On what grounds do atheist call things wrong?

[Subgeniustan]

This is a ridiculous argument. Obviously anybody can call things right and wrong because each person has their own sense of morality. Only a very small percentage of people either are sociopaths who are naturally amoral, or choose to adopt a philosophy that they do not believe in any form of morality. The vast majority of atheists DO have our own personal senses of morality, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. Morality does not come from a nonexistent "God". Religious people actually get their personal senses of morality the EXACT same way as atheists: some things they learn are right and wrong from other people telling them this and them agreeing, and also in some cases they think for themselves and decide that something they see or hear about is either right or wrong. "God" is not the source of morality for ANYBODY; everybody has the SAME source of morality: their OWN BRAIN. And if you think Christians all follow the same "absolute morality" from this "God" fellow who doesn't exist, then why do so many different Christian denominations have such different teachings about what is right and wrong? The idea that there is just one Christian moral system and all Christians have the same exact system of morality is ridiculous. They are all individual human beings with individual senses of what is right and wrong, just like atheists, just like people of other religions. In fact, we even have a word for the part of the human mind that decides what is right and what is wrong: the CONSCIENCE. THAT is the source of all morality, for EVERYBODY, including all the people who refuse to admit it. If you think about it, this helps explain why so many people out there do things that other people consider immoral: everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't. We could have an intrusive moralistic government that would try to legislate morality and make everything certain people consider immoral illegal, but then the vast majority of people would think this intrusive moralist government was the most immoral thing around, for denying people any freedoms and making a large number of what are known as "victimless crimes" illegal, and being unnecessarily intrusive into people's private lives. This is part of why morality and legality are 2 entirely different concepts, although generally speaking, the most immoral things that virtually everyone agrees are immoral tend to also be illegal as well, and a large percentage of things that are illegal tend to also be considered immoral by most people. When you make something illegal and many people don't consider it immoral, for example putting a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on a road somewhere or making file-sharing of copyrighted material illegal or making marijuana illegal, plenty of people will quite willfully break that law and see absolutely nothing morally wrong with their actions. Pat Robertson of all people recently said on his show that he thinks marijuana ought to be legal. This shows that even fundamentalist Christians can't agree on a single system of morality, and that their idea of a single "absolute morality" is a sham. The best evidence that morality is a personal thing and everyone forms their own moral beliefs independently is to just look at all the wide variety of opinions posted in this thread by people who all claim to have morality. Religion may TRY to get everyone to have the same system of morality, but it has been a failure; just look at how the vast majority of American Catholics reject their own religion's "moral" stance on contraception, for instance.

[Ifreann]

Nor do I, but if it was to come from anywhere it'd be a fundamental property of the universe like gravity or the speed of light.

Not the human mind? I always thought that empathy is the source of morality. At least as far as humans go.

That wouldn't be very objective, though, would it?

[Person012345]

The universe and life eh? You have some justification for that? Morality itself is a figment of the imagination - it doesn't physically exist in any form, it's just a made up code. True there are biological reasons that most people think, say, murder is wrong, but then "because it's natural" is itself not a justification for anything. So the mere existance of biological reasoning behind a moral code does not make it right or moral.

Yay moral nihilism!

To a degree. But then, what I say is right, so it's ok.

[Genivaria]

Not the human mind? I always thought that empathy is the source of morality. At least as far as humans go.

That wouldn't be very objective, though, would it?

Assuming we're only talking about humans, why wouldn't it be objective?

[Jormengand]

Something very clever.

Well done! I herby commend you for providing something which is actually correct!

[Ifreann]

That wouldn't be very objective, though, would it?

Assuming we're only talking about humans, why wouldn't it be objective?

There's over 7 billion humans. I'm sure there's a fair bit of variation in our brains.

[Subgeniustan]

Nor do I, but if it was to come from anywhere it'd be a fundamental property of the universe like gravity or the speed of light.

Not the human mind? I always thought that empathy is the source of morality. At least as far as humans go.

Empathy is not the source of morality, because plenty of moral people such as myself are incapable of empathy due to having Autism spectrum disorders. The psychiatric profession has traditionally classified those of us on the Autism spectrum (myself included, as someone with Asperger Syndrome) as not having any empathy. However, most people on the Autism spectrum also have very strong senses of morality and moral beliefs. I would argue that morality comes from having a CONSCIENCE, and a conscience does not require empathy, only a brain capable of thinking. Anybody can have a conscience, except for a complete sociopath (someone with no morals). A famous example of a sociopath with no morals would be Bernie Madoff. Sociopaths only make up around 1% of the population, luckily, so the other 99% all have morality, including atheists (I am an atheist myself). As for why sociopaths don't have any morals, it can be argued that they have an evolutionary benefit, since they can do whatever they want without feeling any remorse or guilt (in fact, feelings of remorse and guilt are impossible for a sociopath), and this allows sociopaths to do things that other people are afraid to do and find morally objectionable. According to most estimates, the percentage of people working on Wall Street who are sociopaths is about 10%, 10 times as high as in the population at large, and about half of the people in most maximum-security prisons are sociopaths, 50 times higher than the population at large. Sociopaths actually DO have empathy (empathy is the ability to understand how other people are feeling), and this is their greatest weapon in manipulating and exploiting other people for their own selfish gain. What they lack is a CONSCIENCE, a sense of right and wrong, something that allows them to feel guilt or remorse. People on the Autism spectrum are the reverse of this: they have consciences but not empathy. It would be possible for someone to lack both a conscience AND empathy, but statistically speaking, that would only occur in about 1 in 10,000 people, since about 1% of humans don't have a conscience and another 1% don't have empathy. See the Wikipedia article on empathy where it discusses the Autism spectrum (which I am a part of myself).

[Coccygia]

There are other bases for morality than belief in an invisible old man in the sky who is highly concerned with everything you do.

Fool, haven't you noticed that I've been raping, killing and stealing ever since I stopped believing that an invisible man in the sky was watching me?

Of course I have noticed. Who do you think that invisible old man is, hmmm? Better watch it, Skippy.

[Bottle]

Empathy is not the source of morality, because plenty of moral people such as myself are incapable of empathy due to having Autism spectrum disorders. The psychiatric profession has traditionally classified those of us on the Autism spectrum (myself included, as someone with Asperger Syndrome) as not having any empathy.

Um...NO???

I don't know who told you this, but they are flat out wrong, and if they are a medical or psychiatric professional then they should have their license revoked.

Lack of social or emotional reciprocity MAY be one of the symptoms of SOME autism spectrum disorders, but even that is questioned because of the host of communication, language, and behavioral disabilities that also tend to go along with the disorders.

Plenty of people with autism or autism spectrum disorders have highly developed sense of empathy.

It's fine if you want to argue that empathy isn't essential for morality, but please don't spread misinformation about neurological conditions.

[Natapoc]

By using entirely arbitrary starting points, much like religions do.

They are not arbitrary. they are systematic.

[Person012345]

By using entirely arbitrary starting points, much like religions do.

They are not arbitrary. they are systematic.

They are arbitrary. They fit the definition of arbitrary precisely.

Remember that religious morals are human morals, and are only as arbitrary as anyone elses.

[The Pretend Pub]

If you tried to read a Wikipedia article, you wouldn't have asked here. Hence the issue.

I don't feel like reading paragraphs of Times New Roman.

So instead you're going to read paragraphs of...what, exactly? Arial? Helvetica? Comic Sans Serif?

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

By using entirely arbitrary starting points, much like religions do.

Well the Christian starting point was a hipster socialist bro, and look where that ended up.

[Seperates]

I don't feel like reading paragraphs of Times New Roman.

So instead you're going to read paragraphs of...what, exactly? Arial? Helvetica? Comic Sans Serif?

Wing-dings. *nods* Though I prefer Wing-dings 2 myself.

[Northwest Slobovia]

By using entirely arbitrary starting points, much like religions do.

They are not arbitrary. they are systematic.

Systematic? How so?

The only two ethical systems I know in detail are the Utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperative. Both of them try the same pretty much the same reasoning people use for mathematical proofs: try to convince the reader of certain "fundamental truths", and then get him to accept certain rules of reaching other conclusions from them. (But nowhere near as formalized nor as widely accepted as Euclidean geometry or other branches of math.) Obviously, both types would like to say they've thought about their starting points, but I can't say they're systematic (except for the hand-waving systematic study implied by "everybody will agree that...").

[The Pretend Pub]

This is a ridiculous argument. Obviously anybody can call things right and wrong because each person has their own sense of morality. Only a very small percentage of people either are sociopaths who are naturally amoral, or choose to adopt a philosophy that they do not believe in any form of morality. The vast majority of atheists DO have our own personal senses of morality, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. Morality does not come from a nonexistent "God". Religious people actually get their personal senses of morality the EXACT same way as atheists: some things they learn are right and wrong from other people telling them this and them agreeing, and also in some cases they think for themselves and decide that something they see or hear about is either right or wrong. "God" is not the source of morality for ANYBODY; everybody has the SAME source of morality: their OWN BRAIN. And if you think Christians all follow the same "absolute morality" from this "God" fellow who doesn't exist, then why do so many different Christian denominations have such different teachings about what is right and wrong? The idea that there is just one Christian moral system and all Christians have the same exact system of morality is ridiculous. They are all individual human beings with individual senses of what is right and wrong, just like atheists, just like people of other religions. In fact, we even have a word for the part of the human mind that decides what is right and what is wrong: the CONSCIENCE. THAT is the source of all morality, for EVERYBODY, including all the people who refuse to admit it. If you think about it, this helps explain why so many people out there do things that other people consider immoral: everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't. We could have an intrusive moralistic government that would try to legislate morality and make everything certain people consider immoral illegal, but then the vast majority of people would think this intrusive moralist government was the most immoral thing around, for denying people any freedoms and making a large number of what are known as "victimless crimes" illegal, and being unnecessarily intrusive into people's private lives. This is part of why morality and legality are 2 entirely different concepts, although generally speaking, the most immoral things that virtually everyone agrees are immoral tend to also be illegal as well, and a large percentage of things that are illegal tend to also be considered immoral by most people. When you make something illegal and many people don't consider it immoral, for example putting a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on a road somewhere or making file-sharing of copyrighted material illegal or making marijuana illegal, plenty of people will quite willfully break that law and see absolutely nothing morally wrong with their actions. Pat Robertson of all people recently said on his show that he thinks marijuana ought to be legal. This shows that even fundamentalist Christians can't agree on a single system of morality, and that their idea of a single "absolute morality" is a sham. The best evidence that morality is a personal thing and everyone forms their own moral beliefs independently is to just look at all the wide variety of opinions posted in this thread by people who all claim to have morality. Religion may TRY to get everyone to have the same system of morality, but it has been a failure; just look at how the vast majority of American Catholics reject their own religion's "moral" stance on contraception, for instance.

I'm not convinced you're aware that "moral absolutism" and "moral objectivism" are not synonyms, but rather are endpoints of two orthogonal axes.

[Ifreann]

Empathy is not the source of morality, because plenty of moral people such as myself are incapable of empathy due to having Autism spectrum disorders. The psychiatric profession has traditionally classified those of us on the Autism spectrum (myself included, as someone with Asperger Syndrome) as not having any empathy.

Um...NO???

I don't know who told you this, but they are flat out wrong, and if they are a medical or psychiatric professional then they should have their license revoked.

Lack of social or emotional reciprocity MAY be one of the symptoms of SOME autism spectrum disorders, but even that is questioned because of the host of communication, language, and behavioral disabilities that also tend to go along with the disorders.

Plenty of people with autism or autism spectrum disorders have highly developed sense of empathy.

It's fine if you want to argue that empathy isn't essential for morality, but please don't spread misinformation about neurological conditions.

I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish in arguing with him. He has Asperger's, and is thus more qualified as a neuroscientist that you, a mere qualified neuroscientist. You may as well disagree with me about potatoes.

[Ifreann]

I don't feel like reading paragraphs of Times New Roman.

So instead you're going to read paragraphs of...what, exactly? Arial? Helvetica? Comic Sans Serif?

Papyrus.

[Person012345]

Um...NO???

I don't know who told you this, but they are flat out wrong, and if they are a medical or psychiatric professional then they should have their license revoked.

Lack of social or emotional reciprocity MAY be one of the symptoms of SOME autism spectrum disorders, but even that is questioned because of the host of communication, language, and behavioral disabilities that also tend to go along with the disorders.

Plenty of people with autism or autism spectrum disorders have highly developed sense of empathy.

It's fine if you want to argue that empathy isn't essential for morality, but please don't spread misinformation about neurological conditions.

I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish in arguing with him. He has Asperger's, and is thus more qualified as a neuroscientist that you, a mere qualified neuroscientist. You may as well disagree with me about potatoes.

Qualified neuroscientist, schmalified schmeuroscientist. I am an experience armchair e-psychiatrist, so there.

[Ifreann]

I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish in arguing with him. He has Asperger's, and is thus more qualified as a neuroscientist that you, a mere qualified neuroscientist. You may as well disagree with me about potatoes.

Qualified neuroscientist, schmalified schmeuroscientist. I am an experience armchair e-psychiatrist, so there.

Share your wisdom with me, o learned one.

[Person012345]

Qualified neuroscientist, schmalified schmeuroscientist. I am an experience armchair e-psychiatrist, so there.

Share your wisdom with me, o learned one.

Clearly Bottle is just jealous because they can't maintain an erection and thus feels the need to pick on an autistic boy because they are projecting their own inadequacies.

[The Pretend Pub]

Share your wisdom with me, o learned one.

Clearly Bottle is just jealous because they can't maintain an erection and thus feels the need to pick on an autistic boy because they are projecting their own inadequacies.

You are correct, Bottle cannot maintain an erection.

[The USOT]

This is a ridiculous argument. Obviously anybody can call things right and wrong because each person has their own sense of morality. Only a very small percentage of people either are sociopaths who are naturally amoral, or choose to adopt a philosophy that they do not believe in any form of morality. The vast majority of atheists DO have our own personal senses of morality, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. Morality does not come from a nonexistent "God". Religious people actually get their personal senses of morality the EXACT same way as atheists: some things they learn are right and wrong from other people telling them this and them agreeing, and also in some cases they think for themselves and decide that something they see or hear about is either right or wrong. "God" is not the source of morality for ANYBODY; everybody has the SAME source of morality: their OWN BRAIN. And if you think Christians all follow the same "absolute morality" from this "God" fellow who doesn't exist, then why do so many different Christian denominations have such different teachings about what is right and wrong? The idea that there is just one Christian moral system and all Christians have the same exact system of morality is ridiculous. They are all individual human beings with individual senses of what is right and wrong, just like atheists, just like people of other religions. In fact, we even have a word for the part of the human mind that decides what is right and what is wrong: the CONSCIENCE. THAT is the source of all morality, for EVERYBODY, including all the people who refuse to admit it. If you think about it, this helps explain why so many people out there do things that other people consider immoral: everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't. We could have an intrusive moralistic government that would try to legislate morality and make everything certain people consider immoral illegal, but then the vast majority of people would think this intrusive moralist government was the most immoral thing around, for denying people any freedoms and making a large number of what are known as "victimless crimes" illegal, and being unnecessarily intrusive into people's private lives. This is part of why morality and legality are 2 entirely different concepts, although generally speaking, the most immoral things that virtually everyone agrees are immoral tend to also be illegal as well, and a large percentage of things that are illegal tend to also be considered immoral by most people. When you make something illegal and many people don't consider it immoral, for example putting a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on a road somewhere or making file-sharing of copyrighted material illegal or making marijuana illegal, plenty of people will quite willfully break that law and see absolutely nothing morally wrong with their actions. Pat Robertson of all people recently said on his show that he thinks marijuana ought to be legal. This shows that even fundamentalist Christians can't agree on a single system of morality, and that their idea of a single "absolute morality" is a sham. The best evidence that morality is a personal thing and everyone forms their own moral beliefs independently is to just look at all the wide variety of opinions posted in this thread by people who all claim to have morality. Religion may TRY to get everyone to have the same system of morality, but it has been a failure; just look at how the vast majority of American Catholics reject their own religion's "moral" stance on contraception, for instance.

I agree with your argument, and this is entirely a side point, but just as some advice I reccomend trying to shorten your argument. You make your position clear and give example, but it carries on for quite a bit.

Whilst in some cases, a long drawn out argument is for the best, cases such as these usually fit a much smaller, precise and notable argument (as people on the internet are generally more inclined to ignore details of a post if it is too long).
I commend you for the effort you put into your posts, I genuinly do. However I still reccomend shortening it down just to make your points more effective when read to others.

[Chinese Regions]

I may be generalising here but about in every society, excluding it as a punishment, killing is wrong. Some are distantly related or completely unrelated. But they are all human, and have the same instincts, pure morality is instinct, religious people may add to that and say so and so is immoral and sin and give both killing and said sin a common origin for the laws that say killing and said sin are wrong, such as god or karma, nonetheless deep down, basic morals are instincts, they are part of are DNA, they are mechanisms for our survival. Homosexuality and eating pork are NOT immoral things and are the result of religion.

[Wikkiwallana]

Clearly Bottle is just jealous because they can't maintain an erection and thus feels the need to pick on an autistic boy because they are projecting their own inadequacies.

You are correct, Bottle cannot maintain an erection.

He didn't say it had to be hers…