How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[Bust Nak]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[boatsnguitars]

Again, I have not been saying here that morals are objective, but that atheistic moral theories lead to subjective morality if one follows their own logic out. Are you disagreeing with me and saying my account of humor would lead to objectivity? That would be the analogical equivalent here.

Again:
1. I believe morals are subjective. I don't believe I need to support my reasoning as you agree.
2. You have tried to make the case that under Theism morals would be Objective. I gave you ample reasons why moral theorists feel this is untrue, but more to the point, if you are interested in this, I would encourage you to read up on moral theories that discuss whether morals are real or not. If they aren't real, then it doesn't matter if a God exists - that God would simply be expressing his personal, subjective outrage at some acts. As God he'd be able to enforce his desires, but it wouldn't mean that morals are objective or real, only that the Mob Boss or Toy Maker has the ultimate power to enforce his opinions on others. That is not what someone would call Objective: the fact that God feels, say, homosexuality is wrong, doesn't make it objectively wrong - it only means God doesn't like it.
3. Similar to morals, humor or beauty could be things we all consider subjective, or objective (some Theists do claim there is objective beauty).
4. The biggest take away is that you are the one interested in this, so it's on you to understand all the arguments - not rely on me to defend all positions. It's enough for me to say that moral theorists have had robust conversations about these issues and there is not a consensus. To assume you have nailed down one that works for you is great - subjectively great for you.
5. To reiterate, there are atheistic moral theories that lead to morals being real. This fact doesn't change if you disagree with my presentation of these ideas. If you are truly interestsed, read up on it. It's not something for you to dismiss or disagree with - it's like anything that we don't know: information to consider.
6. To follow 5, it appears to me you are trying to convince yourself that you are right about moral values, and not that you are trying to understand all the nuances of the conversation.

[Bust Nak]

[JoeyKnothead]

[Using quote function to refer folks to the brilliance displayed, that leads me to...]

If only for me, the subjective nature of morality is why it's so important we discuss our morality, in terms of why or why not. We need to understand our cultures, and opinions, the how comes, and the shame on yous.

If morality is some objective holy writ, then what's to discuss? "God said it, so there", has been, throughout history, and will today be used in some form to deny rights, to imprison, and even to kill one or many of our fellow human beings.

It's a parlor trick for the theist to avoid the problems with "God said so" morality, by trying to poke holes in atheist logic regarding the topic.

This entire thread can be ground to a halt if just one solitary theist could show their god even has an opinion on morality, instead of reading, as the finger moves thoroughly, and ploddingly along, through their holy text.

You know as well danged as I, that ain't gonna happen. The theist can no more show their god has an opinion, than they can show he's there to even have him one.

So the theist continues this... this... this display of trying to discuss this topic with some sense of dignity, as they peer around the elephant just to read the arguments being put forth.

It's a common enough tactic, it needs it a name, but being dumb of bulb and dim as rock, I don't know it.

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[JoeyKnothead]