[virmundi]

Nope. There is no such thing as morality apart from God. The universe doesn't care (it can't). All morality then is man made. To say something is morally wrong is to create an absolute. No one has the power to do so. The best you can say is that you think it's wrong, which means you don't feel something as positive.

[trgv]

On a fundamental level I agree with your point. Truly absolute morality implies some kind of external rule of law, which implies some kind of external lawmaker.

Where I disagree is this idea - whether you intended it or not - that non-absolute morality is somehow arbitrary, or worth less than absolute morality.

I don't agree with that: I believe that torturing someone is immoral because humans dislike being tortured (if you're in that 1% who doesn't mind torture, it's not immoral - torture away). You reduce that to "most humans don't feel positive about being tortured". But that's not a choice that 99% of humans made: it's a fact of human biology. Humans don't choose to feel pain when someone rips out their fingernails. You can say "disliking pain is arbitrary". It may be arbitrary in some sense, but not in the context of humanity, and we're all humans.

If you want to say that this kind of "moral thinking" isn't "true morality" because it's not absolute, fine. That's valid stance to take. But whether you call it morality or something else doesn't make it less valid or less useful. And to suggest that humans should not take our innate likes (warmth, safety, respect) and dislikes (pain, insecurity, lack of respect) into account when we interact with each other simply because human biology isn't "absolute" is - pardon me - fucking insane.

[virmundi]

My issue is that people make absolutist arguments. They get high and mighty about something they think is True. They then attempt by force of law or culture to make others act within their world view.

[cryptonector]

Morality is nature-made, not God-made. All you need is empathy, and it turns out that mammals have empathy, and so do birds and others. The golden rule follows from empathy.

Natural Law is NOT a new idea, really. Nor is it foreign to religion! St. Thomas of Aquinas is the father of Natural Law -- almost a millenium ago now -- and a big deal in Christianity. Natural Law is a big deal in the Catholic Church, for example. One might say that St. Augustine vs. St. Aquinas is just a religious expression of the Plato vs. Aristotle.

You'll find plenty of well-read, well-educated, very religious people who take a Natural Law approach to morality and who would agree that what happens in private between consenting adults is almost entirely moral (with some limits, such as perhaps that giving one's life up consensually is not moral). (I myself am agnostic, but still, I take a Natural Law approach to morality.)

Of course, there are schools of thought that reject Natural Law, but you must at least acknowledge Natural Law as a concept. And you should at least accept that Natural Law works for others even if not for you. You have to co-exist with the rest of us.

(Us noticing that other animals have empathy is fairly new though, I think.)

[selllikesybok]

I'm not sure I follow, though it seems we might agree?

You say something is wrong, I can say you saying that something is wrong is, in itself wrong. Ultimately, it either doesn't matter at all (we're all just talking), or enough other people agree with us that there is some social consequence.

[slothtrop]

It just means we're the arbiters of morality; it's a universalism that evolves. It's a social contract. There are some things that don't go right by people.

[poster123]

I strongly disagree. I am atheist but have no doubt that wantonly killing people (or for that matter, animals) is morally wrong. Empirically, I don't think atheists are much more likely than theists to commit crimes.

[troupe]

Is it a moral problem for a lion to kill its prey or another lion for that matter?

[wetpaws]

Do you associate yourself with prey or lion?

[poster123]

Since lions kill to eat, their killing is not "wanton". By wanton I mean just for the fun of it.

[troupe]

So is it different if the lion or other animal is not killing for food?

[virmundi]

Why do you say it's wrong? Wantonly killing a rapist is wrong? Wantonly killing a person in direct competition to resources is wrong? How are you proving any of this? Nature doesn't show that. There are many species that survive using that exact technique. You need to analyze your basis. It's probably something like, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't". That's fine, but why is that a good idea? Why is life good? Look around at the suffering. It could all be over tomorrow if everyone died. Honestly, atheists assume a moral view from theists. Stalin was right: kill your enemies is fine. You can't prove a moral absolute. You can only prove a feeling set that achieves an end you declare is right.

As to committing more crimes, of course not. Why would an atheist put themselves in harms way of the masses? They know that the masses will quickly end their lives for certain crimes. For other crimes, their lives are functionally ended due to incarceration. According to the rational atheist worldview, living is good. Living as free as possible is better. Therefore only commit the crimes you know you can probably get away with.

Ultimately, an atheist can no more say, in an absolute sense, that Joker is worse than Batman.

[selllikesybok]

>Ultimately, an atheist can no more say, in an absolute sense, that Joker is worse than Batman.

The Joker is worse than Batman. ;) Denied.

Let me ask this - do you think an atheist can be ethical?

[virmundi]

Yes. Ethics is nothing more than an arbitrary complex of rules which seek an arbitrary end. The degree to which the individual approximates the system defines how ethical they are.