reply to post by FyreByrd
Interesting answer. I haven't gone through the whole thread, but here's my take on it.
The question of "why are you moral if you don't believe in God" presupposes a lot and actually, I think it's a pretty weak question to begin with.
I'm a Christian, so let me throw that out there first. I didn't grow up Christian, thought Christianity was a crock of poo for most of my life until
I actually began to investigate it's claims.
The question is NOT why are you still moral if you don't believe in God. It's much deeper than that.
So let's say this "raping and torturing babies for entertainment and fun". Most people would suggest that under no circumstances would that be
"right." But, if you are of the elk of atheistic thinkers, then morality is relative to culture/society and the individual, and so if another
culture declared that "raping and torturing babies for entertainment and fun" is an acceptable practice, then to them, it's acceptable and
considered "right." That's moral relativity for you.
But let's dig in deeper. When it comes to choices, we live in a closed system. We either do something, or we don't. I'm speaking in general terms
here. Even if there are 5 choices in front of you, the bottom line is that you will choose to act upon one decision. We are rational beings right? But
isn't it strange how we can talk ourselves into doing something believing it's the "right" thing to do at the time, and then look back and realize
how wrong it was? Ever had that happen?
That tells us a couple of things. One, that our own judgment is not always sound. Two, there has to be an objective moral values that are independent
to any individual/culture/nation that humanity shares.
Now I think most people will agree with me on the first point. But the second, some agree, some don't. You can posit that there is objective moral
values without positing God. But here is where you might start losing ground.
If morality is purely relative as some suggest, then there is no true sense of right and wrong, just preference. You can't blame anyone for doing
"bad" because it's just their perspective, their relative state of mind. If there is an objective right and wrong, then we know that there is a
moral law, in that there is a capacity to make a decision of right and wrong. If there is a moral law, there has to be a law giver. But here's where
people don't like to go.
If there is no moral law giver, then there are no moral laws. If there are no moral laws, then right and wrong are mere perspectives. If right and
wrong are just perspectives, then they are simply illusory qualities that only exist in the individual. Right and wrong become meaningless.
So atheists...the question is:
How do you operate as an agent of morals when right and wrong are only relative to your own perspective? In other words, how do you know that your
"right" is really "right" or your "wrong" is really "wrong"?