Atheists are having it too easy.

[SideysGhost]

No. But if there is no ultimate source of right and wrong then you have no grounds for criticising someone who believes stealing or murder, for example, is fine. You can say that you feel it's wrong, or you think it's wrong, but that's about it. And this person just has a different opinion to you.

Eh? That doesn't follow at all.

Any society must have a basic social contract, else the society collapses. This is why things like murder and theft are frowned on pretty much everywhere - not because some imaginary dude in the sky said so, but because no society can function without these basic rules of conduct. There's nothing really special about the Ten Commandments, strip out the God stuff and you have:

"Look after the elderly, don't steal lie and kill, respect the fact that everyone else in society has their right to their own property and life just as much as you do, and we'll probably be able to get along just fine."

All it is, is a simple societal contract to prevent complete anarchy.

[Almanac]

The answer is that you have to decide your morality yourself, following on from whatever ideal of the good you have chosen to adopt - as opposed to shopping around for a god who authorises what you'd like authorised or blindly accepting your parents' moral beliefs (although that is also open to atheists, obviously, and the old joke about "Catholic or Protestant atheist" actually has a good deal of value in it).

What if a man has the morality of a serial killer? Is he right or wrong? I mean, can you say that, outside of your opinion, he is wrong, objectively, and why? Or why not?

Some people - indeed, probably most people - do exactly that, whatever their 'religious' belief or lack of it.

[Almanac]

Eh? That doesn't follow at all.

Any society must have a basic social contract, else the society collapses. This is why things like murder and theft are frowned on pretty much everywhere - not because some imaginary dude in the sky said so, but because no society can function without these basic rules of conduct. There's nothing really special about the Ten Commandments, strip out the God stuff and you have:

"Look after the elderly, don't steal lie and kill, respect the fact that everyone else in society has their right to their own property and life just as much as you do, and we'll probably be able to get along just fine."

All it is, is a simple societal contract to prevent complete anarchy.

Same question I asked Ibis.

[SideysGhost]

I can't comprehend where you difficulty lies with this, Almanac.

Any group of humans needs basic societal rules in order for the society to function. No society that tolerates random murder can actually survive and prosper - the society will collapse and everyone will end up murdered or starved/froze to death.

Objectively, the Ten Commandments are, God stuff aside, the absolute minimum list of standards that are required from all members of any human society if that society is not to collapse. Pretty much every stable civilisation in human history that didn't collapse within a few years has had exactly the same minimum set of rules. It really is just "common sense" - we're all here, we all have to somehow get along and feed our families and ensure the tribe survives generation to generation, and in order to do that we have to ban theft and murder and make sure the psychopaths amongst us understand that they can't just take something that belongs to another member of the tribe.

Minimum societal contract to ensure the continuation of the society. And that's all. No gods required.

Pretty much everything else is optional, can and will change over time as fads and fashions come and go, can and will be argued over and decided upon by society at large.....and can be decided not on the basis of what the invisible sky dude thinks, but simply on the basis of whether it will smooth the functioning and cohesiveness and general prosperity of the society.

[ibis]

What if a man has the morality of a serial killer? Is he right or wrong? I mean, can you say that, outside of your opinion, he is wrong, objectively, and why? Or why not?

No, I don't think there's any objective standard I can claim to hold him to, and that bothered me for a number of years, until I realised that the whole idea that one needed an 'objective' standard to judge another by was simply a form of begging the question. I judge such a man by my morality, not by his - I don't consider my morality to be some kind of objectively correct code, but that doesn't mean I am unable to enforce it (either personally, or by persuading others that I am right), only that I need always to question it myself, and to be aware of the moral codes of others.

The only real difference I've found is that I don't get indignant about things.

[kerdasi amaq]

Deny the existence of God and He won't acknowledge yours.

[SideysGhost]

Deny the existence of God and He won't acknowledge yours.

For some odd reason, the idea that the invisible sky dude won't be sending me a Christmas card this year bothers me not at all.

[EvotingMachine0197]

Isn't it generally a battle against one's own intellect ?

Even the smallest tiniest things can change the outlook.

Hmph.

[Feelinglost]

All it is, is a simple societal contract to prevent complete anarchy.

Hey lay off on the anarchy bashing. Anarchy is not chaos don't ya know

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. Anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities.

[florin]

Deny the existence of God and He won't acknowledge yours.

Given that He/She/It is the all-knowing, all-creating, all-loving creator and ruler of the Universe, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that He/She/It cares about what you do?