Name the time and chat room and I'll be there. If you think your position is so strong face me there and that's all I have to say because forums as I have just found are a real waste of time. That goes out to any of you who thinks their position is in any way good.

It is message not the medium. Say what you have to say wherever you want to say it, but don't expect people to go extraordinarily out of their way to debate someone who seems to not know how to properly argue.

I think Zhwazi really convered the points pretty well. It's a pity that Presup started through around "dodging" blames while doing it himself.

One thing about my question though- considering that Presup will normally do something which he wouldnt do if God fully told him to shows the moral bankrupcy and the subjectivity of it all. Yeah, "God" does tell us to kill the innocence it happened on 9/11, it happened with all those murderers that thought God was talking to them. It happens.

Chat in my view is a lot better and forums jus seem like a waste of time . Chat keeps things quick and lets the views stand as they truly are.

keeping them quick is a good thing? keeping things quick leads to flawed logic and instant judgement. Time allows for the logical process of critical thought to occur.

Its ok that you don't have enough support for your belief to defend it at face alue. If you want to hold it at blind faith, just try and avoid questions, and do not know your position well enough that fine. Tell me when you don't

[quote=Presup]Its ok that you don't have enough support for your belief to defend it at face alue. If you want to hold it at blind faith, just try and avoid questions, and do not know your position well enough that fine. Tell me when you don't[/quote]
Hypocrite.

I'm probably hella late on this subject, but I feel like slamming my opinion down, anyways. I don't speak for all Atheists, obviously, only for myself. I believe morality is a human-devised concept with so many fallacies that you can't say "I have morals." and mean the same thing as another person who provided you with the same statement. I don't believe in "good" or "evil." They're made-up concepts. What's black to one person could be white to another. Growing up in a first-world country like the United States or the UK nurtures you to believe murder is "wrong." However, in a more rugged country, maybe India, a woman could be stoned to death because she committed adultery and all the members of her community would not think twice that it was a bad thing at all. They have the idea that "Oh, well, she's a bad person for being promiscuous and deceptive like that, I'm glad she's not a part of our community any longer." Where as we would be appalled to have that happen in our society. There are actually two morals involved in that situation, both societies lacking in understanding one. Where as we lack the ability to understand their reasoning that adultery is wrong (perhaps religiously influenced, no?), they lack the ability to understand why we think murdering someone is wrong, even if they broke a moral code.

I don't know if any of you have read "Mysterious Stranger" by Mark Twain, but it's kind of a metaphor for how morals are probably the most disgusting thing to any being lacking them. Much recommended.

Morals, in terms of natural selection, I suppose reassure you that your partner doesn't do things like.. lie? Then you know that they didn't lie to you when they said "Oh, no.. I don't have an STD.." and your offspring aren't born with complications. But again, I don't like the concept of morals. I have my own, obviously, but I'm open-minded enough to realize that mine are much different than the person sitting next to me in the doctor's office. I also, personally, have cut back my beliefs on what's commonly accepted as "wrong" and "right." Like, I don't believe being non-judgmental or kind is necessarily a good thing. I don't believe killing is a bad thing. Everyone can rationalize anything. I could easily rationalize any murder case. I don't plan on going out and killing anyone, but I wouldn't say a person who has is necessarily "immoral."

Ok, I have read the posts but I skipped around a bit, so forgive me if I bring up a point that has been covered. Now, I will put my two cents in... I am not totally sure exactly if my reasoning is right, and I will do my best to avoid "straw men."

I personally do beleve in objective morality. I take what I beleve from a book by Lenoard Peikoff called "Objectivism: the philosophy of ayn rand" - I could be off on this so if I am, by all means correct me

I personally beleve that rights come from the ability to reason, as such, I do not beleve that animals have rights.

A violation of rights can only be acheved by the initation of force (or it's indirect forms such as fraud and stealing)

The government only has a right to stop people from violating others rights. (as far a I am concerned... the government has the only duty of protecting our rights)

Now, Violating rights is not the only form of wrong and right. I personally beleve that it is terriably wrong to torture animals. However, i do not beleve that the government has a right to stop someone from doing so.

I also beleve that it is (in general) wrong to lie to people and to hurt their feelings. However, i do not beleve that the government has a right to stop people from doing so (obviously there are exceptions such as "No, jumping into lava wont hurt you" or if you hurt their feelings by hurting them physically)

All of these rights rest upon man considering his life as the paramount value... ( i wish i could find that book, it explanes this so much better than i do... )

I am not sure if I covered this fully, so alert me to any holes that i left (and I am open so again I might be wrong)

The property theory definintly has some good merit... I like it

(again i skimmed the conversaion) Has anyone presented the arguement that Theists cannot be fully "moral" as they present it, because all of their morality rests upon reward and punishment. Like a kid dosent steal because he knows he will get in trouble, not because it is the wrong thing to do.

Okay, beat the crap out of this idea, please.

the more I think about it, the more i am coming to think that, because i am able to quickly evaluate what seems right and what doesn't, I might as well should. I have a through understanding of the logical basis of morals, and know how to apply the ideas to real life. My only thing with morals is that once you get a good set of rules, it is inadequate. It fails to deal with nuance. Killing may be a bad idea in a majority of situations, but when your situations calls for it, and it becomes the best option, there is no point in beating yourself up for it. If you did something wrong, even though you thought it was right, then the legal system can step in. I am also aware of those repercussions to my choices.

My point: Morals, if defined by concrete rules, are not as optimal as a nuanced view, based on the understanding of what makes things good and bad, not a list of bad things, or the concrete rules of Morality.

Makes you feel icky? Why should you? Do you like feeling icky? Do you need to feel icky to force yourself out of compulsive lying?

My only contention is that, even though killing is bad most of the time, rules aren't the answer for people who can think. I can think about consequences, and make a choice without having rules to tell me. Because rules are ultimately less effective. They cannot account for nuances.

[quote=Prerunner05]Do atheists believe in morals such as Right and Wrong? If no, why? If yes, why?[/quote]

Not an atheist, but a deist.

However, in answer to your question. The answer is natural and rational...
Humans atre a social animal species. The onlly wrong is to infringe on another individuals rights and freedoms. Therefore, certain Utilitarian type laws are set up because we know this fact instictively and we also know intictively ythat the best way to assure the less likelyhod of our individual rights and freedoms as beeings not beieng infriged upon is to start out in a spirit of co-operation and respect due to the rationbal self-interest of such; in due time... this ethic becomes a part of the individual and collective psyche and hence... we don't think about the fact that we are acting in our oiwn interest by respecting or even defiending and helping out those of other individuals in the world... we develop a natural sympathy and we call this charity,compassion, and love{on the unconcious level we do these things because we, the individual benefit from such acts and feelings; but our concious mind does not think about this often}, it's just simply the way the human animal operates, no god is needed to be beleive din and no holy book or prophet in needed for us to simply live this instinct, we just DO, and those few that don't or outright rject it- are not in touch with their animal humanness- they are not natural human beeings in the sense that they reject their own humanness.

In Reason:
Iconoclastithon

Yes, atheists believe that certain things should be done under certain conditions (what English-speakers call "right") and certain things should not be done under certain conditions (what English-speakers call "wrong.") All humans and some non-human animals (with a functioning cerebral cortex) have such beliefs (or at least behave as if they have such beliefs) because of their genes.

We are sentient and often avoid suffering and seek well-being because of our genes. Therefore, we think that things that cause suffering are wrong (should not be done) and things that cause well-being are right (should be done). To "harm" is to cause more suffering, and to "help" is to cause more well-being.

People usually don't disagree on what's harmful and what's helpful in a given situation. There's disagreement from conflict of interests, but there are usually ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to really harmful behavior. Faith causes more disagreements because that's when evidence (things that anyone can perceive for themselves) doesn't matter to the person of faith. How can we come to an agreement on whether or not homosexuality is wrong if you assume that homosexuality causes suffering in the form of punishment from God while I'm looking at evidence that homosexuality itself does not cause needless suffering? If you assume that Jews are all evildoers and ignore my evidence to the contrary, then how can we come to an agreement about whether or not to kill Jews? How can we agree on whether slavery is good or bad when I’m pointing at evidence that it causes unnecessary suffering, but you’re assuming that it’s not bad because God condoned it the bible? Whether or not something is harmful or helpful should not be taken on faith; there should be evidence.

yes we do, simply because the fact that we have a mind!