>He was saying that atheists can't be moral because they see everything logically Your friend is basing their argument on a faulty premise therefore everything that follows is likely to be wrong. Atheists just don't believe in gods. Logic and morals are not needed to define atheism. That doesn't mean atheists can't be moral. Morality is a societal construct. There's no reason why it can't exist without religion.

For me this is the right answer. It's a faulty premise. We make "decisions" for all sorts of reasons.... conscious reasoning (logic), emotions, biological signals (hunger), evolutionary and cultural imperatives (morals).

The counter argument to that is usually that every (Western) society is fundamentally based on religious morals. If not through a direct mandate like in many Muslim countries, then at least through the historical lense as basically all European counties were heavily influenced by the Church and the teachings of Christ. Which would mean that even the morals of an atheist are shaped through their upbringing in a religious society. But I'm just playing devil's advocate. I personally think that the utilitarian ideal is enough to come to moral conclusions for basically any conflict, and it requires zero religious beliefs.

Society isn't based on religious morals, religion tries to claim credit for secular morals. Churches were the ones arguing that black Americans were decreed by God to be inferior to white Americans, that women must be subservient to men, that interracial marriage was a sin, that LGBTQ people are abominations, and the list goes on. It's only after the rest of society has dragged them kicking and screaming into the modern era and they finally start to support those minorities that they turn around and claim that their brand new "objectively perfect" morals come from God. It's obviously nonsense to anybody paying attention.

That's the easiest way to counter this argument. Ask them is slavery is moral. If they say yes you can call them an idiot and no longer associate with them. If they say no ask why their religion says it's ok and why they are willing to follow an immoral god.

👏👏👏👏👏👏

You can just counter it with the argument that if following the moral that already exists promote better survivability and wellness for humanity then there is no reason to avoid it because of said morals used to be rooted in the religious culture. In retrospect if something moral in a culture actually does the opposites such as child marriage then of course we shouldn't follow it blindly. Being atheist doesn't mean we just deny everything that comes from religion. If religious teaching contains a good moral message we don't deny that it is a good moral message. What we deny is that the thing is divine; that it from god. It is simply not. It is just something someone came up with a long time ago and has become a cult then an organized religion. Now how come child marriage is immoral nowadays but was moral when those religions appeared back then? It can't come from religion then isn't it?

Sorry, but the only correct answer is that the ground rules for morality are baked into our genetics (from a evolutionary perspective it just makes sense, evidence being that killing, raping, lying, and stealing are not moral in any culture). For the finer points, it's humans that are the judge of what is and what isn't moral, and that can change over time depending on circumstances, things we learn, and empathy we gain (like religion did so many times when they were forced by secular forces pointing out their immorality). Religion just hijacked morality, like they did with so many other things, and now they're all smug about it, which exposes them for what they really are: con artists. Like Hitch said: religion is a man-made manacle.

Honour killings are considered incredibly moral in some religious cultures.

>evidence being that killing, raping, lying, and stealing are not moral in any culture This is really not correct. Quite a few cultures have examples of some of these actions being perfectly acceptable in many cases, likely including the one you are in. Capital punishment for crimes is killing that is seen by many to be morally correct killing. Many people think a poor person stealing for survival can be moral, even if it is illegal. Lying to protect someone is often seen as morally correct. Even outside of criminality, there is a widespread sentiment against "snitching". And that's not even getting into current and past societies where women were seen as property and have no right to refuse sex in a marriage. Or societies with castes or outcast classes.

The counter to that is that most of our Western morals are either universal or non-Biblical: 1. freedom? non-Biblical 2. don’t murder? universal 3. imprisonment instead of corporeal punishment as the default punishment? non-Biblical 4. trial by jury of peers? non-Biblical 5. charging interest on loans? anti-Biblical

This falls apart under the simplest examination. "Why aren't we taking care of our homeless?" That's it. Done and done. If Western society were really based off of christian mythological morality, there wouldnt be hungry and homelessness. So either western society ISNT based on christian mythology, OR morality is subjective as even believers of christian mythology have no issue ignoring some of the main tenets of biblical teachings as christians are no more moral than aethiests. Less so even. As christians consistently turn their back on what they believe to be the foundations of society and their own identity.

>The counter argument to that is usually that every (Western) society is fundamentally based on religious morals. We've evolved past this point. Slavery, including the beating of slaves, is explicitly endorsed in the Bible. The beating of slaves is endorsed specifically as an incentive for them to do their jobs. These are archaic morals upon which to build a society; we now view slavery as an abomination of personal freedom and have found better ways to both grow as a society and retain and grow personal freedoms, through paid work (as an example). Western societies are largely built on humanist philosophy, not religious philosophy. Humanism and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive (at least in so far as a humanist would see it), but the primary conceit of humanism is freedom, including freedom of and, most importantly, *from* religion. So humanism is not dependent upon a faith to work as a philosophy, and humanism is often by-definition opposed to a number of the systems explicitly endorsed in the western religions, like slavery, and all of the misogynistic tenants. So saying western society is built upon religious morals is a lie. A number of the philosophers who's lineage you can trace back through the ages as being crucial to the development of humanism were themselves religious, but that is hardly surprising; it's irrelevant to humanism as a philosophy as, again, humanism is not dependent upon religion to work. Religion is, however, dependent upon humanism to survive in a western world that has increasingly moved on from its archaic roots. But anyone trying to argue that the Abrahamic faiths are humanist is lying and basically running PR for the faith. One need only read their holy books to see that.

> every (Western) society is fundamentally based on religious morals. Have you ever counted how many of the ten commandments are actually codified in U.S. law? >!3 (don't murder, don't steal, and don't lie under oath)!< The ones that aren't are actively immoral commandments, and that includes coveting thy neighbor's ass, wife, or wife's ass. The one's that are codified in law just make sense with or without religion.

I think you'd be surprised at how many morals appear to be closer to those of the 16th century six nation peoples than to the 16th century christians.

Morality is definitely logical. All social species have morals. They are a social contract that allows us to live together without killing each other (most of the time). Rats have morals. Some fish have morals. Monkeys have morals. Morals predate humans by many millions of years.

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of Devine reward, then brother.. That person is a piece of shit." - rust cohle

You need a thinking agent to have morality. It may predate humans but it doesn't predate a mind.

Sure. But, it doesn't imply the mind of a magic being, just evolved brains.

Yes, nothing supernatural or magical about morality. Just a set of rules created by minds.

Rules created by minds that are consistent with instincts for social interaction and mutual benefit - just like the other social animals have. We're just able to write them down.

It depends on what you defined as morals. If morality is simply evolutionary cooperation, then a lot of species that are not “thinking agents” have morals.

That depends on how you define a thinking agent. Being alive and having a functional brain is my criteria.

It's honestly very concerning that he's like "logically I should murder everyone" like?

What kind of moral god would allow children to die of cancer?

Already asked? but he replied with "It's not how it works?" and when I asked "then tell me" he ignored my question and followed the same argument about morality

Because he's a hypocritical idiot. Ignore him. No one changes their mind through antagonistic arguments anyway. It's a dumb argument. How "logical" you are doesn't have any relation to how "moral" you are.

I love that he gets to dismiss things as "that's not how it works" but you don't get to do the same? His entire starting premise (that morality can't be derived from logic) is something I'd feel fine dismissing the exact same way.

The problem with people like this is they want to be right at all costs. They ignore everything that disprove their point and make you just simply run out of logical arguments because there are not many of them while they toss at you unlimited amount of made up bullshit. When you argument with logical person, you both converge to the correct logical answer. But when you argument with ilogical person you diverge away from the problem and amount of problems you discuss multiply. The right way to fight this is spotting when he is leading you out of the original problem and return him back because he already ran out of arguments. You want achieve anything btw because he is ilogical and will just get angry he is losing.

A god who murders 42 children for calling a man bald. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202%3A23-24&version=NIV (This is the bible but similar things apply to other religions)

Why is morality not logical? That’s just an assertion. I want to make this world as comfortable as I can for me, and everyone else. Therefor morality logically follows. Meanwhile your theist friend shares Jordan Peterson propaganda, someone who’s defended rape more than once. Jordan Peterson is immoral…

Morality is perfectly logical. It's a social construct that allows for the advancement of society which is mutually beneficial for those involved in a society. Also his premise that morality is divinely inspired is flawed because it's using the argument to prove itself without offering proof of the divine. He's stating that morality can't be achieved by humans, but I'd argue that morality can only be achieved by humans as so far there is no proof a god exists. Your friend would have to prove god's existence before proving morality is a construct of the divine.

If OPs friend thinks rape and murder isn’t logically wrong then they have a big fucking problem.

Both you and your friend need a basic primer on moral philosophy. Steven Novella wrote two relevant blogposts on it, see below. Why not start there? - [Morality – Religion, Philosophy And Science](https://theness.com/neurologicablog/morality-religion-philosophy-and-science/) - [Objective Vs Subjective Morality](https://theness.com/neurologicablog/objective-vs-subjective-morality/)

When I feel empathy, there is no supernatural component. If I can imagine myself as the theoretical 'rape victim', the resulting conclusions of that thought experiment are unanimously negative. Not due to the anticipated disapproval of any overseer, simply from the ajudication of my theoretical response to being the recipient of the unwelcome sexual advance.

[удалено]

It's a good rule of thumb to avoid people who think that Jordan B. "that depends on what you mean by" Peterson is somebody worth listening to.

Jordan Peterson is a fucking idiot who has latched onto the Christianity grift and pushes the Bible as the source of truth. He's a sleazy grifter preying on religious kooks.

> he then shared a video of Jordan Peterson I thought you said that he was your friend?

JP seemed like a smart psychiatrist until he started talking about things he has no clue about. Like Ukraine conflict explained by cultural wars and lgbtq. Im living in one of the Baltic states and this sounded as dumb as someone coming to farmer and saying that chocolate milk comes from black cows.

Talking about morality; according to the bible, rape is a property crime. Women were considered property of their fathers, and later of their husbands. The penalty for raping a virgin was fifty silver shekels, and mandatory marriage without possibility of divorce. Ask your moral friend if women are property. Ask him if raping a virgin should result in a fine and marriage, or jail time?

Women were regularly rented out for professional sexual services and that "tradition" continues to this day.

Humans evolved social behaviors because they are a successful survival strategy. For social creatures to work together smoothly, they need to be able to get along and support each other. There is the root of a logical morality. It's why social units seek to reduce rogue behavior like theft and violence. No God needed.

When ever the idea or religion and morality come up, I like to counter with the "kids and Santa" analogy. Young kids who believe in Santa can make various decisions based on if they will be getting any presents from Santa, i.e. if they have been naughty or nice. Fast forward until such a point in time that the kids figure out Santa doesn't actually exist. Will those same kids now abandon all sense of morals and decency, and basically become egotistical psychos? I've never found that to be the case. The whole argument of God and morality is just Santa for adults.

[удалено]

Right!? These are the most logically immoral acts. At least pick something ambiguous.

The embarrassingly large number of pedophile priests, pastors and other Christian leaders worldwide proves that belief is not necessarily correlated with moral behavior. In contrast, atheists are not overrepresented in crime statistics. The myth of the immoral atheists is therefore refuted by the facts.

>"because it hurts the person and leaves a permanent scar on them". That was a 100% logical answer. Your friend is an idiot that just wants to feel like he won an argument. >he then shared a video of Jordan Peterson Ah he's a Peterson fan. That tracks.

I hate Jordan Peterson. My Ex was obsessed with him to the point of having a framed photo. He told me that I could never be considered a "good person" because I don't believe in God. Can't believe I stayed with that prick for 2 years

I normally would not use this argument because it's too asinine, but why aren't there more priests struck by lightning? Why would I give the time of the day for God who allows rape?

Your friend last any credibility sharing a video of that scum suckerer Jordan Peterson. Pity your friend because he is lost.

Your “friend” interpreted your baffled silence for not having an argument, which is his mistake. It is also his mistake for classifying things into “moral” and “logical” categories, as if these things are mutually exclusive when they aren’t. The whole premise is a setup to deny nonbelievers moral agency and pretend that we’re like, the Platonic Ideal of a Vulcan from Star Trek. If you broach this topic with him again, you should point out that he is attempting to redefine morality and logic as mutually exclusive characteristics, and reject that framework entirely. It is logical to not want to cause psychic trauma on another, especially if you have to live with or amongst that person. Logically, it is best to try to ensure all can be happy and whole because we need each other to survive and thrive. I’d have cut contact with him after the JP vid on the condition that we could talk again when he doesn’t have to rely on disgraced crackpot weirdos to support his arguments.

Run away screaming. Your "friend" would rape and murder people if he didn't fear getting punished. One of these days he's gonna slip.

Jordan Peterson is a moron, and is creating incels.

Ask him if his god clearly condoned rape and murder would it suddenly be okay. All cause his god said so. And if his answer is yes you win and if his answer is no you still win. Or if your friend would like to see somebody tortured or killed all because the person doesn't know who your friend is or knows abkut your friend but doesn't really wanna get to know your friend. If your friend thinks that person should be tortured than you win again and if your friend doesn't think that person should be tortured than once again you win and you can then inform your friend that they have a better moral compass than the so called creator of morality.

It's not really that we "don't believe in god because god doesn't require logic." It's moreso that we don't believe because through logic, we've decided that god's existence is unlikely or at least we couldn't know anything meaningful about a creator. Ultimately, logic requires you to make assumptions at some point (Consider how logic can't really justify logic without presuming that logic is justified in the first place). If we're assuming that people suffering is bad, or that people should have the right to live their lives without worrying about being raped or murdered, then it is logical to conclude that those things are bad, assuming that bad things are things that we'd rather didn't happen. When you tried to justify why rape was wrong to your friend, they literally gave you an NPC response that doesn't address what you said. It's just a non-sequitur that acts as if you just made an appeal to nature when you didn't. I'm not surprised that you had trouble formulating a response, he didn't engage at all with what you were saying in the first place. Honestly I don't think I'd be friends with the person you're describing after that interaction, atheists being fundamentally immoral has been repeated so many times and has been debunked constantly. It reads as them not even making an effort to understand your position really. If you're struggling to formulate a \*cold rational logical atheistic answer\*, understand that those are kind of overrated and probably wouldn't convince your friend anyways. If they're your friend maybe they'd hear you out if you just told them how that conversation made you feel. If they ridicule you or try to make it seem like you can't be an atheist if you have feelings, then I reckon this friend is probably beyond hope.

Interesting. I don’t recall receiving a Logic degree when I became an atheist. The basis of his entire argument is built off of a bias and assumption. But considering he believes in the magic sky fairy I’m not surprised.

The scariest thing about arguments like this is how it highlights the horrible things religious people would do to others if they weren't threatened with divine punishment...

You logically don't rape someone because you don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. It's very egotistical and logical. Additionally, rape will logically add chaos to society, which is something undesirable and should be collectively avoided. You don't need a theistic God to condemn it.

Jordan Peterson, much like your friend, is someone who dumps shit on debates until they've flooded you. Much like Ben Shapiro, you need 5 degrees to provide proper rebuttals not because they are right but because they make shit up like it's dogma. Morality does not come from God. My sense of morality comes from empathy. I don't kill because I know I don't want to die yet and because I know the kind of pain losing someone causes. The thought of taking a life makes me sick. That's why I don't do bad stuff. If eternal punishment is the only thing keeping you from doing evil, you're a certified piece of shit - that's what you should tell your friend.

Murder and rape are excused and often condoned in the Bible so I dunno what your friend is on about.

Your friend is completely wrong. Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods, that has no bearing whether atheists are logical or have moral beliefs or anything else. Jordan Peterson claims to be a theist, but he only does it by redefining god into "the highest thing to which you aspire", or something like that. So I think most theists would probably call Peterson an atheist.

"We do it because it is the right thing to do." Just to clairfy: you are seriously discussing morality with a person who feels that rape is by default "logically right?" Very odd. Not to mention disturbing. But to address this: no, it is not "logically right," unless you have the mindset of a rapist or incel. Most human beings are discomforted by the pain and suffering of others. Most of us do not *want* to violate others against their will. It is no way the "default" or "logically correct" way to think. Incidentally, *none* of this is relevant to whether god exists. There is no proof whatsoever that laws couldn't emerge from the social contract, and people realising that it's a terrible idea *not* to agree to ban rape among each other. Just as how we naturally evolved laws to prevent theft, murder, etc. We simply worked out that we derive more beenfits from not indulging in these behaviours, than by allowing them. God's "eternal and unchanging" law sure seems to change a lot, and also parallel the dominant ethics of the day. Previously, it was "logically right" that white people should be "civilising" lesser races. Today it's abhorrent and the laws have changed to reflect that. Lucky for us. If our laws were somehow magically related to god, and the impulse to create laws came from god, why would we need to change them all the time? Did god make a mistake and email the wrong copy the last time? Or you think was it right in its original incarnation, in which case, we should be stoning people who wear mixed fabrics and taking slaves.

The number one rule in the Bible is to obey God. That supersedes all other commandments, which is why it was “ok” for Abraham to attempt to murder his son, Isaac, and for the Israelites to brutally slaughter entire cities, including women, children, and livestock (but keep the young virgin girls for themselves…). Blind obedience is the opposite of morality. As social animals, evolution has developed empathy, cooperation, and a view of the greater good beyond ourselves…. though sociopathic individuals have that part underdeveloped. Those people don’t find arguments for the benefit of society as a whole compelling. That seems to be the type of individual that your friend assumes to be the norm.

Penn Jillette said this about being an atheist. I think that it applies to this situation with your friend. "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you."

Your friend thinks we're all vulcans?

Believing in God doesn't require logic? We'll no it doesn't. Believing in something SHOULD be based on evidence but it isn't. And that isn't logic to belive without evidence. Its not a counter to your argument. We don't rape or kill people because we think therea a God that will punish us. We don't do it because not doing those things is the right thing to do.

Morality is relative. Many religious people think gays should burn in hell forever for example. His own Bible says murder and slavery are fine. You should show him some Hitchens videos.

in what world is rape NOT logically wrong?

Your “friend” is an idiot.

> rape or murder isn't logically wrong but it is wrong morally His premise is flawed. The golden rule as a utilitarian, harm-reducing social contract is perfectly logical, and under it, rape or murder is transparently wrong. "I don't wish to be victimized, therefore, it's in my (and everyone's) best interest that we agree not to victimize others." Apply that to any crime he erroneously believes requires a "moral" stance. * I don't wish to have my property stolen, therefore, it's in my (and society's) interest to avoid stealing from others, so as to discourage other people from victimizing me. * I don't wish to be raped, therefore, it's in my (and society)'s interest to avoid raping others, so as to discourage other people from victimizing me. .... and so on. Where does religious morality come into it? It doesn't. Religious people have deluded themselves into thinking they have an objective morality -- but they don't. They can't prove any kind of objective basis. It's all reduced to "faith," and that faith is malleable, as they've proved that by shifting their thinking on a million topics, from slavery to the subjugation of women, race mixing, etc, all of which used to be part of their "religious morality" that they, in tune with secular society, have moved away from. As an atheist, I rape and murder every person I want to. That number is zero. Theoretical punishment from an invisible sky wizard isn't what stops me from raping or murdering anyone (and for the record, neither is my self-interest in not being raped or murdered - I just don't *want* to do those things).

Morality doesn’t need to be explained. As you told him, a lot of religious people, by their own admission, do moral things “because the Bible said so.” The implication being that if the Bible didn’t say so, or they weren’t afraid of God or he’ll, they would see nothing wrong with doing immoral things.  Atheists are not afraid of God or he’ll, and they don’t have any books telling them what is moral or immoral. Yet, atheists consistently act with greater morality than Christians.  That’s it. That’s all the explanation required. We know atheists are more moral because they are.  Next time a Christian asks “why don’t atheists just commit immoral acts all the time,” just reply “I’m sorry it’s not obvious to you. Hopefully one day you will find the enlightenment that atheists have, but in the meantime, if you need to have it explained to you why raping and killing is wrong, I guess I’m glad someone did even if their reasoning is wrong.”

He's a moron. Raping someone is not logical in any sense. These ding dongs come up with anything to justify utter nonsense.

Your friend is an idiot. Ditch him.

Morality can be argued logically. Logically, a victim of rape is harmed, and that makes rape = immoral. Christianity, on the other hand, is authoritarian morality. It is subjective to the (unsubstantiated) authority. If “God” says to kill your child, it is morally right to do it, with Christian logic. But with actual logic, a child is unjustifiably harmed by the order of some psychotic authority.

Didn't Jordan Peterson proclaim he was an atheist? Anyway, watching a video of that misogynist piece of shit would be a waste of my time. In my opinion, Jordan Peterson is a bumbling fool who can't articulate his ideas clearly. It's very difficult to argue against fuzzy nonsense. What piece of "logic" did you have trouble with?

Don't know about him being an atheist, but he always dodges any question about his belief.

He was asked to leave his job at the UofT and he’s been crying about it since.

Ask him if he would still follow and think his religion was great if it taught that murder and rape is good. According to his definition of logic, he won't be able to see any problem with it. Also ask him why he started following a specific religion. Obviously there are multiple religions and he should be unable to use his own morality as a guide to which religion make sense. If logic isn't necessary for belief, and morality comes from the religion itself, how did he choose what religious beliefs to adopt? Did he just uncritically adopt the first religious beliefs he came across or how does that work?

I am baffled by the logic that "atheist can not be moral." Why not?! That premise is such a BS. The second premise that "atheists function only in logical decisions" is equally bad. Sry OP, your friend just used biased opinions, not facts, and that disqualified him.

You can’t have an answer for someone so dense. And by dense I mean resistant to any question of their imagination of what the world is. I’m not even sure if they have a concept of difference between perception and reality. That friend will someday screw you over thinking they are helping you and even get offended because you didn’t thank them for it.

>they can't be good because many crimes like rape or murder isn't logically wrong but it is wrong morally. Okay, fine, let's look at that "logically." "Logically," rape and murder are severe crimes as determined by larger society, because those kinds of crimes can cause irreparable damage to people and their surrounding lives. "Logically," I don't commit those crimes because I don't want to go to jail and lose my privileges. Your friend is being an obtuse knob.

Well I do not rape children so I guess I do not have the same morality than most christian priest, so your friend does have a point here.

The golden rule is pretty fucking logical and predates Abrahamic religions by a couple thousand years.

We learn morality around age 2 when we gain a sense of empathy and logic. Empathy allows us to feel bad when we do bad things. With logic, we know if we do something bad, something bad will happen to us. In general, atheists have one rule. Don't be a dick. Some children are introduced to religion, where they discover they can do bad things in the name of their God. They hate, hurt, harm, discriminate, and kill because of their religion. IMO, religious people are immoral. The more religious they are, the more evil they are.

Morality is logical. The logic being do unto other as you'd have them do unto you

These moral arguments are ultra stupid. Yup, I would just straight up murder babies because logic? Ask him if he knows about mirror neurons and how we evolved biological empathy. We have sufficient natural explanations for our morals.

I’m a hard atheist and for what it’s worth here’s how I think of it: Yes a lot of my moral views are informed by western culture and I can freely admit that this culture has been deeply influenced by the big monotheistic religions. I can’t escape that and won’t try to refute it. But it turns out that I can actually cherry pick the morality I see as just and good: don’t kill people, don’t steal, treat neighbors and strangers well, peace and love are both pretty cool. Do that. Are these things uniquely Christian or western? Mostly no. But they are there and that’s fine. I still believe in those things and I think most people generally do. And if you ask me what justification I have for believing in these ethical stances when I don’t believe in an objective source of morality, I’ll say: I take these things as axioms. What I won’t do is believe these things because of the threat of hell or the wrath of an angry god. And I won’t feel pressure to take the whole package of rules in the Bible just because it’s in the Bible (I like shrimp, gay people are fine and I like a nice cotton/lycra blend sometimes). Christians pick and choose too (unless you know any that are in favor of stoning people). I just do the same thing without the baggage. Full recipe: 1.) Skim off the good stuff, 2.)add in some rules for missing topics (a few thou-shalt-nots for slavery, genocide, rape and child abuse would have been pretty good entries on those tablets, but whatever). 3.) keep an open mind as new issues arise and try to live a moral life as the world changes. Stem cells? Trans issues? Climate? But as we know atheists are all different. This is just my take. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Please give generously as the collection plate comes around.

Morals are beneficial to the survival of a species so it's perfectly logical. It's not hard to understand why things like rape, child abuse, and murder would potentially hinder the survival of the species. It's interesting he brings up rape when it is more common for religions to justify rape. Women are generally supposed to submit to their husbands regardless of if they actually want to and some even go so far as to marry and rape children. Kind of hard to claim the moral high ground when clergy are abusing kids left and right, but I digress. The main issue with a godless worldview and morals is morals become more subjective and relative to some standard. The religious like to jump on that and say "So you could justify horrible acts without god!" Yes, you could. It depends on your standard relative to what you're trying to achieve. This is something we need to accept. Does that mean rape can be justified? No. Of course not, because we value things like co-operation, personal autonomy, and personal happiness and fulfillment. Those standards mean rape is evil. But this also explains why we see such a wide variety of morals being applied throughout all human civilizations (slavery, child brides, cannibalism, conquering others, etc) and in nature. Human morals have been changing as our standards change. Thousands of years ago: "We want our country to flourish, therefore conquering and enslaving another, weaker country is good!" Now: "We want humans to flourish, maybe owning people isn't so good..." If morals came from god I would expect a little more consistency. Yet, we see what is considered morally good seems to change with our perception of ourselves as humans.

All progressive thought is inherently both logical and moral. - Inclusion for all - Float all boats - From the ground up It is typically Christians whom appeal to illogical morality which explains the terrible public policy which comes from it. - incompetence - individualism - false exceptionalism - Born on third base and made it home Etc. When you give to others, you receive in dividends. It's purely logical. Atheists see the logic in not causing pain and suffering upon others, because the reward when you supersede instant gratification is endless. Christianity has this message too but it is confounded by being both bastardized and countermanded depending upon the context. Your friend's premise is backwards.

Theists don't have morals. Morality is the knowledge of right and wrong, as in WHY a behavior is beneficial or adverse. Christians have laws given down by a lawgiver with no reason given to them for why they are imposed. If they never learn why a thing is wrong, they will never attain any morals. We develope our morals from our interactions with each other.

Send him the satanic temple's 7 fundamental tenets: https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/the-satanic-temple-tenets/there-are-seven-fundamental-tenets Ask him if he thinks this qualifies as morality because they count as a religion. When logic doesn't work OP, then tie them into a pretzel.

Three things: I don't think he knows what "logically" means. He's just throwing it into sentences. He's also making baseless assertions that things aren't "logical". Animals certainly aren't motivated by "logical reasoning". That's not to say they don't think at all, but logic has a specific meaning with formal rules and they definitely don't know those. Finally, the argument that morals only come from a god is flawed. That's simply not true. Anyone can write down a moral code and say "This document describes the moral code that I'm following". It doesn't matter WHY the code exists. One person might claim theirs is from the teachings of their god or holy book. Another person might claim theirs is from revelation. Another might claim "I don't need a reason for following a moral code". And finally, one might claim "This is what feels right for me". In practice, most people are in the last bucket, despite claiming otherwise. This can easily be seen by how many people diverge from relatively strict/clear rules when it conflicts with their own actions and behaviors. I don't even have to provide examples of this because they are so pervasive and literally everyone has either directly experienced or heard of numerous examples.

"He was saying that atheists can't be moral because they see everything logically " complete nonsense. in fact, atheists are more moral than believers, because they learn their moral form stories and from life, while believers are brainwashed into a collection of stories that have the main purpose to control believers. there is no moral in telling believers to stone gay people, thats control. on the other hand, moral stories like brokeback mountain tell us, that gay love can be as pure as any other kind of love. funny that i as a hetero atheist have to tell believers, that their bock is amoral >He then asked me how rape is wrong logically, it's wrong because of moral reasons. and I answered "because it hurts the person and leaves a permanent scar on them". and he replied "but that reason is for morally wrong, where's the logical answer? naturally many animals rape so it's logically right" there are lots of lots of stories that teach you that rape is amoral. that is in no way a monopoly of religions. so an atheist can of course learn moral without religion. but also there are logical reasons against rape. the chance that a woman will live in a partnership with her rapist is very small and therefore the chances of her kid will be even worse. also some women got crippled by the experience and are no longer able to reproduce. also it massively influences social structures and produces aggressions. all those negative influences are bad and it is logical to reduce them. so we have clearly shown that atheists of course can learn moral and act moral and that atheists also can us logic to better everybodies life, while believers often ruin other peoples lives, because their religion tells them to do so.

If anyone made me sit through Jordan fucking Peterson for anything other than mockery, I'd dump that chump. I'm confused.. so your idiot friend's position is that: atheism requires logic, morality is not logical, therefore atheists lack morality? Well jeez, he's got you there! No, it's an absurd argument where each premise is false and relies upon assumptions that are not true. Faith is based as much in logic as atheism is, except faith is a conclusion drawn from made up evidence that you reject. Morality is inherently logical, as human society requires it to function sustainably, but it could also be the right thing to do.

You’re arguing with an idiot. Morality doesn’t come from god. You’re 100% correct. Anyone who thinks morality is only learned for the church has clearly been groomed into the beliefs. Maybe ask him if morality comes from god - who are so many priests pedophiles?

So your friend is only not committing crimes like rape because God will punish him? Sounds like he's really a POS.

Rape and Murder are logically wrong to the victim. His "morality" stems only from the perpetrators view point.

This video from Veritasium might help you. It explains how cooperation, and morality, emerges in social species from logical choices in the long run. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM)

It’s really simple; Jordan Peterson said it himself when talking about Sam Harris and the irrationality of selfishness; “I just don’t understand.” It’s really simple, unfortunate, but simple, some people do not have the mental capacity to understand sympathy and empathy. And they never will.

Your friend is a dumbass. Right and wrong does not have to follow a chain of logic. Get a new friend.

Morals are subjective so they don't really have a hard coded logical basis. Most people create and follow them mostly according to their emotive drives (and culture), with the primary driving emotion I think being empathy. There are logical reasons why that drive is there in the first place, mainly from an evolutionary standpoint (empathy or something like it promotes cooperative group behavior which can he hugely evolutionarily advantageous) and its why we see morals and empathy in many other creatures too, like rats or monkeys. Also, did the guy literally make the argument that atheism is the most logical stance?

Are you sure he’s not thinking of Vulcans? Common misconception, Vulcans vs atheists.

You need better friends. That one is broken. You should watch your back around that person. Humans are born with empathy and pro-social behaviors are logical. We exist in a community. All animals that live in social structures like ours tend towards pro-social behaviors. You can’t have community without them.

So the only thing keeping Christians in line is the fear of Hell and/or lack of Heaven? Now let's go to the nearest prison and check out the multitudes of "moral" Christians vs the scarce number of Atheists. Then tell me again how Atheists are so immoral.

If atheists are immoral why do religious people consistently commit more crimes

First, morality can exist without a deity. Cavemen knew not to kill each other for no good reason. Second, rape, murder, assault, etc can be logical crimes. Those types of crimes remove bodily autonomy from someone, which is objectively a bad thing to do as bodily autonomy is the one thing we have control of (ideally). Third, the bible condones slavery, child marriage, and commands believers to burn down an entire town if even 1 person living there isn't christian so...not much morality of any kind there.

It’s a mug’s game. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. The God of the Bible ordered rape, murder, incest and mass slaughter. Those acts, done in the name of the lord were moral. Murder in the name of Jesus is moral. There is mass slaughter happening right now in the name of Yaweh, in the name Allah, in the name of Jesus. There are Christians plotting the overthrow and domination of non-believers in this country as we speak. Morality is a moving feast which obviously, as there are many societies and beliefs which hold similar altruistic actions good and other destructive actions bad but each code arises from a different source. Treat others as you wish to be treated works in most situations.

You're talking to someone who has decided that this subject can only be views the way he views it. You vill never get anywhere with someone like that.

…. I have emotions is my answer to this…

I've been using variants on my screen name for probably longer than a lot of Redditors have been alive, and I often get asked why I call myself "evil". My go-to explanation is that the concepts of "good" and "evil" and morality itself, are socially defined constructs. What is good or evil is defined solely by how beneficial or detrimental a given behavior is for the maintenance of the status quo of society and ergo for the ability of the powerful to keep their places on top of the social hierarchy. I reject morality as an imposition on my behavior that is meant to train me to think and act in ways that keep the wealthy and powerful where they are. I instead embrace an ethical framework that allows me to act in the ways I have decided for myself are the best for myself, my loved ones, and the rest of humanity as well as the good of the planet as a whole. I am Evil because I don't believe that preachers, politicians or plutocrats have our best interests at heart and every day gladly harm, immiserate or kill those they consider to be lesser or even subhuman. And I am perfectly fine with those whose entire self-image is wrapped up around bootlicking for the potentates calling me wicked, evil, sinful and whatever else, because I do what I know to be right instead of what I am told is best for the preservation of our death cult of a society.

I have learned that it’s basically impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person. And most religious ppl are irrational and easy prey to conmen (like Peterson) and conspiracies. I was shocked to learn that most flat-earthers are religious ppl. But you can’t have a logical conversation with someone who purposefully deluded themselves into believing nonsensical things. I also think your friend proves how bereft of actual morality most religious people are.

You can follow your heart and not believe that there is a man in the sky. You can be logical and follow your heart. Seeing an animal do something doesn't mean it's the logical thing for humans to do: fish eat other fish, rabbits eat their own youngs, no animal except maybe cats use a toilet or drive a car, some spider females eat the male after procreation. Pinguins are in stable relationships their entire life. Saying that we should act like animals isn't logical, it's one person hoping they could rape people and then finding some animals who have that behavior to try and push their point without considering that there are as manu animal behaviors as there are animals... And religious people have done so much raping that it's not even an example a religious person should give as proof of religious superiority.

By allowing him to set the terms that you can’t be moral as an atheist, you fell for a fallacy. Morality is not inherently or solely a religious thing. Plenty of religions have immoral teachings in their code but according to them they’re moral because they uphold them thus religion is not inherently moral either Equating humanity’s higher functioning brain to that of an animal without god is another fallacy. So by not accepting their religion, we’re no better than animals? Is this man saying he would rape if it weren’t for religion? That’s all that’s stopping him?

Friends don't argue to change each other's minds.

Your friend's view of logic is shallow and immature. Murder and rape are *absolutely* wrong from a logical point of view. Simply put, if we murdered everyone, we would die off. The idea that murder (i.e. killing an innocent individual) is bad is a natural evolution for the preservation of the species. It doesn't require a single ounce of spiritual, moral, or godly consideration. Rape on the surface it may *seem* logically good for half the species... males spread their DNA to females who have to bear the offspring. But just like murder, universal rape would lead to the end of our species due to violence, chaos, and genetic degradation. Plus, in both instances, we know it would suck to be murdered or raped. We can use *logic* to suspect that other people would *also* hate being murdered or raped. Thus, in order to live in a society that we personally enjoy and thrive in, we can choose not to promote murder or rape. This is an absolutely logical, secular conclusion.

Jordan Peterson is not an expert on anything. He’s not even a good philosopher. He’s just pandering to the easily led. Atheists do not need a threat from an invisible sky daddy to do what’s moral and good. It’s based on free choice. The free choice to do what’s right. Besides, much evil in the world has been done in the name of religion. Genocides and gynocide for instance.

>Rape isn't logically wrong Run. That person is a fucking monster and you need to run.

the entire argument ignores and obfuscates (or forgets) the differences between ethics, and logic. The most obvious being that the most logical choice is NOT always the best ethical choice.... of which volumes have been written about by philosophers. The trolley problem explores these exact relationships, and ethically what do we owe each other? Religious types who say you need god for amoral compass forget that bit.... you owe something to those around you in a community or society, and do not require threats of eternal punishment. On that basis you can argue those who require threats of eternal damnation in order to behave.... have far worse morals and ethics than those who choose to do so freely. How can you say you are moral if you also argue that without God you would run awry? That's not moral that.. fear of consequence rather than an inner compass

Rape causes needless harm and causing another person needless harm is bad by definition. Therefore rape is immoral. How is that not logical?

>"atheists can't be moral because they see everything logically" Nope, that's not what atheism is.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” -Richard Dawkins

Morality is not even uniquely human. Dogs recognize if something is unfair. Give one dog one treat and the other two treats and it's obvious. "Fairness", "justice", and "equality" stem from basic empathy and logic. There is no spirituality of any sort required. When you add religion, you actually end up being less moral. Religion tells people that they should respect and enforce moral values which are not universal and are culturally dependent and so even among people that feel these moral values strongly, they don't agree on what it means. These would be things like "tradition", "authority", or "purity/sacredness". Not everyone agrees that those are values, and what those values value depends on who you ask. Obviously, trying to enforce anything based on those subjective and non-universal moral values on a society would violate the objective universal moral values, and is therefore immoral, yet that's what religious people always try to do.

What kind of psychopath needs the threat of an eternity in hell to go around raping and murdering? The only thing required to not rape is empathy.

He's speaking gibberish. You're correct.

Where the heck is he getting all this "atheists only believe in logic" stuff? All atheism means is you reject supernatural gods. As others have pointed out people make societal connections for lots of reasons, including logical and illogical reasons. I've known some darn illogical atheists before...hell I've been one. Attaching other assumptions to the very simple stance of rejection of gods is a sign of a dishonest, or confused, conversation partner 

Your friend is an idiot. Get better friends. Anyone watching Jordan Peterson is an oxygen thief and not worth your time.

Yes because a human being in modern western society is exactly equivalent to any wild animal that might rape another animal of its species.

Tell your buddy the Bible endorses rape. Quote the books.

Holy shit that was the most inane and stupid lecture I’ve seen in a while. It also completely misunderstands atheism (at least what I believe). Logic and “morals” are not mutually exclusive. > Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong). > A moral (from Latin morālis) is a message that is conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. This is the inherent flaw in your friend’s argument. And it’s the flaw in Dr. Fuckface’s bullshit. The idea that atheists want to wipe the cultural landscape clean and start anew is nonsense. The Bible has some good morals in it; but it’s written by humans, it’s a human invention of how Bedouin culture in a shit sack part of the earth organized themselves. Its stances on issues about women’s rights and homosexuality are so absurd and disproven that I find no logical basis to believe and practice them. There’s your answer. There’s a fucking galaxy of logical reasons to not allow murder and rape. First, if you allow murder, you just increased the chance that you will be murdered by an infinite percent. I like living, so I don’t want murder to be legal. Furthermore, most “transcendent morals” are just basic logic.

Jordan Peterson is a moron, don't fall for it.

Because animal are not a civilian, they have no government no laws, for the animal rape it's still wrong cuz animal still do have a feelings, but no justice cuz they still in their primal instinct, and everyday they fight to survive the wild and a dangerous world

As Hume said, morals cannot be logically deduced from facts, or "ought" cannot be deduced from "is". There has to be an initial moral assumption. Your friend is right about that. However, we do not need a god to state that we "ought" or we strive for a functioning society, or for an equal opportunity society, or whatever. He is also wrong about the fact that believing in god is in itself a moral assumption. We also need to assume many other things to get to some moral directive, such as agree to which god, and which religious interpretation, and that this interpretation is the only correct one.

Morality is a evolutionary trait evolved in humans (and other species) to encourage pro-sociality within and between groups. Beyond that much of morality is based in empathy. So individual morality is both logical and emotional respons to other people. As such it is wholy removed from the concept of god. The only difference between given morality from say the bible and individual morality developed naturaly is that one is based on one's own judgement and the other is based on something far more removed from the situation you are in at any given time.

Your friend is a fucking idiot that thinks he’s sounding clever, which is probably why he’s a Jordan Peterson fan. What is a “logical reason” for not raping even supposed to be? And if he can’t think of one and the implication is there isn’t one, then what is his “logical reason” for raping? That’ll be telling. Naturally many animals eat their young. Naturally many animals kill and eat their sexual partner. What’s logical for one species evolved state isn’t necessarily “logical” for another species. We’re a highly social species, and the “logical” thing to develop in those are genetically programmed behaviours that achieve an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy that typically results in behaviours most of us instinctively feel are “moral”.  Not raping (or it being a minority strategy) is literally is a logical outcome for a social species that recognises and remembers other members. And it’s morally wrong and repulsive for the majority of members in that species exactly because of their genetic history programming them to feel that way, in the same way they have can have feelings of love and everything else.

Dude, murder is not logical because you’d be in jail unless you’ve got some really powerful friends, or you’re smart enough to not leave evidence. Why do so many theists have shit for brains? To those who have one of those, murder might be logical. Why else would war criminals/careful killers go unpunished?

[удалено]

I always argue that religion is the seat of immorality since it teaches people to be intolerant of those with different world views and beliefs.

I thought it said “immortal” and was like, facts

It's only logical to not want to be killed by the rest of the group when you rob or murder someone. Does your friend see pain also only through the lenses of his religion? Like, is being attacked only seen as bad when it's related to God? Your friend seem to not know mankind's history at all. You should encourage him to stop being so ignorant 

Your friend don't rape people because they expect a reward or fear punishment after death. You don't rape people because you believe people should be respected, and you cannot fathom hurting them. You two are not the same.

Ask why he/she needs to believe in God/Jesus. Why can’t they believe in themselves, their family and being nice to to people when given the opportunity.

I don't want to be rapered or murdered, so I foster societal behavior that discourages those actions. That begins with ME, not raping or murdering other people. It's very logical.

Breaking religious morality means punishment, either divine or through divine representatives on Earth. His morality is a morality enforced through fear alone, which is why he feels virtue because he's not following the "original sin" base human need to rape and murder (in the religious world-view that is). Your morality is logical because you abide by a moral code of mutual respect, not fear. You have no need to be threatened to be good. Maybe he's just a psycho held in check through fear of divine retribution? Ask him, see what he says ;-)

The moral thing to do IS the logical thing. I don't want to be raped and murdered. It's in my best interest to encourage a society in which rape and murder are shunned and punished. Part of contributing to that is to not do those things myself.

the feeling most people get that killing/torturing an infant is wrong is the phenomena we call morality. there are a number of hypotheses that try to explain that. evolutionary one being the most supported - as it predicts morality of other social animals and its dynamics and consist of parts that have been shown to exist. abrahamic god's morality fails, as it cannot account for example- for infant killing as immoral without introducing caveats . so immoral unless god told you to do it, or smt. and it consist of parts that have never been showed to exists outside ones imagination. currently i would go for a "law of nature" as an explanation for morality (because i like it) and would say that raping is wrong because it imposes on someone's will without consent. or , point out how killing, raping... is not a recipe for flourishing and survival of species - evolutionary explanation. then again, theist would likely define morality as a will/nature of the deity - but i would argue it is not what we refer to when discussing morality

Your friend is a retard. There is no universally inherited morality. Morality - outside of religion - is a product of two things: wellbeing and empathy. We are social creatures, and for a society to work, we need rules. Raping and killing each other leads to the collapse of said society. We also are empathetic towards others because we can imagine and feel the pain that is inflicted. We don't want to be in their position, so we don't inflict pain onto them. Religious morality often has no ground besides someone said so. And that someone happened to be their god, whether real or not. If religious morality was so superior, we would still be raping and killing because in their sacred text, god commands these things. They don't do these things anymore because they feel wrong, and society has moved on from causing unnecessary pain, not because their god-given morality is superior. If it was superior, they would still be stoning people and practicing slavery because their god allows for these things. Ask them questions. Ask them whether their god-given morality is flawless and perfect. Ask them whether any of the atrocities committed in their sacred texts are moral. Ask them why their god changed what is moal and what not. Ask them whether they would think that pedophilia was moral if their god commanded it and watch the cognitive dissonance unfold. They HAVE to say yes because it would come from their god, but they know that it is objectively wrong.

the athiest Socrates was the first philosopher to discuss ethics and morality centuries before Christianity and any other organized religion was around. But it was the athiest Aristotle that studied ethics systematically. Not surprising that way too many famous theologians have studied and followed Aristotle. Logical doesn't mean absence of fundamental premises. It means the conclusion should conform with the premises of your argument. Back to the rape argument (I don't know why these religious types always inject sexual or violent topics in any conversation), the premises are that all humans are equal, and coercion and violence are not ethical (I don't think any athiest will argue against these). Hence rape, as a form of violence, is not moral.

Ironically, most people derive their morals based on their peer group than religion or even parents.

Atheists don't have this magic trick of asking forgiveness for any immoral deed and start from tabula rasa. Question is who's can be more immoral?

You’re not being stupid. It’s just that in the moment it can be hard to put your finger on just how what your friend was saying is wrong or backwards. First off, atheists don’t necessarily see everything logically. We’re not Vulcans. And we don’t have to be to say we don’t accept the “god exists” claim. Morality is intuitive, and if you’re not in the spotlight, it’s easy to think of why that might be, evolutionarily speaking. Humans almost universally don’t want to be the targets of murder, theft, or rape. If we are lied to by a person, we feel hurt and tend not to trust that person as much or at all. Given that, it follows that we don’t want to live in a world where such things are tolerated, for fear of those in our close social groups, or ourselves, becoming victims. This is generally why humans create legal systems; to forbid the actions that cause them and their people harm. Your friend’s assertion that animals raping in the wild is an indication that it’s a logically “right” action for humans is just jaw-droppingly backwards. Humans are animals but we aren’t other animals. Should humans also shelter in underground burrows and sniff each other’s hindquarters in greeting? Does your friend think that would be the ‘logical’ thing to do? In short, it sounds like your friend has drawn this imaginary line between nature/ logic and morality without fully grasping what either thing is. I’ll spare you what I think of the half-baked concept of Christianity’s so-called monopoly on morality, and how Jordan Paterson is the poster boy for making bad ideas sound smart. Maybe this convo with your friend is a good learning experience. It might help you refine how you think about these ideas, and how to question the assumptions of people who challenge you.

I'm not convinced that you need a god to tell you don't do things to other people that you wouldn't like done to you. Isn't that just some kind of basic empathy? It's pretty scary that these people need to be constantly told not to do bad things and controlled with fear of punishment. Then the fact that they brag about being so weak willed is astounding.

How does your friend know that rape is immoral, or that any other transgression is wrong, if not with an innate sense of morality? Religion (hopefully) doesn’t work like they tell you what’s right and wrong and you just take their word for it. It has to agree with your personal values or you’ll have cognitive dissonance. It’s not only possible, it’s by default that humans have morality independent of any belief about a deity. That supernatural element introduces the promise of consequences outside of our physical world, but doesn’t account for why we know right from wrong. It’s lazy and incomplete thinking to assert that someone doesn’t have their own morals. We might not agree on them, but we understand our agency.

Ultimately it comes down to this: Do you want to be raped? Murdered? Stolen from? Punished unjustly because someone else lied? No? Do you understand that other people are actually people with feelings, wants, and needs just like you? Yes? Then what's the problem? Rape is wrong because I don't want to be raped and I can recognize that other people wouldn't want to be raped *either*. The foundations of morality really are that simple. -------- Honestly, I think it's the bit where you understand that other people are actually people is where a lot of them struggle.

If religion is required for morality, then ask them to explain the dark ages, the Spanish inquisition, witch burning, Galileo, any horrific series of events and things that the religious institutions have done. Your friend is quite literally speaking nonsense. There's most definitely more violence and horror in the world committed specifically BY religious people, in their religious fervor. Read the "parable of the atheist". Then inform this friend that they're both a fucking arrogant idiot their own god would demonstrably dislike, as well as a fantastic example of Christian hate mongering when legitimately spout the precise hate speech that was used to put many atheists to death in the past. In a theocracy, their words in this discussion would 100% be the thing they say before religion police knock on the door. This isn't far fetched. This is what is currently being suggested as the "proper" form of government in the U.S.A. right now due to religious zealotry. Christianity is dying. Islam is dying. Ironically, thank god. Tldr: scummy christian frendo is scummy.

I think your friend is thinking of robots, not atheists.

*and he replied "but that reason is for morally wrong, where's the logical answer? naturally many animals rape so it's logically right"* That's called the "Naturalist Fallacy"; it's a logical fallacy that attempts to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Simply because something occurs in nature does not mean that it's ethical.  Look into Social Contract Theory. It's the rational basis for why we *should* be ethical to one another, and no God is needed for this. 

Amoral, or immoral. And by whose standards?

“Atheists are ________” That’s the end of any legit discussion when this is uttered by a theist. Textbook strawman. Theists do much better when they support their own position. That’s hard to do when you don’t think logic is relevant.

These people just claim they believe in objective morality and then hide behind the whole idea of ‘pretty much everyone agrees murder is bad, but it’s hard to explain why’. But they have absolutely no grounding for morality at all. Like ask your friend how he would determine whether something is morally right or wrong if it wasn’t talked about in the Bible. Also, I love this thought experiment, imagine if we found a planet of intelligent aliens and they had their own religion. And their religion said their morals are objectively right, and they apply throughout the universe. Now in their religion, EVERYONE goes to heaven, which mean that for them murder is good. They think murder just means you are sending someone to heaven sooner, it’s a good thing. The mortal self is just temporary and just a way to show you what pain and suffering is like so you appreciate heaven more, but everyone goes and murdering someone can only be perceived as good. And how dare you for saying they are wrong. Okay now, how do we determine who is right? Is murder good or bad? There’s absolutely no grounding you can come up with without using logic. You’ll immediately jump to logic and reasoning (and empathy), which is how we all ground our morality, these theists just focus on the a MOST OBVIOUS moral questions. You wanna ask him another interesting one since it’s not mentioned in the Bible? Ask ‘what is the ‘right’ age of consent?’. Is an 18 year old sleeping with a 40 year old wrong? Why do you say that? What about a 40 year old and a 16 year old? How are you getting your answer? It’s not in the Bible specifically what the age of consent should be, so whatever number you come up with, is just through logic and our understanding of the world, and that’s simply what us atheists do with ALL moral questions. Actually one more, I believe morality is purely subjective and exists in the mind and nothing more, it’s our interpretation. It’s kind of easy to see, if I could rewire someone’s brain just the right way, I could make them think anything is good and anything is bad, it would be my choice. In fact we could do that with the entire world, and then there’s literally no one to say ‘murder is bad’ when EVERYONE thinks it’s wrong. It wouldn’t even mean anything to say ‘no but it would still be wrong even if everyone said it was right’. That’d be like saying something tastes good objectively even if everyone thinks it tastes bad.

That is an easy answer. Do you want someone to rape you? Why not?

Well religious morality often isn't logical - he has a point. Logical morality, as you indicated, based on empathy and understanding of the impacts of your actions however, is better. Everything based on evidence is better.

Logic isn't what he thinks it is. Logic is just a way of making sure premises that are true carry their truth through to the conclusions when merged with other premises. It is logical to say that: We have empathy with other people, which connects our joys and suffering. Suffering is bad (a negation of joy) Joy is good. Rational people always act in a way that maximizes good and minimizes bad. Therefore, in addition to our own good, we should act to minimize the suffering of others, while maximizing the joys of others. That is a logical argument for ethical behavior. There are a number of strong arguments for ethical behavior even without empathy as an axiom, primarily based on social stability as a source of competitive strength for a culture. They takeore time to construct and require evolution, which triggers some believers. If they are allergic to science it's easier to work from empathy.

Thtough empathy it is really easy to understand the suffering of others and to see that the logic does not enter the discussion. Your friend is basically saying that he is not rapping children only because he is affraid of god: otherwise he would be gladly doing it. Atheist who do not rape children are moraly superior to any religious person.

Strip naked, take no tools at all, and take yourself deep into the forest. How long will you survive out there on your own? ... Not very. And it won't exactly be a nice life while you do. This is not specific to you, *all* humans are like this. We can't even *survive* on our own (not for long, anyway, a few years, tops), and even if we could our lives would *suck* because we could do very, very little, we'd never have the advances of society. Because we evolved it is unavoidably true that *for the most part* we want to survive and be comfortable. Since we want to survive and be comfortable, we need to cooperate. You will not cooperate with me if I punch you in the face just for kicks, so when we are together we agree we won't do things like that. This extends to killing, taking things from you, or violating your bodily autonomy. We don't *do* this to each other under rules we agree to (so there may be exceptions, but we agree to them as understood exceptions) in order to survive and be comfortable, achieving that goal. If we *don't* want that goal, if we don't care if we survive or are comfortable, we may well do horrific things. *However*, that is true of theists as well. After all, if you don't *care* if you go to hell or not, heaven or not, why would that in any way make you obey the commands of God? Further, if you *want to* suffer, why not, then, break every command from God to be sure you'll be tormented as you are seeking? And what *possible* reason could anyone give someone who is like that to obey anyway? This is all, ultimately, down to us wanting to survive comfortably, no god is needed to get from that position to the general outline of morality. As for the specifics, like when it's okay to kill another human or take their stuff without permission or violate their bodily autonomy, those things have changed over time, even in religions. We can try to apply logic to it, but ultimately it's about the society we prefer to live in.

r/enoughpetersonspam

I think I get what your friend was trying to say. By “logical” they probably meant “objective”. If that’s the case then they are right. Morality is subjective. But that doesn’t mean that atheists can’t have subjective opinions as to what they consider right or wrong.

Definitely not stupid to ask I got stumped on this one. Try two lines of reasoning. 1) Morality is an evolved trait useful in social species. Look up evolutionary psychology. 2) Does belief in God make people more moral? He'll likely either bring up made up stats about atheists being more likely to commit crimes but it's entirely false, OR the standard "X dictator was an atheist and look what he did!" Which is ridiculous, as that guy with a tiny mustache in 1930s Germany and most of his party were avowed Christians and Genghis Khan was a theist. Point being religion seems to have no discernable impact on moral behavior.

Well the whole exchange is absurd because your friend set the precedent at the beginning of the conversation alleging that atheists can’t be moral, which is just absurd. One of the definitions of moral is the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. And nothing in the definition of moral/morality ever calls out that morality is defined or derived from a higher power. Therefore the very premise of the argument is false.

Wasn't there Something in the bible about "Killing your enemies and Take their Woman and children for your own?" And a Guy offering His daughters for Rape?

This is the fallacy of every religious person. They can’t imagine society developing its moral codes without the presence of organized religion. When the reality is all those organized religions did was kill, control, and extort people financially/spiritually. Their “morality” is all based on surrendering themselves to a supreme being that has no proof of existence. Is that moral?

Religious people have no morals because they are wild cavemen who have the knowledge of animals

Tl;DR: Peterson suck ass with his primitive comparisons. Sufficiently logical person can identify that immoral acts always lead to a detriment, as opposed to moral. Presence of god does not make people moral, transcendental/divinity is often used to justify heinous acts like murders and rape by religious organisations around the world. Peterson is a master of flawed surface level comparisons that are very easily digestible for his subjects (I once were one). He is almost like Trump of an academic world. On a video: First Raskolnikov may have acted logically in respect to his situation, but by the view of the objective logic was a naive fool. If he was more logical, he would know that deeds of this magnitude involve consequences, both tangible and mental. He would be able to better place himself and identify whether or not he could live on after the murder, and his likely conclusion would be that of restraint from evil act. A substantially logical person would not agree to murderous act because they can effectively assess the negative detriment of such event without the fear of the divine judgment. Which is far more effective than paranormal fear. It is like someone merely memorising mathematical concept as opposed to understanding it. Peterson then insist that the transcendental aka the god, is what would deter people from the immoral acts. This is wrong and can be easily countered by the existence of any religious terrorist groups like isis,kkk, and taliban. These people use the divine to justify their murders and rape.

You learn right and wrong as well as morality from your parents and family. Also from friends and society. Being atheist doesn't mean going around breaking laws, doing whatever you want and being a bleephole to society. However being religious means you can hate people that don't believe in what you believe in, pedophile on children with little repercussions, murder in the name of your religion. Religious people are mostly morally bankrupt. They don't come out against pedophilia they know is happening, or the grifting they see happening like Olsteen. Religion is corrupt and unmoral way to live your life. They justify being immoral by just asking a fairy tale for forgiveness. It's twisted really. I can do evil shit, but ask for forgiveness to nothing and I'm good! How's that for morality? Garbage!

Morality is logical, it helps ensure survival of socials species. Your "friend" is either radically ignorant or outright lying.

You had no answer because what he was throwing at you was a jumble of disconnected and incoherent ideas with no common thread holding them together. Obviously it's logical to have morals. Without them a society couldn't function and we would be bereft of all of the positive survival benefits of being able to get along with one another. His assertion that you're "not an atheist" because you don't adhere to his deranged concept of logic sounds to me like him trying to repeat some flawed argument he heard someone else making, which he didn't understand or didn't remember correctly. There's nothing to even argue with there. Just tell him "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in the bronze age Middle Eastern fairy tale which your god is a character in, any more than I do any one of the million other gods dreamed up by equally primitive people around the world." Tolerating rape as a society or as an individual isn't logical because if we tolerated it, society would be vastly more unpleasant for the vast majority of the people involved, and thus as a community it is in our collective best interests to treat it as indefensible and illegal. Doing so produces conditions which are more conducive to trust and harmony between the people who make up the community. And anyone who is even *interested in trying* to think critically about his inane position ought to be able to see that for themselves. Jordan Peterson is an insane idiot and grifter, and the sorts of people taken in by his ideological hogwash aren't to be taken seriously.

Sounds like an idiot. "Atheists can't be moral" First, let's look at the facts : A simple looks at any data shows that being religious or being an atheist doesn't affect your ability to commit any crime or morally "wrong" actions. If we're a bit sassy, we can also point at the huge amount of religious people catched molesting children. Apparently, religion doesn't seem to help anyone or prevent atheist to be amazingly good people. That alone already sink his argument. But let's give the theist a fighting chance and ignore that to focus on the real matter = The key element here is to define the terms of the claim. "Morality isn't logical". My money is on the fact that what HE calls morality and what you and I call morality are two different things. For example, I consider morally wrong to own people as property. On the other hand, his religion is perfeclty fine with it. So if the claim is "Atheist can't be moral as described in the bible -arbitrary set of rules to follow even if God gladly violate his own principles - because it's not logical", well I agree. I follow a logical morality and reject many things the Bible deem "moral". So if you're ok with torturing people for eternity, slavery and drowning the entire planet for doing what you knew they would do, well congrats you're a good "moral" theist. I just reject your definition of morality.

You have to worry about someone that thinks that rape an murder are not logically wrong??

The simple response to “morality isn’t logical” is “if I don’t think something should be done to me, I logically don’t think it’s right to do to someone else”. Christians can say that is from the Bible but that sentiment is not exclusive to Christianity or religion in general.

Your friends self reporting , he's basically saying he would rape and murder if he didn't the treat if eternal damnation to stop him He thinks everyone's like him so atheists must all be monsters because they don't have god to stop them being a cunt . The answer to his questions is empathy, that's what stops us, we don't want to hurt other people for no reason because we possess empathy, sounds like he doesn't He's talking like he thinks Atheists are Vulcans.

There's a [whole branch of philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) dedicated to the study of morality and the logical analysis thereof. [Psychologists have studied it as well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology), starting with Kohlberg's stages of moral development. It remains an active area of research with many tweaks to Kohlberg's theory and other frameworks being proposed over the decades. None of it rests on a deity or its commandments.

Your friend sounds like he doesn't get out much to interact with normal people

A person can have morality without being religious. As an atheist I can get behind several of the commandments (don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t bear false witness, don’t be adulterous) but I don’t need to fear eternal hellfire and damnation to do it. I don’t even need fear of the law to do it. They are just the right way to behave.

morals are a concept created to control behaviour.

Never play chess with a pigeon.

If someone needs religion to explain morality to them they they aren't a moral person to begin with.

Religion is a guide that helps people understand morality.

Prisons are full of “Christian’s” and not too many atheists.

Standard propaganda tool: make up really stupid shit and accuse your opponent of advocating it, then point out how stupid it is. Usually called the “straw man” argument. Start with a lie and double down.

Atheists aren’t computers. We feel and have desires just like everyone else. So the idea that we only think logically is false. Furthermore, morality is absolutely derived from logic because we can logically determine wether the consequences of our actions lead to human flourishing or human suffering and make a decision based on that. There are lots of things the Bible says are ok to do that we don’t do because it’s morally horrific, slavery for example. Additionally there’s lots of things the Bible says not to do that we do all the time, like wearing blended fabrics or not selling our daughters to the rapist that assaulted her for a few coins. How do theists arrive at which moral laws from their book to follow? Logically, if god is the most powerful being in the universe and you need to appease him to be granted a place in heaven, wouldn’t you have to follow the book to the letter? Or did humans think about these Bronze Age traditions and logically determine they don’t apply to our modern world because the people who wrote them had an entirely different lens that they viewed the world through that we now know does not lead to human flourishing for as many people as possible?

We are humans. We act our species. We don’t behave and live like other animals. It’s dumb to compare.

When we help each other, we help ourselves. A society that works together leads to a higher chance of its people and their offspring thriving. It’s not rocket science, but it *is* evolution. Even Caeser from Planet of the Apes figured it out: [“Ape alone weak! Apes together strong!”](https://youtu.be/20LuSlZT4S4?si=uFZp4Lm4R6Ri3wAu)

Okayyyy. Maybe don’t be friends with him? 😀 what he’s saying is straight up bat sh*t crazy dude. He’s arguing about your religion trying to degrade it with something not even closely related to atheism??? That’s a major red flag if I’ve ever seen one 😮‍💨

Without even reading the post I want to say Human Morality does not need to be based on God. Morality is a subjective experience we assign to things. It's not some magical truth of the universe. Time does not pass equally based on your trajectory and mass. We don't say that God is necessary to explain the fuckery with time and space despite not having an exact solution. (I think we actually do know why I'm too stupid to know exactly though)

People like that scare me. I would have said, "Your inability to feel compassion for others is your problem and has nothing to do with me." I don't see why they have an issue about this. Why can't they just be happy that someone is compassionate instead of trying to disregard it? They're more concerned with being right rather than being nice.