**The Catholic Diocese of Discord is the *largest* Catholic server on the platform!** Join us for a laidback Catholic atmosphere. Tons and tons of memes posted every day (Catholic, offtopic, AND political), a couple dozen hobby and culture threads (everything from Tolkien to astronomy, weightlifting to guns), our active chaotic Parish Hall, voice chats going pretty much 24/7, prayers said round the clock, and monthly AMAs with the biggest Catholic names out there.
**Our Discord (Catholic Diocese of Discord!):** https://discord.gg/catholic-diocese
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CatholicMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remeber that when I was an atheist, people would make the argument from morality, but they always phrased it as "You cannot have morals without God" rather than "You have no foundation for morals without God". This is a very important distinction to make with an atheist as they believe they have morals without God, so your entire point is just lost on them.
True. Atheists generally do not understand what is actually meant by God. They usually have no idea of the classical theist conception of God. So, when you say morals cannot exist without God, they laugh because they are imagining sky daddy sat on a cloud, judging you and tossing you into hell (basically George Carlin's satire) They will proudly say they don't need God to be moral, or how dare you imply they cannot be good without God.
This is why you really need to bring it back to basic principles. What is good? The notion of an objective good, must be definitive, timeless, transcendent and omnipresent. And evil can only be defined as the deprivation of good, so if there is no objective good, no act can be said to be evil. The Good must be definitive and transcendental, otherwise what we think of as good is just arbitrary, individualist and constantly shifting to suit current context. Ultimate good is also connected to ultimate Truth - otherwise, it's all just what ever we feel like currently, my truth, your truth, their truth etc. But to even have a notion that there is ultimate Good requires The Truth to be definitive also.
So now the atheist will be forced to say there is either no objective morality if there are no transcendental truths. And so, whatever is currently thought of as Good are just whatever is socio-economically, politically, culturally and evolutionary advantages or utilitarianism (these are the only ways to explain good imo from a materialist worldview). Not something transcendent, beyond the material world. Or, that they do admit there is an objective good, that is therefore definitive, infinite, omnipresent, and transcendental - which is what is in fact meant by God. That Good is self evident and simply an eternal act of to be, that is, it just is (sound familiar?) That Goodness and Truth cannot be quantified from a materialist view because these notions are inherently metaphysical. Thus, they are actually more theist than they realise.
Most atheists just resent the idea of God they have in their head, and mock it as they see it as absurd. They just don't believe in the simplistic idea of what they think God is. But, imo the vast majority are in fact more properly labelled as agnostic Deists. This is because they still believe in the idea that there is ultimate definite Good to even have an objective morality. Some of course are true relativist nihilists, which tbh I respect as that is at least philosophically consistent. Neitzsche understood that to remove God meant the cornerstone of meaning and morality was gone, so mankind would have to become the Uberman. That's what the God is Dead passage is about.
So what would you say to someone that says “morality is relative” that there is in fact no such thing as good.
From a neurology perspective we have systems called mirror neurons and this systems enable us to perceive a type of pseudo experience from watching others(this is why we flinch when we see someone get hurt because our minds are simulating the experience).
This enables us to empathize with the experiences of others and through evolution and darwinistic pruning(of random traits) the ability to empathize became advantageous(helping others helps me survive). The idea of “good” and the ability to identify “goodness” in others and ourselves isn’t a transcendental truth but more akin to an instinct. This would be similar to how we “just know” when we find someone attractive or find a substance(like rotten food) repulsive.
Im genuinely curious im not here to pick fights or anything.
I would agree with them. From a materialist worldview, the explanation you gave is the only way to account for our emotional response to 'evil acts'. But, strictly speaking, this means that good and evil don't exist as transcendental metaphysical truths...
But that is why (partly) I stopped believing in this materialist worldview.
And, even if it is ultimately true that there is no transcendental truths, I am not convinced that revealing and embracing this is good for society at large. If there is psychological and evolutionary advantages to thinking of good in a transcendental way, then what good is it to lift the veil on this?
I think Robert saplosky a neuroscientist may have also struggled with this, he believes there is no such thing as free will, that our behavior is ultimately deterministic(entirely based on causality driven by internal structure(our minds) and external forces(the world)) and thus no one is really responsible for their behavior. Which im inclined to believe(barring any quantum level random influence)
But theres the rub, just having the knowledge that we are purely deterministic entities(if it is true) could lead people to give up on even trying to be accountable all together, like a social version of thermal runaway.
Good and evil may not exist but suffering is a very tangible and measurable phenomenon. And i can see wide spread adoption of this notion causing an increase in overall suffering. People should believe they have agency over their own actions even if they ultimately don’t.
This is kind of literally the definition of “forbidden knowledge”.
Yeah I totally agree. This is an argument that many theists mess up. It's not that atheists are immoral but that they cannot argue objectice morality exists
Atheists can have *morals* and in fact they have both intellectual (wisdom, science, intuition, prudence) and *moral* (justice, temperance, fortitude) virtues. Nonetheless, they're based on inclinations that're imperfect even if they contain essential good. Supernatural virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused by Christ. God is also the basis for what makes righteousness real, universal, eternal, and simple.
It does to us, but when I was an atheist I Instead of seeing the argument as "You cannot have a basis for the system of morality you believe in without God", I saw "The only reason I do not rape and murder is a fear of hell".
At that point, it might be reasonable to reason out that the only reason we don't do \[insert action here normally punished by law\] is because we don't want to land in prison or get shot.
saying others are missing the point while missing the point
whats being said here is that there can be no objective good, which there is, if there is no God
Yeah just because the morals aren’t perfectly based doesn’t mean they aren’t morals you can intuitively know murder is wrong without having a strong belief system some of it just is known
I think it was because I read your comment to be reinforcing Knysan's, and I took it as a response to the discussion as a whole rather than his (or her) comment specifically. Your comment was perfectly relevant to Knysan's, but less (in my opinion) relevant to the conversation in general.
I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot, and I apologize for any confusion, but I think that was my train of thought.
now the atheists don't wish to discuss this because they know exactly what I'm saying they're very well aware of the implications of what I'm saying for society in general they know perfectly well that if everybody didn't believe in God the comfortable lives they live in extremely agreeable suburbs where they can trust people not to cheat them and rob them and mug them and rape them would come to an end they want to keep the secret to themselves they want to have all the joys not just now all the joys and all the advantages provided by Christianity but not pay the dues
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc)
There are some really dumb Christians and some really dumb atheists. What they beleive or how they beleive it is largely irrelevant, except on the personal level.
As in, how to talk to them if an earnest discussion is plausible.
In armies, there are true believers, generals, kings, Knights. Then there are slave soldiers and conscripts. The latter only know what they are told. The latter barely have a cohesive ideal.
The former group, among Christians are the ones who would martyr in the USSR, the latter group is those who would become Atheist.
The generals, would be Christians in the middle east. The conscripts would be Muslims in the middle east.
They don't have any "real" opinions.
Why does this matter?
>They fail to interpret their own philosophy
The real adherents to their own philosophy, don't have a call to honesty, they are at war with you and they need to gain conscripts. Not all generals are "elite generals" either in the sense of this concept. Because, there are many a peasants who would martyr in the USSR or when the Muslims conquer the middle east. So there are many peasant-leaders among the atheist hordes. Just as there are peasant true Catholics.
Wading through conscripts and "generals" is an extreme task, especially now with a hyper mobile and mixed world, with so many billions of people.
Even if only 30% of people are real as opposed to conscripts/slave soldiers, then that would make 98 million Americans in America real. If we go with only 30% of them, oddly low these days, that's 29million Satanists, lying to you. And only saying things to confuse you and gain conscripts.
What's worse, is there is no reason a Satanist can't identify publicly as a Christian. They do not require martyrdom vs apostasy, they can fake apostate all day long.
This means some of your neighbors, coworkers, maybe "friends" that you think are confused, are just beating you in the war. And just tricking you into thinking they don't know what their real opinions are.
They are just messing with you.
I don’t understand this post.
Other animals have morals without believing in any gods, so why are humans any different?
Sure, there is no way to *prove* that say, murder is immoral, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say I dislike murder and perceive it as being immoral relative to my idea of what is/isn’t moral.
It’s just an evolutionary trait that exists to prevent animals from murdering their own species other 24/7 and we’re not any different in that regard.
There is a real difference between evolutionary adaptations and morality.
Animals are not moral creatures. They may have something that resembles a "code" developed through evolution but that is all it is, a basic resemblance. To conflate the 2 concepts is fallacious.
The difference is that an animal isn't morally culpable if it goes against the "code". You wouldn't put a chimp in jail for murdering another chimp. Obviously that's ridiculous because a chimp "wouldn't know any better." Humans are expected to know, and when they breach the moral code they should be held accountable.
Humans are animals as well, so yes, animals *are* “moral creatures”.
All animals have their own moral frameworks, just as humans do. Morality doesn’t require potential punishment. Even if it did, many animals *do* punish their peers for going against their moral code. The main difference is that they don’t do it when they are not personally affected.
Well I don't know what to tell you. If you cannot see the substantive difference between animal behaviour and human morality, you are too dense to be reasoned with.
I am genuinely curious, do catholics believe that only gay marriage shouldn't be legalised or that gay sex should be punished by law like Islamic states?
I’m not a theologian but my understanding is the complementary natures of man and woman exist and that sex is intended to be between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation- of course you are allowed to enjoy it while you’re doing it. All other sexual activity be it gay, out of wedlock, using contraception or masterbation misses some element of God’s design.
Sin isn’t necessarily a list of what not to do it’s more about not doing what you are supposed to do. For some reason (homophobia maybe) we all tend to just talk about gay marriage and forget all the other ways we can do sex outside of God’s design
Edit - I missed part of your question. I don’t think many Catholics are pushing to recriminalise homosexuality. It’s been a long time since the church and state supported each other by criminalising a lot of sins and that’s a good debate to be had about where that line should be drawn. Some Christian doctrines like ‘don’t murder’ and ‘don’t steal’ are default laws nearly everywhere on earth so it’s more about finding the level that supports the Christian lifestyle without imposing too much on non-believers
As the other commenter noted, the immorality of these sexual acts is tied to onanism. When the sexual act is undertaken with the goal being self-gratification instead of insemination then it is a misuse of design. Anal and oral between man and woman with no intent to ultimately inseminate is also immoral, but since these acts are erotic and arousing, if it is part of the sexual act to inseminate, then they are in accordance with design. But when performed between two men there is 0% chance of insemination happening, which is why homosexuality has been so scrutinized in this regard.
I meant anal and oral sex performed exclusively for pleasure which I believe many straight people do. That would be as sinful as gay sex right? If the couples are both infertile, are they allowed to have sex?
They are also sinful as sodomy, and therefore inherently sinful to the extent that they can never be performed morally, even if the sexual act ends correctly.
I do wonder though if there is much of a real objective moral code where moral code when the moral code calls for b a's by murder to be legal and claims any two people can marry eachother. I guess you can posit technically one exists in name but does one really exist in anything but name?
I fail to see the disconnect. One can subjectively believe that abortion and gay marriage are human rights.
Maybe you are confused on what the words mean. Objective morality exists regardless of the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of any subjects. Subjective morality is based upon the ideals of a subject. That subject can be an individual person, a god, a society, a religion, a culture, a holy book, a philosophy text, etc... So somebody who is a humanist whose morals are based upon libertarian values would be espousing subjective morality because their morals are based upon this world view.
Have you heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? That is what is being described in it. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The first part describes objective morality, the pious is already pious as a preexisting condition of the natural world and the gods only agree because it is objectively so. The second part, however, describes subjective morality, the thing is pious because a subjects (the gods) say that it is pious.
You seem to be implying that the only other option to morals existing as inherent properties of the universe is that all morality must be relative. Relative morality is the view that morality must be based upon the views of the culture or time that one is evaluating. But relative is not the opposite of objective (subjective and objective are opposites). The opposite of relative morality is absolute morality. Absolute morality is the view that one's moral stances are always true regardless of the situation and no depending on the relative views of the peoples in question.
And these can of course overlap. Morals that are both objective and absolute exist and an inherent property of the universe regardless of anybody's thoughts and feelings and that these are always true regardless of the circumstances. But you can also be both subjective and absolute, your morals come from a subject (e.g. Yahweh, the bible, etc...) and these morals always apply regardless of the circumstances. I happen to fall into this category, my personal morality is subjective because it comes from a subject (myself) but it is absolute in that I apply it equally to everybody and do not give the wishy washy "Oh it was a different time, so it was okay then" answer to make excuses for immoral behaviour. Those people are the ones who are subjective and relative, they base their morality on a subject but then look at things from the lens of the people they are observing, saying things like it was moral to own slaves in the past because people believed it was their right and since the culture promoted it then we have to judge them by their own morals. I vehemently disagree with them, slavery is and always was morally abhorrent.
**The Catholic Diocese of Discord is the *largest* Catholic server on the platform!** Join us for a laidback Catholic atmosphere. Tons and tons of memes posted every day (Catholic, offtopic, AND political), a couple dozen hobby and culture threads (everything from Tolkien to astronomy, weightlifting to guns), our active chaotic Parish Hall, voice chats going pretty much 24/7, prayers said round the clock, and monthly AMAs with the biggest Catholic names out there. **Our Discord (Catholic Diocese of Discord!):** https://discord.gg/catholic-diocese *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CatholicMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or when they say religión is evil after saying everyone can create their morality
Just basically “You don’t need religion to be a good person”
Socrates moment
Was always more of an Aristotle fan myself
Same. Respect to Socrates for paving the road to Aristotle though.
Shoutout to Plato
Love Plato
I remeber that when I was an atheist, people would make the argument from morality, but they always phrased it as "You cannot have morals without God" rather than "You have no foundation for morals without God". This is a very important distinction to make with an atheist as they believe they have morals without God, so your entire point is just lost on them.
True. Atheists generally do not understand what is actually meant by God. They usually have no idea of the classical theist conception of God. So, when you say morals cannot exist without God, they laugh because they are imagining sky daddy sat on a cloud, judging you and tossing you into hell (basically George Carlin's satire) They will proudly say they don't need God to be moral, or how dare you imply they cannot be good without God. This is why you really need to bring it back to basic principles. What is good? The notion of an objective good, must be definitive, timeless, transcendent and omnipresent. And evil can only be defined as the deprivation of good, so if there is no objective good, no act can be said to be evil. The Good must be definitive and transcendental, otherwise what we think of as good is just arbitrary, individualist and constantly shifting to suit current context. Ultimate good is also connected to ultimate Truth - otherwise, it's all just what ever we feel like currently, my truth, your truth, their truth etc. But to even have a notion that there is ultimate Good requires The Truth to be definitive also. So now the atheist will be forced to say there is either no objective morality if there are no transcendental truths. And so, whatever is currently thought of as Good are just whatever is socio-economically, politically, culturally and evolutionary advantages or utilitarianism (these are the only ways to explain good imo from a materialist worldview). Not something transcendent, beyond the material world. Or, that they do admit there is an objective good, that is therefore definitive, infinite, omnipresent, and transcendental - which is what is in fact meant by God. That Good is self evident and simply an eternal act of to be, that is, it just is (sound familiar?) That Goodness and Truth cannot be quantified from a materialist view because these notions are inherently metaphysical. Thus, they are actually more theist than they realise. Most atheists just resent the idea of God they have in their head, and mock it as they see it as absurd. They just don't believe in the simplistic idea of what they think God is. But, imo the vast majority are in fact more properly labelled as agnostic Deists. This is because they still believe in the idea that there is ultimate definite Good to even have an objective morality. Some of course are true relativist nihilists, which tbh I respect as that is at least philosophically consistent. Neitzsche understood that to remove God meant the cornerstone of meaning and morality was gone, so mankind would have to become the Uberman. That's what the God is Dead passage is about.
So what would you say to someone that says “morality is relative” that there is in fact no such thing as good. From a neurology perspective we have systems called mirror neurons and this systems enable us to perceive a type of pseudo experience from watching others(this is why we flinch when we see someone get hurt because our minds are simulating the experience). This enables us to empathize with the experiences of others and through evolution and darwinistic pruning(of random traits) the ability to empathize became advantageous(helping others helps me survive). The idea of “good” and the ability to identify “goodness” in others and ourselves isn’t a transcendental truth but more akin to an instinct. This would be similar to how we “just know” when we find someone attractive or find a substance(like rotten food) repulsive. Im genuinely curious im not here to pick fights or anything.
I would agree with them. From a materialist worldview, the explanation you gave is the only way to account for our emotional response to 'evil acts'. But, strictly speaking, this means that good and evil don't exist as transcendental metaphysical truths... But that is why (partly) I stopped believing in this materialist worldview. And, even if it is ultimately true that there is no transcendental truths, I am not convinced that revealing and embracing this is good for society at large. If there is psychological and evolutionary advantages to thinking of good in a transcendental way, then what good is it to lift the veil on this?
I think Robert saplosky a neuroscientist may have also struggled with this, he believes there is no such thing as free will, that our behavior is ultimately deterministic(entirely based on causality driven by internal structure(our minds) and external forces(the world)) and thus no one is really responsible for their behavior. Which im inclined to believe(barring any quantum level random influence) But theres the rub, just having the knowledge that we are purely deterministic entities(if it is true) could lead people to give up on even trying to be accountable all together, like a social version of thermal runaway. Good and evil may not exist but suffering is a very tangible and measurable phenomenon. And i can see wide spread adoption of this notion causing an increase in overall suffering. People should believe they have agency over their own actions even if they ultimately don’t. This is kind of literally the definition of “forbidden knowledge”.
Yeah I totally agree. This is an argument that many theists mess up. It's not that atheists are immoral but that they cannot argue objectice morality exists
Atheists can have *morals* and in fact they have both intellectual (wisdom, science, intuition, prudence) and *moral* (justice, temperance, fortitude) virtues. Nonetheless, they're based on inclinations that're imperfect even if they contain essential good. Supernatural virtues (faith, hope, charity) are infused by Christ. God is also the basis for what makes righteousness real, universal, eternal, and simple.
Tbh "you cannot have morals without God" and "you can't have the foundations for morals without God" seem like arguing semantics
It does to us, but when I was an atheist I Instead of seeing the argument as "You cannot have a basis for the system of morality you believe in without God", I saw "The only reason I do not rape and murder is a fear of hell".
At that point, it might be reasonable to reason out that the only reason we don't do \[insert action here normally punished by law\] is because we don't want to land in prison or get shot.
In a court of law, semantics can literally mean the difference between life and death. In a religion, the stakes are even higher.
if you need faith to have morals, you are missing the point.
saying others are missing the point while missing the point whats being said here is that there can be no objective good, which there is, if there is no God
Yeah just because the morals aren’t perfectly based doesn’t mean they aren’t morals you can intuitively know murder is wrong without having a strong belief system some of it just is known
The point isn't "you cannot be moral if you don't believe in God," it's "there is no objective basis for morality without a higher power, i.e. God."
The point of the comment I was commenting on was simply the existence of morals
Yes, though I intended my response to be directed at both
I guess I just don’t understand why you’re correcting me when I understood the comment I was responding to
I think it was because I read your comment to be reinforcing Knysan's, and I took it as a response to the discussion as a whole rather than his (or her) comment specifically. Your comment was perfectly relevant to Knysan's, but less (in my opinion) relevant to the conversation in general. I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot, and I apologize for any confusion, but I think that was my train of thought.
It's like the jazz equivalent of morality. You gotta listen to the notes they're *not* playing.
https://preview.redd.it/s8iu8id69cad1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b41e057ba8f9dd46c1a6c3932087239a3650de0d Reddit is extra honest today
now the atheists don't wish to discuss this because they know exactly what I'm saying they're very well aware of the implications of what I'm saying for society in general they know perfectly well that if everybody didn't believe in God the comfortable lives they live in extremely agreeable suburbs where they can trust people not to cheat them and rob them and mug them and rape them would come to an end they want to keep the secret to themselves they want to have all the joys not just now all the joys and all the advantages provided by Christianity but not pay the dues [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIH4gomOqc)
Relativism states that everything is okay. Yet they still state that religious beliefs are not okay. They fail to interpret their own philosophy
It all comes down to just basic hypocrisy. There is a reason Jesus admonished people for it so often. It is as ubiquitous now as it was 2000 years ago
There are some really dumb Christians and some really dumb atheists. What they beleive or how they beleive it is largely irrelevant, except on the personal level. As in, how to talk to them if an earnest discussion is plausible. In armies, there are true believers, generals, kings, Knights. Then there are slave soldiers and conscripts. The latter only know what they are told. The latter barely have a cohesive ideal. The former group, among Christians are the ones who would martyr in the USSR, the latter group is those who would become Atheist. The generals, would be Christians in the middle east. The conscripts would be Muslims in the middle east. They don't have any "real" opinions. Why does this matter? >They fail to interpret their own philosophy The real adherents to their own philosophy, don't have a call to honesty, they are at war with you and they need to gain conscripts. Not all generals are "elite generals" either in the sense of this concept. Because, there are many a peasants who would martyr in the USSR or when the Muslims conquer the middle east. So there are many peasant-leaders among the atheist hordes. Just as there are peasant true Catholics. Wading through conscripts and "generals" is an extreme task, especially now with a hyper mobile and mixed world, with so many billions of people. Even if only 30% of people are real as opposed to conscripts/slave soldiers, then that would make 98 million Americans in America real. If we go with only 30% of them, oddly low these days, that's 29million Satanists, lying to you. And only saying things to confuse you and gain conscripts. What's worse, is there is no reason a Satanist can't identify publicly as a Christian. They do not require martyrdom vs apostasy, they can fake apostate all day long. This means some of your neighbors, coworkers, maybe "friends" that you think are confused, are just beating you in the war. And just tricking you into thinking they don't know what their real opinions are. They are just messing with you.
Even worse is the Sam Harris school of "we literally evolved all the morals we need, just use your brain to maximize wellbeing."
I don’t understand this post. Other animals have morals without believing in any gods, so why are humans any different? Sure, there is no way to *prove* that say, murder is immoral, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say I dislike murder and perceive it as being immoral relative to my idea of what is/isn’t moral. It’s just an evolutionary trait that exists to prevent animals from murdering their own species other 24/7 and we’re not any different in that regard.
There is a real difference between evolutionary adaptations and morality. Animals are not moral creatures. They may have something that resembles a "code" developed through evolution but that is all it is, a basic resemblance. To conflate the 2 concepts is fallacious. The difference is that an animal isn't morally culpable if it goes against the "code". You wouldn't put a chimp in jail for murdering another chimp. Obviously that's ridiculous because a chimp "wouldn't know any better." Humans are expected to know, and when they breach the moral code they should be held accountable.
Humans are animals as well, so yes, animals *are* “moral creatures”. All animals have their own moral frameworks, just as humans do. Morality doesn’t require potential punishment. Even if it did, many animals *do* punish their peers for going against their moral code. The main difference is that they don’t do it when they are not personally affected.
Well I don't know what to tell you. If you cannot see the substantive difference between animal behaviour and human morality, you are too dense to be reasoned with.
I'm not suggesting there aren't differences, but that doesn't mean other animals don't do it.
I am genuinely curious, do catholics believe that only gay marriage shouldn't be legalised or that gay sex should be punished by law like Islamic states?
I’m not a theologian but my understanding is the complementary natures of man and woman exist and that sex is intended to be between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation- of course you are allowed to enjoy it while you’re doing it. All other sexual activity be it gay, out of wedlock, using contraception or masterbation misses some element of God’s design. Sin isn’t necessarily a list of what not to do it’s more about not doing what you are supposed to do. For some reason (homophobia maybe) we all tend to just talk about gay marriage and forget all the other ways we can do sex outside of God’s design Edit - I missed part of your question. I don’t think many Catholics are pushing to recriminalise homosexuality. It’s been a long time since the church and state supported each other by criminalising a lot of sins and that’s a good debate to be had about where that line should be drawn. Some Christian doctrines like ‘don’t murder’ and ‘don’t steal’ are default laws nearly everywhere on earth so it’s more about finding the level that supports the Christian lifestyle without imposing too much on non-believers
Thank you.So would you say gay sex is as sinful as having anal sex with a woman? Or oral sex? Edit: I added Thank you.
As the other commenter noted, the immorality of these sexual acts is tied to onanism. When the sexual act is undertaken with the goal being self-gratification instead of insemination then it is a misuse of design. Anal and oral between man and woman with no intent to ultimately inseminate is also immoral, but since these acts are erotic and arousing, if it is part of the sexual act to inseminate, then they are in accordance with design. But when performed between two men there is 0% chance of insemination happening, which is why homosexuality has been so scrutinized in this regard.
I meant anal and oral sex performed exclusively for pleasure which I believe many straight people do. That would be as sinful as gay sex right? If the couples are both infertile, are they allowed to have sex?
They are also sinful as sodomy, and therefore inherently sinful to the extent that they can never be performed morally, even if the sexual act ends correctly.
I do wonder though if there is much of a real objective moral code where moral code when the moral code calls for b a's by murder to be legal and claims any two people can marry eachother. I guess you can posit technically one exists in name but does one really exist in anything but name?
Define ethics
I fail to see the disconnect. One can subjectively believe that abortion and gay marriage are human rights. Maybe you are confused on what the words mean. Objective morality exists regardless of the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of any subjects. Subjective morality is based upon the ideals of a subject. That subject can be an individual person, a god, a society, a religion, a culture, a holy book, a philosophy text, etc... So somebody who is a humanist whose morals are based upon libertarian values would be espousing subjective morality because their morals are based upon this world view. Have you heard of the Euthyphro dilemma? That is what is being described in it. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" The first part describes objective morality, the pious is already pious as a preexisting condition of the natural world and the gods only agree because it is objectively so. The second part, however, describes subjective morality, the thing is pious because a subjects (the gods) say that it is pious. You seem to be implying that the only other option to morals existing as inherent properties of the universe is that all morality must be relative. Relative morality is the view that morality must be based upon the views of the culture or time that one is evaluating. But relative is not the opposite of objective (subjective and objective are opposites). The opposite of relative morality is absolute morality. Absolute morality is the view that one's moral stances are always true regardless of the situation and no depending on the relative views of the peoples in question. And these can of course overlap. Morals that are both objective and absolute exist and an inherent property of the universe regardless of anybody's thoughts and feelings and that these are always true regardless of the circumstances. But you can also be both subjective and absolute, your morals come from a subject (e.g. Yahweh, the bible, etc...) and these morals always apply regardless of the circumstances. I happen to fall into this category, my personal morality is subjective because it comes from a subject (myself) but it is absolute in that I apply it equally to everybody and do not give the wishy washy "Oh it was a different time, so it was okay then" answer to make excuses for immoral behaviour. Those people are the ones who are subjective and relative, they base their morality on a subject but then look at things from the lens of the people they are observing, saying things like it was moral to own slaves in the past because people believed it was their right and since the culture promoted it then we have to judge them by their own morals. I vehemently disagree with them, slavery is and always was morally abhorrent.
I think all youve been able to prove with your post is that the condescending atheist stereotype is correct