[dxd]

Ah, moral relativism. I believe there is no way around the idea that without religion, there is no such thing as morality. It all comes down to the question: how do you know what's right and wrong? If you don't have an external moral code, that is, you decide what is right and wrong, then the odds are stacked against you, 1 out of every individual with a unique opinion to ever exist; it is conceited for anyone to believe they are the one. Not even the majority is always correct; at one point in time the majority of the Earth believed slavery was fine, yet today we are so comfortable to say that was evil. I couldn't agree more strongly that it is evil, but what will the majority of society think about our morals in a millennium? Why start "the 21st century popular culture religion" when it is inevitably fallible to time? The only possible solution is an external moral code. That is what the Bible, the Koran, etc... are: absolute right and absolute wrong. If that doesn't exist, why should I believe I'm any better than Hitler? He believed he was right. You wouldn't even be able to reason that murder is evil. Ultimately, there is no other basis for an atheist than: "That's what I feel is right, so that's what I believe."

Sidenote: I am a Christian, so I'd like to briefly correct the "(when women were without worth, slavery was acceptable, etc)" phrase pertaining to Christianity solely. At its core, the Bible teaches the very opposite of sexism and racism, however, misconstrued verses and nominal Christians distort the message.

[defrost]

> I am a Christian, so I'd like to briefly correct the ..

With no disrespect toward yourself, just a wry acknowledgement of a plain truth - the essential issue with <Some Text> as the external guidebook is that despite it being "conceited for anyone to believe they are the one" this is more or less the sharding issue of the many many many differing interpretations of (choose your own) <Some Book>.

I've travelled the world a lot in the past six deacades and lost count of how many clearly distinct groups of Christians I've encountered.

The Christian on Christian wars over differing takes on the same material have torn kingdoms asunder.

[moshegramovsky]

You're exactly right.

[nnf]

> without religion, there is no such thing as morality.

Would you agree that non-human animals aren’t religious? Because we see moral behavior in animals. For example [1]:

> In another experiment with rats, researchers find that if a rat is given the choice between two containers—one holding chocolate and one holding a trapped rat who appears to be suffering—the rat will try to help the suffering rat first before seeking the chocolate. Experiments like these show that animals make moral choices and that their behavior cannot be explained through natural selection alone.

There are lots of other examples, like animals that call out to warn their group of an approaching predator, placing themselves at higher risk.

Also, it seems like you’re arguing that an “external” moral code is The Only Way but then excusing people in biblical times for owning slaves because “that was a long time ago.” But shouldn’t their supposed access to this special moral code have been sufficient to conclude that owning humans as property is immoral?

> You wouldn't even be able to reason that murder is evil.

This is just downright silly. As a rational, thinking person, it’s easy to reason why murdering fellow human beings is not good.

> the Bible teaches the very opposite of sexism

Anyone can search for “sexism in the bible” to see what it has to say in its own words. For convenience, here’s one such link [2].

[1] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/morality_anima...

[2] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_sexism

[pstuart]

That take presumes that the morals you've been taught came directly from the lips of God. Otherwise, it's other people making stuff up.

The Golden Rule is pretty self-explanatory and is a solid foundation for moral behavior. I don't rape, murder, steal, etc., not because I'm afraid of God's wrath, or that of the police -- it's because I wouldn't want those things to happen to me or my loved ones and am able to understand that others feel this way too.

Meanwhile, that moral absolutism give license to kill people for blasphemy. And there's plenty more horrible things that are done to others because God said so.

Everybody's entitled to have their own relationship with God (even as an atheist I do in my own way), and I acknowledge that there's plenty of good that comes from people practicing their faith, but that is easily countered by very bad stuff that is morally justified by their interpretations of scripture.

And this concern is everybody's -- because there's ongoing efforts to make the US into a theocracy and that would be a very bad thing.

[arkey]

Are you, by "scripture" referring to the Bible, or just in general for religious texts?

I acknowledge that a lot of people do very bad things and supposedly justify them with the Bible. But I suggest that if they did something bad, then their justification is wrong, and can't truly be based on the Bible.

I also suggest that when someone justified something bad through the Bible, it can most definitely be countered and corrected with the Bible itself.

[pstuart]

> I also suggest that when someone justified something bad through the Bible, it can most definitely be countered and corrected with the Bible itself

Then you're down to opinion vs opinion. Add into that the work that Bart Erhman has done on the veracity of the texts themselves, as well as the fact that the bible was assembled by committee (of men).

We're all entitled to our own beliefs, so I normally wouldn't care, except there are active factions trying to make the US be ruled by biblical law. So in that context, this act of interpretation is very much of everybody's interest.

[moshegramovsky]

Well said!

[Kim_Bruning]

Would you say that you behave in a moral way because you fear the threat of hell (extrinsic, negative motivation), or because you follow the example of Jesus Christ in your heart (intrinsic, positive motivation)?

[jurynulifcation]

I think your analysis fails at the step where you propose a universalized, objectively correct morality. Please show me the empirical test for this. Or is it just about whether you feel your actions accord with the word of God? Because even then you're just practicing moral relativism and waving your hands at a book composed by fallible humans, all of whom were doing the same, all the way back to before the canons were written. Is it because the book is supposedly divinely-inspired? How do you know the correct divinity inspired the correct people in the correct way? even standing on the soapbox of "well uh uh uh of course my religion is the correct one you smelly heretic" you literally have nothing to go off of except your own feelings and perspective.

So, in short, I don't find your position very convincing. Also, if Christians were some sort of uniquely enlightened group with special access to the metaphysical groups of the universe, why do they keep falling into the same patterns of behavior as all the other humans who don't have this divine guarantee? Like, if religion was actually some special basis upon which to erect a human morality, why does it achieve such similar outcomes as every other basis? If it's because "humans are fallible and don't always accord perfectly to the perfect divine plan allocated to them," then, again, how is that exactly non-relativistic? Is it because the book exists as some sort of measuring stick by which to determine the essential goodness of someone? Because even that depends on the fallible interpretation of the interpreter, unless you presuppose some special person who is blessed with divine discernment to determine the actual divinely-approved interpretation.

It all ultimately devolves to "you just gotta have faith bro." I do not have faith in an entire group of people thumbing their noses at everyone else like their shit doesn't stink. Antisemitism and hate is literally built into every canonical version of Christianity by way of the Churchfathers.

Maybe we should judge Christianity on the outcomes of Christians, instead of on the most compassionate and kindest way they beg us to take their positions. Actually looking at the facts reveals something most priests blush about... we're all equally clueless. The major difference between me and a Christian is that I don't actively look forward to dying, in the hopes I'll get The Good Ending and have an infinitely good time after I've perished in service to people who have an incentive to get me to live my life in service to them.

[prometheus76]

Your reply presupposes that "empirical tests" are the only way to establish truth, which is inadequate. What is the "empirical test" for a mother's love for her child? Or a teacher's love for a student? What is the empirical test for someone being the mayor? What is the empirical test for whether someone is in a relationship with someone else?

Empiricism is blind to most of human experience.

[jurynulifcation]

The empirical test for my subjective experience is my experiencing it, what a mind blowing revelation that things can exist in gradations. Shocking. I never said empirical tests are the only way to establish truth, but if you're presupposing an objective and universalized "correct morality" then it doesn't seem stupid to suppose that such a universal thing might be empirical. Or, failing something you can point to that exists in external objective space, that maybe you're just practicing the same kind of moral relativism an entire group of people are practicing and all loudly crying that "boo it's not relativism because sky daddy loves us :'("

[prometheus76]

There are many things that are true and real that you can't point to in external objective space. Categories. Concepts. Language. Grammar. Numbers. Something doesn't have to be physical or empirical to be real or useful to human experience. So I repeat: empiricism is inadequate for capturing what is true or real. Check out the writings of David Hume. The needful distinction between physical and metaphysical goes all the way back to Aristotle, to be fair.

[jurynulifcation]

Categories are concepts in the mind. Concepts are constructs in the mind. Language is a construct in the mind. Grammar is a construct in the mind. Numbers are constructs in the mind. They're nice easy ways to divide things that like actually exist in external objective space into easy-to-deal-with buckets. The existence of the subjective doesn't make the subjective somehow an objective, externalizable phenomenon, nor does it necessarily imply anything metaphysical.

I'm still waiting to hear how outsourcing your moral judgments to external human artifacts somehow implies moral absolutism, as opposed to self-reinforcing intersubjective moral relativism.

[prometheus76]

Any concept is metaphysical. It maps onto physical reality, but is above it, separate from it. Same with numbers. Same with everything else I said. They are all metaphysical. When I say "metaphysical" I'm not using it to refer to ghosts or to paranormal stuff. I'm using it with the philosophical definition of being "above the physical". Categories map onto reality, but they are not physical.

I don't have any idea what your last sentence means. But I am making the case that something can be real and objective without being empirical.

[intalentive]

tips fedora

[jurynulifcation]

Ah yes, mockery, did Samson not have a good comeback line recorded in the canons for you to lift? After all, I suppose if those of weak minds aren't told that a comeback line has been divinely approved, then how can they know it is in fact a sick burn? curious