Behold, atheists' new Ten Commandments

[Doug Shaver]

I doubt atheists would generally be comfortable with moral absolutes anyway.

I have known quite a few who are every bit as comfortable with them as any Christian.

[whag]

No, it's just you. But we keep praying!

Yay for almost universalism. No wonder you folks look so rested. =)

[One Bad Pig]

I think you'd be surprised. Most people I encounter have a pretty strong set of moral absolutes. Most people I encounter don't have even a basic grasp of philosophy to understand the mutually exclusive ideas they hold.

I don't know that I'd call those 'moral absolutes.' "It's wrong because I think it's wrong" is sort of a weak basis for proclaiming something an absolute. Not sure how to put this; I'm thinking more of what a group of people consider moral absolutes than the thinking of an individual as his/her behavior pertains to him/herself.

[Darth Executor]

I have known quite a few who are every bit as comfortable with them as any Christian.

Me too. And they inevitably end up sounding like the worst fundamentalist caricature when they explain that something is wrong because it just is.

[whag]

Me too. And they inevitably end up sounding like the worst fundamentalist caricature when they explain that something is wrong because it just is.

That's precisely what the Islamic and Christian taboo of homosexuality says: it's wrong simply because it's wrong. Some pronounce it wrong by way of natural law, but let's see you try that without being laughed out of the room within one minute of your defense.

[pancreasman]

Hmm, this touches on something I've been thinking about. If one holds an evolutionary view of morality, one looks for reasons why particular morals would be useful. Putting it crudely, morality ought to be grounded in reality. Morality from religious ideas need not be so. Things can be wrong because they just are. Is that true? Can anyone think of any Christian issues that are 'just wrong'. If God declared wearing a hat on Thursdays to be a sin, it would be a sin, wouldn't it?

[jordanriver]

Hmm, this touches on something I've been thinking about. If one holds an evolutionary view of morality, one looks for reasons why particular morals would be useful. Putting it crudely, morality ought to be grounded in reality. Morality from religious ideas need not be so. Things can be wrong because they just are. Is that true? Can anyone think of any Christian issues that are 'just wrong'. If God declared wearing a hat on Thursdays to be a sin, it would be a sin, wouldn't it?

it couild be a sin.

any action can be a sin.

any action can be 'not a sin'

[Darth Executor]

That's precisely what the Islamic and Christian taboo of homosexuality says: it's wrong simply because it's wrong. Some pronounce it wrong by way of natural law, but let's see you try that without being laughed out of the room within one minute of your defense.

It's possible that they knew why it was wrong but didn't feel the need to say why and the knowledge was lost. It's also possible that they simply observed an association with it and general decay in their society even if they didn't understand specifically the kinds of problems it caused. Today we understand that it's a mental disorder with severe side effects like excessive promiscuity, something that would be even more dangerous in a society without our medical knowledge.

[whag]

It's possible that they knew why it was wrong but didn't feel the need to say why and the knowledge was lost. It's also possible that they simply observed an association with it and general decay in their society even if they didn't understand specifically the kinds of problems it caused. Today we understand that it's a mental disorder with severe side effects like excessive promiscuity, something that would be even more dangerous in a society without our medical knowledge.

The side effect of lesbianism is excessive libido? I don't think their sex drive is any higher than heteros. And, like heteros, they probably use their hands for relief rather than always look for a one-night stand. I think your implication they spread more STDs than heteros is also incorrect.

[whag]

Hmm, this touches on something I've been thinking about. If one holds an evolutionary view of morality, one looks for reasons why particular morals would be useful. Putting it crudely, morality ought to be grounded in reality. Morality from religious ideas need not be so. Things can be wrong because they just are. Is that true? Can anyone think of any Christian issues that are 'just wrong'. If God declared wearing a hat on Thursdays to be a sin, it would be a sin, wouldn't it?

Exactly right. To the ancient Hebrews, eating shrimp and having sex during menstruation were taboos for understood reasons in the context of that culture. Today, they aren't, hence why they aren't viewed as sins.

[pancreasman]

Exactly right. To the ancient Hebrews, eating shrimp and having sex during menstruation were taboos for understood reasons in the context of that culture. Today, they aren't, hence why they aren't viewed as sins.

Ah, but now we'll hear those were ritual cleansing laws which weren't really moral. I'm suspicious of this distinction. Jews and Muslims still avoid pork and look morally repulsed if confronted with it. It seems from their reaction something moral is happening for them.

[whag]

Ah, but now we'll hear those were ritual cleansing laws which weren't really moral. I'm suspicious of this distinction. Jews and Muslims still avoid pork and look morally repulsed if confronted with it. It seems from their reaction something moral is happening for them.

Funny you mention "distinction." The line between moral laws and those laws that distinguished the Jews from the Canaanites was blurry. If the Jews didn't try hard to be distinct, then moral collapse--killing babies for Baal, for example--wouldn't be that far behind. That seems to be a pretty explicit warning in the OT.

[Darth Executor]

The side effect of lesbianism is excessive libido? I don't think their sex drive is any higher than heteros. And, like heteros, they probably use their hands for relief rather than always look for a one-night stand. I think your implication they spread more STDs than heteros is also incorrect.

Homosexuality = male homosexuality. The side-effect of lesbianism is the opposite, they stop caring about sex or attracting a partner so they get fat and die of a heart attack (and you foot the bill in a liberal society). That's less of a threat to an ancient society than male homosexuality though, which is probably why the bible is much harsher on male homosexuality while barely mentioning the female kind.

[pancreasman]

Or ... maybe ... female sexuality was a completely disregarded topic in a patriarchal society. Female pleasure??? Who cares.

[Carrikature]

I don't know that I'd call those 'moral absolutes.' "It's wrong because I think it's wrong" is sort of a weak basis for proclaiming something an absolute. Not sure how to put this; I'm thinking more of what a group of people consider moral absolutes than the thinking of an individual as his/her behavior pertains to him/herself.

A claim of moral absolutism is simply that certain things are just intrinsically wrong. There's no specific type of justification required. Some people believe that moral right and wrongs are inherent traits. Others place the justification in a deity. Even if it ultimately comes down to "because I think it's wrong" (and it generally does), that doesn't stop it from being a moral absolute.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your last sentence. A group of people doesn't somehow have greater weight when it comes to such claims. Moreover, it kind of sounds like you're trying to group by religious persuasion and ignoring the other factors that come into play. Atheists aren't magically immune to cultural influences, after all.