As an Atheist...

[St. Anger]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

[Goat]

Hmmm... let's imagine a world for a moment where all morals are decided by the individual's emotions. I believe this would not work out too well. Someone called you a dips**t because you did somethins stupid, and you're already having a bad day, so you kill him out of anger (one of the strongest emotions). If morals were decided by emotions, this would happen on a regular basis, and no one would be able to punish them, because they acted on their emotions. Unless, of course, they too kill them out of anger/hate.

Let's take a look at the world right now.. Gosh, it is not working out too well. Can you show that morals are NOT decided upon by emotions?.. in specifically reciprocal altruism and empathy?.. There is the 'I don't do bad stuff to others, and have it backed up by society, and they won't do bad stuff to me'.

[St. Anger]

Hmmm... let's imagine a world for a moment where all morals are decided by the individual's emotions. I believe this would not work out too well. Someone called you a dips**t because you did somethins stupid, and you're already having a bad day, so you kill him out of anger (one of the strongest emotions). If morals were decided by emotions, this would happen on a regular basis, and no one would be able to punish them, because they acted on their emotions. Unless, of course, they too kill them out of anger/hate.

Let's take a look at the world right now.. Gosh, it is not working out too well. Can you show that morals are NOT decided upon by emotions?.. in specifically reciprocal altruism and empathy?.. There is the 'I don't do bad stuff to others, and have it backed up by society, and they won't do bad stuff to me'.

Yes... well you may not have noticed, but today we've evolved so far that we're beyond morals. That's why it's not working out too well. We need to go back to Christian morals, not the objective morality used today that is based upon culture and personal opinion.

[St. Anger]

I already know what you're going to reply with. You will sarcastically list the most horrible things Christians have ever done in the past, and then say, "You want to return to that?!" Well, it's true, we're only human. However, these things were against what the Church teaches, and thus, these men who commited such terrible crimes were not really Christians, were they? Follow the light.

[Goat]

Hmmm... let's imagine a world for a moment where all morals are decided by the individual's emotions. I believe this would not work out too well. Someone called you a dips**t because you did somethins stupid, and you're already having a bad day, so you kill him out of anger (one of the strongest emotions). If morals were decided by emotions, this would happen on a regular basis, and no one would be able to punish them, because they acted on their emotions. Unless, of course, they too kill them out of anger/hate.

Let's take a look at the world right now.. Gosh, it is not working out too well. Can you show that morals are NOT decided upon by emotions?.. in specifically reciprocal altruism and empathy?.. There is the 'I don't do bad stuff to others, and have it backed up by society, and they won't do bad stuff to me'.

Yes... well you may not have noticed, but today we've evolved so far that we're beyond morals. That's why it's not working out too well. We need to go back to Christian morals, not the objective morality used today that is based upon culture and personal opinion.

Really?? CHRISTIAN Morals?? You mean, the ones when people quoted the bible to justify slavery?? Or the ones that are quoted to justify beating wifes/children?

And.. let's makes sure we can have a few good witch burnings.

[St. Anger]

Man I totally called that one. My previous answer to your question before you even asked it still stands (I must be a prophet).

[Goat]

Man I totally called that one. My previous answer to your question before you even asked it still stands (I must be a prophet).

No.. I pointed out what a lot of Christain morals are.. or were..

And frankly.. we can get away from those morals... and gratefully too.

[scourge99]

If the law is the highest source of morality, as some claim,

Who here has claimed this? Are you debating ghosts?

then what made slavery wrong in young America?

Nothing made slavery right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of slavery is relegated to the beliefs of each individual.

It makes no sense to discuss the morality of slavery as some distinct free floating entity separate from a person or group of persons. Likewise it makes no sense to discuss the tastiness of chocolate ice cream as some distinct free floating entity separate from a person or group of persons.

Years before the civil war, practically everyone owned a slave, and the law was fine with it. The lawmakers themselves owned slaves. Was slavery wrong then?

It was wrong to some people. It was acceptable and/or necessary to others. Thornton Stringfellow was a well known and popular pastor during that time who preached that slavery was biblical. His speeches and sermons are available online.

The White people were stronger (in numbers) than the African Americans at the time, so if they wanted to take them as slaves, what's wrong with that?

Because many people today in the western world believe and support ideas about human rights regardless of skin color, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, wealth, etc.

[Clownboat]

Man I totally called that one. My previous answer to your question before you even asked it still stands (I must be a prophet).

From where I sit, you are willing to knowingly use faulty logic.
Nothing prophetic about that.

[dusk]

I already know what you're going to reply with. You will sarcastically list the most horrible things Christians have ever done in the past, and then say, "You want to return to that?!" Well, it's true, we're only human. However, these things were against what the Church teaches, and thus, these men who commited such terrible crimes were not really Christians, were they? Follow the light.

I would rather not. Some NT stuff is okay but if Christian is defined by the bible as some claim I am glad we are beyond that.
It is not only what Chirstians did and do but also what is in that book.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Yeah all this patriarchic morals will be terribly missed. I think the stuff we have today is better.
That old testament should be cleaned out, if I was a Christian I would drop it completely.
Our comparatively feministic morals, morals for the rights of children, the immorality of slavery and rape.
Our culture and personal opinion serves us better morals than that uncivilized patriarchic stuff.
The decent stuff in the bible can be found elsewhere too and is not "Christian".

[4gold]

Here's where I'm going with this...where no contract exists between you and me, and I intend to destroy you, do you have any grounds for moral appeal? Or do you just go down fighting, because you understand morality is mere social contract, so the bigger consumes the smaller where the contract is nonexistent?

Well given that the bigger comsumes the smaller has played out hundreds of times throughout history, which do you think better describe reality? That there is an moral absolute that one can appeal to; Or that there is no such thing as moral absolutes, just contracts between willing parties.

Great question! I'll bet the bigger always believes in social contract, and the smaller always believes in moral absolutes.