atheists and agnostics: Where do u draw the line between whats moral and immoral?

Question

If I said rape and murder was right for me, what would u say? If u say that its bad than your saying there is an absolute right and wrong. But that would contradict yourself by saying there are absolutes.

http://www.absolutetruth.net/truth/

READ THIS
http://www.probe.org/reasons-to-believe/reasons-to-believe/answering-the-big-questions-of-life.html

Answer 1

Good grief! Christians didn't invent morality!!

Answer 2

First, If u said rape and murder was OK, I would say you are crazy. Its not possible to have a functioning society where that type behavior is OK. You define morality as an obedience towards a god. I define morality as a function of having a brain. Kinda like how digestion is a function of having a stomach.

Second, when did atheists say there are no absolutes? I can say it is absolutely true that I am answering this question...right?
You should not put all atheists into one category. You dont want people doing it to you. The only thing atheists have in common, for the most part, is a lack of a belief in any type of a god.

Third, you are trying wayyyy to hard here to back atheists into a corner. Its obvious that you have not really looked into the atheist perspective, but you are claiming that you have. Why?

I question your real intent with a question worded such as this one is!!

Answer 3

You are repeating the age-old mistake religious people make in regard to atheists and morality. You think we believe in "anything goes." We don't. In order for many people to live together and create an orderly society, there must be laws. What one person does often has an effect upon others, and one does not have the right to harm others. Atheists simply don't accept that laws and ideas of morality should be based on vague, archaic, and often ridiculous religious scriptures. Rape and murder were considered immoral before Islam, Christianity, and Judaism existed.

Answer 4

Absolute: adj. 1. perfect, complete. 2. not mixed; pure. 3. not limited. 4. positive. 5. not doubted; real. 6. not relative.

Going by the definition, does that mean there are perfect/pure rights and wrongs? Unlimited rights and wrongs? Irrelevant rights and wrongs? Or undoubtable rights and wrongs? I'd be apt to go with the latter if I were to say anything about absolute rights and wrongs, which have nothing to do with religion.

There are plenty of things that are true for all humans, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof. Morality is one of them.

Morality: n. 1. rightness or wrongness, as of an action. 2. right or moral conduct. 3. moral principles

Don't see anything about religion in there. Guess that means that morality isn't exclusive to religion. Neither is being moral, looking at that definition as well.

Moral: adj. 1. dealing with, or capable of distinguishing between, right and wrong. 2. of teaching, or in accordance with the principles of right and wrong. 3. good in conduct or character, specif., sexually virtuous. 4. involving sympathy without action. 5. virtually such because of effects on thoughts or attitudes. 6. based on probability.-- n. 1. a moral lesson taught by a fable, event, etc. 2. principles or standards with respect to right or wrong in conduct.

No mention of religion there, either. So if morals and morality isn't exclusive to religious beliefs, then indeed, HOW does someone with no beliefs be moral and decide what's right or wrong?

Simple. It's wrong when it hurts another person in any way, be it physically(rape and murder), mentally(lying, slander), financially(stealing), emotionally(adultery) and so forth. When you hurt another person or group of people, you are acting wrongly and behaving "immorally". No religion involved.

Answer 5

The lines are drawn based on emotions of compassion and empathy and ideas such as basic human rights, the creation of laws, and the creation of a judicial system.

If you say rape and murder are right for you, I would say they are wrong for the person being raped and murdered, are wrong for society, and are against the law, and you will be prosecuted.

That's not saying there is an absolute . . .each individual case needs to be considered on it's own merits . . .if someone broke into your home and tried to kill you and you shot them in self defense, that's an extenuating circumstance . . .

There is always a context . . .

Answer 6

First off - atheist don't believe in God. Period. The definition goes no farther than that. Therefore, atheists don't necessarily have a problem with absolutes. That is one of the lies told to discredit us.

Second, I would use the measuring tool of The Golden Rule and I would ask myself if your behaviors were hurting anybody else. Since rape and murder obviously do harm other people then they are absolutely wrong.

It's just common sense.

A

Answer 7

Morality...right and wrong...are defined by what society deems to be right or wrong. Think about it. Things that used to be morally acceptable centuries ago is not necessarily so today. In biblical times it was morally acceptable to stone a disobedient child to death! Do you think that this would be acceptable today? Centuries ago it was morally acceptable for a girl to be married by the age of 12. Today? Morality is not an absolute. It is relative to the time and what the people or society (as a whole) deem to be morally correct.

Answer 8

at an analogous time as no longer unavoidably a proper instruction manual, an immoral act is something that reasons harm to persons besides with the aid of fact the popular functionality of the popular social team (in this subject, civilization as an entire). as an occasion, homicide is an for sure immoral act because it reasons direct harm to somebody, besides as weakens the functioning of the gang; permitting human beings to outright kill one yet another does not foster cooperation and as a result collective survival. robbery is an immoral act with the aid of fact it harms yet another individual's probabilities of survival and lower back, any team wherein source robbery is permissible would probably crumple. something like incest is particularly low on the totem pole in this subject, assuming that the type of liaison is consensual between 2 human beings able to understanding consent. i'd have slightly greater subject approximately incest particularly than homosexuality, with the aid of fact infants born of incestuous relationships tend to have greater beginning ailment costs; in a feeling, the incest has had a greater physically powerful risk to bring about the suffering of somebody and could be frowned upon. no longer a proper type, yet usually i think of of issues in terms of how they'll quantifiably help of ward off social functionality.

Answer 9

Your argument is flawed - terribly.

I live by the Golden Rule - treat others how you would want to be treated. So, if you say you like to murder and rape, Id say it was bad because I wouldnt want to be raped or murdered - not because of any absolute right and wrong... some people may enjoy bneing raped. Some (few tiny portion of the population) enjoys being killed and eaten (read up about cannibals and their victims who offer themselves up willingly....) To those people, I say "Go on with your bad self - whatever floats your boat. Just dont rape or kill me."

Answer 10

Ok... think I should save this in a file, then I don't have to constantly retype it.

You already know. It's better to live in a world where everyone isn't trying to hurt each other all the time, isn't it? If you need a book to tell you that, you are in need of some serious mental help.

Answer 11

To this society, rape and murder are wrong. We follow society's laws, not our own.

Also, there aren't any situations where I could justify murder or rape.

If you believe rape and murder are right for you, fine. That's your perrogative. But, believing in them and practicing them are two different things.