/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

They can't if they are honest with their materialistic philosophy. In the materialist philosophy life has no meaning or value, the only thing that could matter is the survival of your genes. At best they might entertain the notion of some higher consciousness but then they are agnostic and not atheistic.

Before you ever talk about these topics, make sure the person is okay with challenging their religious (or lack there of) views, or else you will get someone who will simply dismiss or evade what you say instead of listen to the blatant point you're giving them.

>>611920

Morals are not absolute and change as a culture deems fit. They are an existential tool and nothing more. I’m born and destined to live out my only existence an inferior specimen of human. The government probably could and would throw me to the wolves if it could save a desirable. Nobody would find it morally abhorrent; some would argue the least I could do is give up myself for more worthy, attractive people.

It’s true in the long run that even morals can’t prevent human extinction. They have no absolute value and instead are supported and altered by those with a direct stake - the people currently alive who operate on the tense assumption that everyone will respect the same rights allowed to them.

>>611920

> What do atheists have such a hard time answering this question?

Because they don't want to admit the uncomfortable truth that their "morals" are just a set of mutually agreed on compromises. I would like to live in Bob's house, but if I say that murdering someone and taking their house is OK, then someone else is going to murder me and take my house, and since I don't want that to happen we will all agree that murdering people is wrong.

This is why they don't care about abortion, they are no longer embryos and as such there is no threat to them personally. Atheist morality is based on "I will agree not to harm you if you don't harm me".

>>611922

>the only thing that could matter is the survival of your genes.

Most atheists are too selfish to have children. That's the only reason why they're not a real threat. Thank God.

>>612022

See above post where one literally did just that.

Also abortion is something even atheists can be for/against. Easy and normalized abortion practices decimates family structure and poisons the relation between men and women. It's not only socially maladaptive but literally immediately antinatalist in practice and those alone are enough for me to not want it to be commonplace (or even legal, really, save for medical emergencies like ectopic pregnancies and such) without throwing in the element of a supernatural higher power.

>>611920

Because they can't.

I would have disagreed with your assumption that the basis of morality is that human life has inherent value, I'd have to argue that the basis of morality is the 'Golden Rule' -treat others the way you wish to be treated. The basis for the Golden Rule is an assumption that we are all living, breathing, and most importantly, conscious/thinking beings and that it is our consciousness that grants us sovereignty over our bodies. Once in possession of a body, it becomes ours just as a king claims ownership of land in his kingdom's possession.

The reason we own it is because while yes, others can kill you and force you to do things you don't like, they cannot force you to think a certain way. They can try and influence your thoughts, but the mind is yours alone. Your body is controlled by your mind and no one else. You can be bound and gagged, but still they cannot control you. Although with modern science it may be that someday your body can be controlled by another mind… a horrifying thought. Even then though, your mind is a part of that body and it remains your property. Because your body is your property you own the fruits of your labor, etc. I could go on but it culminates in Natural Law and social contract theory, et cetera et cetera, you know the drill.

>>612002

>Morals are not absolute and change as a culture deems fit

Which definition of moral are we using, the latin of moralis or our modern day meaning of morality denoting right and wrong which is objective?

I know you weren't though you were trying to be subjective about morality which misses the entire point of morality. If something is 'moral' it is good in all situations and scenarios. If something is immoral, it is bad in all situations and scenarios. Period. It doesn't matter that the dominant culture disagrees, the entire world could be saying rape is moral, that would not change that factually, because it violates natural law, it is immoral. Natural Law is the only law that everybody of every religion and every nation can agree on. The Golden Rule is named as such because it's the core philosophy that underlines all religions, even if they selectively applied it only to the in-group.

Just because communists took over Russia didn't make communism moral.

>>612002

>Morals are not absolute and change as a culture deems fit.

No, morals are absolute. What changes is peoples' ability or willingness to uphold them.

>>611920

>"how do atheists know what is moral and what isn't"

Is there anything in Christian doctrine that covers the stomping of flowers?

If there isn't.

Would you consider stomping on flowers always be perfectly acceptible?

In any and all circumstances without a single exception?

If you do, why?

If you don't, why?

How do you arrive at your answer if this is not covered in the bible?

It is impossible for you to answer this question if Christianity does not cover the stomping of flowers, no matter if they don't belong to anyone.

And if there is something like that in Christianity then simply change the subject, this is mostly a thought exercise, after all.