murdered, and believe that murder is immoral, so governments are empowered with the authority to investigate murders and punish people who are found guilty. The role of government in morality is to enforce it, not define it. The alternative to empowering a government through law is mob justice, which will frequently arrive at incorrect or excessive punishments due to the emotional investment of those involved.
Some personal freedoms must be surrendered to be accepted into, and be supported by, a government. Drafting doesn't exist purely to inconvenience people, it exists because it is recognized that having a capable and ready military is one of the best ways to discourage destruction and social upset from people that seek power through violence. We also agree that taxes are fair and reasonable, and pay taxes to our governments so that we can benefit from actions it takes on our behalf like maintaining educational and health programs. Money is nice to have as an individual, but we recognize the fact that we are happier and healthier when some sacrifices are made for the group as a whole.
As far as the examples provided of "difficult" moral questions
....in drunk driving, the issue is one of risk. Drunk driving is easily demonstrable to be a dangerous activity with VERY high likelihood of damage to people and property. Just because no damage has resulted in a specific case doesn't matter when the danger has been proven in many prior occasions. Morality can include acting preemptively in situations where no actual harm has yet been done due to our ability to learn and predict consequences. Teaching children about the danger of firearms and locking firearms away from them, even though it deprives them of the freedom to accidentally shoot themselves or other people, would be considered by most to be a morally correct action because it is far the less harmful of two potential outcomes. (That said, if you have assessed the risks and make a deliberate decision to commit suicide with a car and a case of beer, the moral complications completely disappear if you do it where you can't cause damage to other people and their property).
... societies and governments can be objectively immoral but only so far as they harm health and happiness of their individuals. One society's fondness for the taste of cat meat, and its subsequent legality at the state level, doesn't make them immoral no matter how much their neighbors might blanch at the idea. On the other hand, North Korea is a rare example of an objectively immoral government. One that brainwashes its people, prevents free access to information, even prevents people from leaving, to the point that it is now a nation consisting mostly of poorly educated malnourished paupers. Everything that can be done to diminish health and happiness, short of just executing everybody, is being done there.
Secular morality is built on the empathy to recognize happiness and suffering in other people and the predictive ability to know when to act to prevent or reduce suffering by choosing to the best of our knowledge the least harmful option available. No omniscient, omnipotent entity living outside of spacetime and causality and communicating to our "heart" (I think you meant brain) via untraceable telepathy is required.
Majority rules.Well that brings up a good question, are there moral absolutes?
I think what is being said here is that the majority is always moral except when it's not.
Now we had the dilemma, there is a shortage of water that if it was rationed one person could survive no more than six days on that supply.
Here's my return question that I don't expect you to answer:
If humanity itself was created by a god that loved us and Earth created solely for our benefit, why would he make us water-drinking creatures (quite inefficient ones at that) on a planet where over 99% of all water is useless for us to drink? That is a real number, not hyperbole. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, would it be moral to design your creations with deadly weaknesses and put them in situations where you KNOW that they will suffer for it?
you have based your question on a faulty assumption. Man was created to worship God, to be part of God's universal kingdom.
If humanity itself was created by a god that loved us and Earth created solely for our benefit, why would he make us water-drinking creatures (quite inefficient ones at that) on a planet where over 99% of all water is useless for us to drink? That is a real number, not hyperbole. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, would it be moral to design your creations with deadly weaknesses and put them in situations where you KNOW that they will suffer for it?
I don't see how the question is faulty. I didn't say anything about why your god would have created humanity.I see :o
Here's my return question that I don't expect you to answer:
If humanity itself was created by a god that loved us and Earth created solely for our benefit, why would he make us water-drinking creatures (quite inefficient ones at that) on a planet where over 99% of all water is useless for us to drink? That is a real number, not hyperbole. If you were an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, would it be moral to design your creations with deadly weaknesses and put them in situations where you KNOW that they will suffer for it?
Hating your parents for giving you life is one way live. It's not the best way but we are free to choose what we think and many do have that view. Many don't!
Hating your parents for giving you life is one way live. It's not the best way but we are free to choose what we think and many do have that view. Many don't!
Great analogy.
I see :o
Megalomania is a condition of man and it is a sin against God.
You believe you are a collection of cosmic dust and I believe you are a work of God, only one of us is right.
What you describe is called megalomania.
The universe and all its rules being created by a god and proceeding from its own machinations to the present point where we may ask questions of it, is not mutually exclusive with the view that we are made of cosmic dust. One describes composition, the other describes process. However, it's equally likely that our universe was engineered by an alien species from another dimension, or that it is being simulated by a fantastically complex computer. It's easy to play "what if", but that just leaves us with a great collection of stories. We only accept something as true if it holds up under testing and observation. When somebody tells you they have a tree that grows money, you aren't going to accept this as your working model of reality unless you can examine it.
Do you think the creator of all that exist has a delusion of His self importance or His power? WOW.
If you have faith in how you became to be
you have no foundation what so ever to show any believe in why or how you exist
No faith required. Rather: I know that I am made of atoms. This can be demonstrated by nuclear spectroscopy. I know that the atoms I am made of most likely came from the process of nucleosynthesis in extinct stars. We can demonstrate how fusion works, and see the signatures of things we are made of in the spectrums of other stars. I know that evolution works. We can find countless specimens of things that no longer live, and compare them morphologically (and now even genetically in some cases) to extant species. The source of life (abiogenesis), I don't know much about. The experiments by Miller and Urey are certainly interesting but I'm not completely convinced. Nor do I know the mechanism of the start of the universe. Honestly that discussion is way over my head and best left to quantum physicists for now. But you know what? I'm okay with not knowing. For now.
It strikes me that this is a key difference between a lot of atheists and a lot of religious persons. Being able to say "I don't know", and realize that this is only a resting place rather than a destination. You want faith? I have faith that the universe is enormous and complex and wondrous, and that the more we reject intellectual dead-ends (a result of filling in the blanks with unsupportable guesses), the more wondrous it will become.
We only accept something as true if it holds up under testing and observation.
Yes your book has something about The End Times and how people would call ignorance wisdom or something like that. You don't need to quote it at me, I've heard it before. What your book doesn't do is give us any insight into the technologies and paradigms that people who are willfully ignorant of god have provided to make everybody's life easier and longer and healthier than ever before.
Why are we here? Zygotes, man. Didn't your parents explain this to you?  If you want a purpose for your life that doesn't involve magic, the best one I have come across is "to serve as a way for the universe to know itself". It's wonderfully romantic to think of the entire universe as a thing which is alive and evolving.
We only accept something as true if it holds up under testing and observation.
Yes you are made of atoms and I have a house that is made of bricks. My house is not an accident and did not grow itself out of a pile of mud, or morph into a brick house from a grass hut.
It's amazing that you tell me that I don't know and that my faith is wrong, and then turn around and say that you don't know but your faith must be right.
<sarcasm>We only accept something as true if it holds up under testing and observation.</sarcasm>
You want something that holds up to your test you might want to look at the prophecies in the Bible. When I was a child there was no Israel and the religious community had not seen Israel in almost 2000 years. Many of the weaker Christians begin to believe that there would never be in Israel, to the point they actually change their theology into what we call replacement theology. In 1948 Israel appeared in the driving force was mainly the Jewish Holocaust. In one day as prophesied in the Bible, Israel came into existence.
Most everything that is happening now in the Middle East was prophesied to be, that is something you can see and it doesn't take any faith to do that.
Bricks don't grow, replicate, mutate, or attach to eachother in any way. Your house isn't an accident because its elements have absolutely no way to organize themselves. Very unlike living things. Also, nobody who understands evolution would call what we have now an accident. It's not like you can just throw a bunch of amino acids in a jar and- oops!- pull out a mouse. The "accidents" are tiny and most result in the death of the organism. What you see now is the accumulation of 3 billion years of good luck on the part of organic molecules forming combinations that yield increasingly efficient ways to make more of themselves. It doesn't require faith, it requires a trivial understanding of chemistry, information theory, and a deep appreciation for the scope of time and space.
No, I say "Here is a thing I don't understand for now, but may eventually". You say "Here is a thing I don't understand, therefore, god."
Now, please re-read what I wrote. :)
The universe and all its rules being created by a god and proceeding from its own machinations to the present point where we may ask questions of it, is not mutually exclusive with the view that we are made of cosmic dust. One describes composition, the other describes process. However, it's equally likely that our universe was engineered by an alien species from another dimension, or that it is being simulated by a fantastically complex computer. It's easy to play "what if", but that just leaves us with a great collection of stories. We only accept something as true if it holds up under testing and observation. When somebody tells you they have a tree that grows money, you aren't going to accept this as your working model of reality unless you can examine it.
I think we're done here. "The Great Unthink"? What does that even mean. Can you refute anything I said in that paragraph? Do you even care to try? That and, pretending to be unable to follow the flow of conversation by ripping out small parts of larger points to make them seem absurd is a complete non-starter with me. Here's another word for you guys to look up: Disingenuous.
If you don't want to hear atheist's views on subjects, then don't post videos to the world asking questions of atheists and invite them to your forum.
Many atheists will try to combined these two definitions only finding themselves in a quagmire of contradiction.
How does an atheist determine what is evil and what is not evil? Answer: They can't.
They can, theists just don't accept their reasoning. On the bright side this discussion has led me to a book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape) on the subject, so well done!
Before I go, it's only fair to ask: What do you think is the basis of your morality? We know it's not the bible, which talks about genocide being an acceptable solution to...anything. Anybody who actually based their sense of morality on the entirety of the bible would be unable to function in modern society. Should we only follow the new testament? I don't remember anywhere that Jesus says "Oh, and all that stuff that was dictated earlier? Forget that. Doesn't apply anymore." Maybe you know of such a passage, in which case please tell me where it is.
We also know it's not god speaking directly to people, because if that were true everybody who follows god (well, your god) would think exactly the same thing on all moral questions. Unless you'd like to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy, and say that people who don't think the same as you on moral questions are not real christians? In which case, how do you tell the difference between telepathy from on high versus your own thoughts?
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
http://rforh.com/store/index.php/dvds/debunked-no-evidence-private.html (http://rforh.com/store/index.php/dvds/debunked-no-evidence-private.html)
Morality is about being able to know the deference between good and evil.
http://rforh.com/store/index.php/dvds/debunked-no-evidence-private.html (http://rforh.com/store/index.php/dvds/debunked-no-evidence-private.html)
Which you think is inherent to every person. "Written in their hearts" (from a time period when people thought that the heart was the center of identity and the brain was a fancy heat sink). (tell the young high school girl that her heart is not broken) Except every individual has demonstrable differences in their idea of moral behavior.( the key word here is behavior) Islamic jihadists think blowing themselves up in the middle of a crowd of people is morally correct, but I hope that you disagree. So your basis for morality is... whatever feels right to an individual except when it's contrary to what you think they should do? ( It has been mention that the theology of Calvinism starts with the FACT that all men are deprave. We see it in the scripture starting with Adam who after sinning try to hide from God. Other biblical men like Moses- the giver of the law was a murder, David- who found favor with God was a murder and adulterer, and Paul- who wrote most of the New Testament was also a murder. Man does not follow God’s instruction, does he.)
I didn't answer the boat dilemma because the poster said they didn't want an answer. If we take the facts of the case exactly as stated, obviously the strong man must remain strong and further his chances of survival. It would be stupid to throw away both of their lives by sharing the water. It would also be selfish of the sick man, knowing his chances are slim to none, to demand that the other sacrifice himself for no gain. It would be bad for all involved but it is the least bad option. If I were the strong man, I would take down my friend's last words and promise to tell their family what happened. If I were the weak man, I would ask that I be thrown overboard and left behind so that my friend doesn't have to sit there feeling guilty about my lingering death by dehydration. (That and it would lighten the boat, win/win) Seems pretty clear cut. The fact that the stronger man feels bad about having to make this choice is that pesky empathy thing showing up again. If there wasn't an emotional cost to making difficult moral choices, we would not approach them with the appropriate gravity or learn as much from the outcomes. ( I would expect nothing less from your view of right and Wrong )
Of course, with proper application of foresight and technology the problem would never have gotten this far. The lesson to learn here is never sail out of sight of land without GPS and a rescue beacon. (addendum) And a radio, for weather updates. Can't forget our friends at NOAA. ( Yes, if everyone was as smart as you there would never any dilemmas in the world. )