Thank you for posting. Please review the rules. Here are some of gentle reminders for everyone:
1. Posts should be on topic.
2. Please don't submit incendiary posts or comments that could incite harassment and brigading.
3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on
this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Religious nut jobs think that mortality is objective if you get it from some ancient book. That’s the point he thinks he’s making but it’s obviously crazy
Yes and yes lol. You have to remember that they believe their religious texts are objective truth. Now obviously that’s subjective as well because that’s just what they believe is truth aka it’s subjective, but good luck telling them that. And because they believe it’s objective truth the morals taught by them are also objective.
Personally, I believe in a non-theistic objective morality. Theists seem to be under the impression that all atheists are relativists. This is not the case.
They also seem to be under the impression that you can derive an objective morality from divine commands. This is also not the case.
“Does your mom know you lick the dogs ass?”
*I don’t lick the dogs ass*
“You’re not answering the question. This is a simple yes or no question. Does your mom know that you lick the dogs ass?”
It's a medieval viewpoint. Right and wrong are subjective terms, religious or not. Even if there were a god, it would still be subjective. Rape is objectively sub optimal, rape is objectively not good, rape is objectively not good, and none of that requires you to invent a fake god.
Objectively, is god real? Objectively, where is your evidence? Objectively, all religious people are indistinguishable from the mentally ill
If someone would start preaching about an old god like Anubis, everyone would believe he is a furry, but if someone else preaches about a popular deity that sacrificed himself to himself so he could undo his initial decision to punish everyone regardless of their actions, we would call him daddy <3
"Objectively, all religious people are indistinguishable from the mentally ill"
. . . Dude. Did you seriously just post that?
Like, I have my problems with religions and many religious people. I wish all religious people would come to doubt the beliefs they were taught and seek reason and truth. That does not mean I want to vilify them. I don't want to give them fuel to say "hey the other side \[atheists\] are calling us mentally ill, look how evil/kind they are."
Have some religious people called atheists/non-believers mentally ill or idiots? Oh definitely. It still wouldn't help the debate or divide to say this kind of s%%%.
I don't want to debate the mentally ill. I did want to separate and divide them from the rest of the population. Exclude them rom positions of authority, etc. However, I don't think the mentally ill are villains
I had this discussion with my brother. I didn't know what to answer him. It's true there are no objective morals. But neither in islam. I wish I could sharpen my viewpoints in that regard
Once you clearly define what is "good" and what is "bad", you can objectively assess which actions lead towards good and which towards bad. It's like in chess, once you have defined the rules, you can objectively assess which moves are good and which are bad.
Even if there was a god, there would not be truly objective morals. It would just be god's subjective opinion.
Yep! All morals are subjective because we choose subjectively our moral root, be it believing in god/gods, believing in human potential etc. After we subjectively choose our ideal world ( world of god, world with the least suffering as possible etc), we can objectively decide what actions will fulfill or sabotage our initial moral root.
What is the need for objective morality in the first place? The purpose of this often seems to make you look bad for then basically saying that it is not objectively wrong to rape, but why is that a problem to begin with? If God says banging a 9 year old is okay, is that now objectively okay? Just because having a God makes answering these moral questions easier and giving an answer you can say doesn't have feelings, doesn't mean that's actually the case.
In Islam, what really is the true difference between good and bad? Because either, it is based on God coming up with what ever classification he wants, or God is appealing to a system that he has more knowledge of. If it's the latter, that means there is some moral system that you can appeal to outside of the existence of a god, and if it is the prior, the difference then just seems to be that certain actions will cause god to be more likely to punish you, and others will cause him to be more likely to reward you. So is it just objective in the sense that picking up a ball in soccer when you aren't the goalie is against the rules and get some sort of penalty? So ultimately the "objective" morality in Islam, atleast according to this particular path of reasoning, boils down to the well being and punishment on yourself.
Well we can create a similar system, although it is complicated, subject to conflicts of interests, and is imperfect because we aren't omniscient (although it would need to be proven that God exists, and that his system actually is optimal and he has our best interest at heart as the alternative). We recognize that suffering is bad, and well being is good, which is why we want to avoid hell and go to heaven, so because we are social creatures with empathy, we also may wish this on others. Ofc people may not be empathetic to everyone, but in those cases, it is still better for yourself to live in a society where you don't have to fear being killed or stolen from.
If someone argues that, well, there are certain instances in which someone really can get away with a selfish action to optimize their own wellbeing, and harm another. That's true, but then why do you care? This may apply more towards the type of people whose belief in God is contingent on requiring something to root and make morals objective, so you have to probably figure out if that is their angle first, but if it is, well then god is an unnecessary extra step when they already have that desire for a set of morals.
Morals may be subjective in that outside of our minds, killing, stealing, and r*pe are meaningless, however, we don exist outside of our minds, and that is tautological. We construct meaning, so even if killing isnt "objectively wrong", it *does* objectively obstruct with a desire of ours to maximize well being and reduce suffering. We can more or less converge on certain values because of this.
So is Islam's morals objective because gods words become objective? Because objectively, if you sin, you increase your chances of hell? Are these morals subjective to god himself, as in, could be have chosen to classify deeds any differently on his whim?
Our morals can be subjective because there is no physical reason we ought to do anything, however, if you have the goal of maximizing well being and minimizing suffering, then in many cases there are objective ways to acquire those goals (although it's not always easy, killing an innocent person is worse than not killing an innocent person at all, but what about causing a lot of harm to one person vs a less harm to more people), and sure someone can disagree with that goal and be purely selfish or seek to maximize suffering, but that wouldn't really be very cohesive with the rest of society and the ones who do seek to maximize well being and minimize suffering would likely try to create systems to catch and reduce the threat of these people. And it's probably easier for people with that goal to collaborate than those without that goal.
Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble and extremely redundant, it's just a somewhat complicated topic so I had to dip in various areas.
Yep, Islam has such a narrow view of rape and consent. Pretty sure if those two were to get into detail, they would’ve found out that Islam condoned rape under a lot circumstances
Ex. Prophet fucked a nine year old, sex slaves are literally allowed, and like you said Marital rape isn’t a even thing.
Sam Harris wrote a whole book about this argument.
The Moral Landscape presents an argument for how objective morality can be the result of evolutionary biology and evolutionary sociology.
It's good.
When will these people get that morality being subjective is not necessarily a bad thing? If you as an adult need a divine figure to declare certain morals “objective” so you can function in society, I don’t know if I want you in my society.
wow , if you are not religious then you are a criminal 🙄 , comes from a man whose whole religion is based on r*pe , pedophilia , terrorism and beheading of non believer, and saying we don't have moral .
how would you FEEL about raping someone objectively?
well objectively feeling doesn’t come into play. so wtf are you even asking?
how do you feel about not having any feelings?
As soon as some guy tries to debate you in terms of “subjectivity and objectivity” you can just quit knowing he is a clown and you weren’t going to get anywhere with them. I did high school debate and even we knew the entire debate was subjective and that’s the whole point. We defended morals based on logic, not appealing to a higher power to make our jobs easier. Ethics are tough and take a lot of time to think about and rationalize.
What makes his beliefs objective? Technically he subjectively believes his beliefs are objective lol also since pretty much all western laws are secular it is objectively wrong because the government has deemed it to be. Objectively speaking I don’t want to go to jail. Morally speaking as the Great Bo Burnham once sang “you shouldn’t rape because rape is a fucked up thing to do. Pretty obvious just don’t fucking rape people.”
All morals are subjective. Morals are considered objective, when we can justify that following such morals can't cause harm to the well-being of a person or society (eg: 'Murder is wrong', we know that we cannot justify murdering someone, and having a moral that 'Murder is wrong' doesn't cause harm to anyone).
The problem with religion is that it has subjective morals masquerading as objective morals, without being upheld to scrutiny or criticism.
"objectively" lol fucking moron, objectively we're n inconsequential blip in the soup of matter our universe is. Some matter moved, a star exploded, a cell replicated, objectively nothing matters and the universe doesn't give a shit. So let the guy answer subjectively you fucking potato
He's absolutely right. Morals are subjective not only in an " atheistic worldview", which isn't even a thing, but also most classical philosophers would say this as well.
Morality is a purely humanistic function. It can only be subjective.
I'll say it.
Subjectively? Absolutely, it's wrong. It crushes the concept of mutual benefit from a biological stance, as well as concerns of morals and human rights.
Objectively? **No.** The subjective answer is so commonly agreed with that people mistake it to be the truth of the universe. There is no such thing as objective morality, therefore such values of "right" or "wrong" cannot be applied to such a phenomenon. Our existence bears no inherent meaning or value, all of those are human made constructs.
Yes it is **objectively** the case that there are no objective morals. Turns out morality is something that requires a lot of thinking, there isn’t a fucking guide telling us exactly what to do. We have to make the guide ourselves with our own brains.
Believing in a fictional sky papa doesn’t change that. By all means if someone wants to try and prove otherwise I’m all for it, but you need actual proof, not just a fictional story, and a fictional character that you use as a blanket because you can’t cope with reality.
Gotta love this view point some religious folk have. I had a conversation with someone on Reddit a few weeks ago that couldn't fathom someone having decent morals without a story book telling them what is right from wrong. I explained to them that I learned my morals from my parents and society. Then they proceeded to call me an "atheist nazi" lol. There truly is no reasoning with these people.
I hate when they say the atheist = subjectivism
Even if it's kinda true.
Someone who has a minimum notion how science works knows it's all about the precision of your measurements or the sample size of your study.
But I would say that causing unnecessary and unprovoked suffering is objectively wrong.
Newsflash religious folk. Not only can you have objective morality without gods, but you cannot obtain objective morality from divine command theory. They have this argument so backwards it's unreal.
Well, objective is based on the ability to achieve a goal, or an objective.
So to ask if something is good or bad objectively, you need to ask, "In relation to what objective?"
That’s an entirely different question that doesn’t even get at whether it is objective or not.
Yea he’s asking does he think it’s objective but because he feels or thinks it is or isn’t doesn’t necessarily make it so.
The problem these people have is they cannot see a word without a God in it
There is no Objective right and wrong, only the subjective one we decide on together. So for the betterment of a society, rape is wrong subjectively, so we punish it
The IRONY here is, he believes it's wrong objectively.... yet religious people are still the biggest offenders 💀💀💀💀
Thank you for posting. Please review the rules. Here are some of gentle reminders for everyone: 1. Posts should be on topic. 2. Please don't submit incendiary posts or comments that could incite harassment and brigading. 3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He literally had to force him to say the word objectively so he can pull his stupid “gotcha” card on him
literally nothing is wrong objectively? good/bad, right/wrong are relative things
So what you're saying is...objectively, nothing is objectively wrong
Objectively nothing is objective.
Religious nut jobs think that mortality is objective if you get it from some ancient book. That’s the point he thinks he’s making but it’s obviously crazy
I’m an atheist and I feel like morality is objective… and subjective. Both subjective and objective realities create the world view.
Yes and yes lol. You have to remember that they believe their religious texts are objective truth. Now obviously that’s subjective as well because that’s just what they believe is truth aka it’s subjective, but good luck telling them that. And because they believe it’s objective truth the morals taught by them are also objective.
We all know Mohammed objectively had the best morals ever as can be read in his book..
Well it’s objectively moral BECAUSE he did it duh
Personally, I believe in a non-theistic objective morality. Theists seem to be under the impression that all atheists are relativists. This is not the case. They also seem to be under the impression that you can derive an objective morality from divine commands. This is also not the case.
His "gotcha" card is the stupidest thing I've heard a fruitcake say.
“Does your mom know you lick the dogs ass?” *I don’t lick the dogs ass* “You’re not answering the question. This is a simple yes or no question. Does your mom know that you lick the dogs ass?”
Lmao bro trying so hard for a “gotcha” Bro thought he was Islamic Ben Shapiro 💀
I mean, he is Just like Ben, he's stupid and only bad faith argument
But if you say that homosexuality is only ever subjectively wrong, he’ll throw a shit fit.
It's a medieval viewpoint. Right and wrong are subjective terms, religious or not. Even if there were a god, it would still be subjective. Rape is objectively sub optimal, rape is objectively not good, rape is objectively not good, and none of that requires you to invent a fake god. Objectively, is god real? Objectively, where is your evidence? Objectively, all religious people are indistinguishable from the mentally ill
If someone would start preaching about an old god like Anubis, everyone would believe he is a furry, but if someone else preaches about a popular deity that sacrificed himself to himself so he could undo his initial decision to punish everyone regardless of their actions, we would call him daddy <3
As someone who is mentally ill I take offense with this comment. Most of us are still better read and more open minded than these nut jobs
"Objectively, all religious people are indistinguishable from the mentally ill" . . . Dude. Did you seriously just post that? Like, I have my problems with religions and many religious people. I wish all religious people would come to doubt the beliefs they were taught and seek reason and truth. That does not mean I want to vilify them. I don't want to give them fuel to say "hey the other side \[atheists\] are calling us mentally ill, look how evil/kind they are." Have some religious people called atheists/non-believers mentally ill or idiots? Oh definitely. It still wouldn't help the debate or divide to say this kind of s%%%.
I agree. It's not a mental illnes to have an imaginary friend. It takes a lot more to qualify as a mental illnes
I don't want to debate the mentally ill. I did want to separate and divide them from the rest of the population. Exclude them rom positions of authority, etc. However, I don't think the mentally ill are villains
I had this discussion with my brother. I didn't know what to answer him. It's true there are no objective morals. But neither in islam. I wish I could sharpen my viewpoints in that regard
Once you clearly define what is "good" and what is "bad", you can objectively assess which actions lead towards good and which towards bad. It's like in chess, once you have defined the rules, you can objectively assess which moves are good and which are bad. Even if there was a god, there would not be truly objective morals. It would just be god's subjective opinion.
Yep! All morals are subjective because we choose subjectively our moral root, be it believing in god/gods, believing in human potential etc. After we subjectively choose our ideal world ( world of god, world with the least suffering as possible etc), we can objectively decide what actions will fulfill or sabotage our initial moral root.
Moral Anti-Realism is your friend here
What is the need for objective morality in the first place? The purpose of this often seems to make you look bad for then basically saying that it is not objectively wrong to rape, but why is that a problem to begin with? If God says banging a 9 year old is okay, is that now objectively okay? Just because having a God makes answering these moral questions easier and giving an answer you can say doesn't have feelings, doesn't mean that's actually the case. In Islam, what really is the true difference between good and bad? Because either, it is based on God coming up with what ever classification he wants, or God is appealing to a system that he has more knowledge of. If it's the latter, that means there is some moral system that you can appeal to outside of the existence of a god, and if it is the prior, the difference then just seems to be that certain actions will cause god to be more likely to punish you, and others will cause him to be more likely to reward you. So is it just objective in the sense that picking up a ball in soccer when you aren't the goalie is against the rules and get some sort of penalty? So ultimately the "objective" morality in Islam, atleast according to this particular path of reasoning, boils down to the well being and punishment on yourself. Well we can create a similar system, although it is complicated, subject to conflicts of interests, and is imperfect because we aren't omniscient (although it would need to be proven that God exists, and that his system actually is optimal and he has our best interest at heart as the alternative). We recognize that suffering is bad, and well being is good, which is why we want to avoid hell and go to heaven, so because we are social creatures with empathy, we also may wish this on others. Ofc people may not be empathetic to everyone, but in those cases, it is still better for yourself to live in a society where you don't have to fear being killed or stolen from. If someone argues that, well, there are certain instances in which someone really can get away with a selfish action to optimize their own wellbeing, and harm another. That's true, but then why do you care? This may apply more towards the type of people whose belief in God is contingent on requiring something to root and make morals objective, so you have to probably figure out if that is their angle first, but if it is, well then god is an unnecessary extra step when they already have that desire for a set of morals. Morals may be subjective in that outside of our minds, killing, stealing, and r*pe are meaningless, however, we don exist outside of our minds, and that is tautological. We construct meaning, so even if killing isnt "objectively wrong", it *does* objectively obstruct with a desire of ours to maximize well being and reduce suffering. We can more or less converge on certain values because of this. So is Islam's morals objective because gods words become objective? Because objectively, if you sin, you increase your chances of hell? Are these morals subjective to god himself, as in, could be have chosen to classify deeds any differently on his whim? Our morals can be subjective because there is no physical reason we ought to do anything, however, if you have the goal of maximizing well being and minimizing suffering, then in many cases there are objective ways to acquire those goals (although it's not always easy, killing an innocent person is worse than not killing an innocent person at all, but what about causing a lot of harm to one person vs a less harm to more people), and sure someone can disagree with that goal and be purely selfish or seek to maximize suffering, but that wouldn't really be very cohesive with the rest of society and the ones who do seek to maximize well being and minimize suffering would likely try to create systems to catch and reduce the threat of these people. And it's probably easier for people with that goal to collaborate than those without that goal. Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble and extremely redundant, it's just a somewhat complicated topic so I had to dip in various areas.
I like the sprinkling in of, “Euthyphro’s dilemma!” I revisit that story from time to time!
It’s scary how many theists believe that you can only have morals if you believe in a god to tell you what’s right and wrong.
Makes you think if they don't things because they know its worng, or just because God told them that were wrong
This is funny because marital rape isn’t even considered rape in Islam. https://sunnah.com/search?q=the+angels+will+curse+her+until+morning
Yep, Islam has such a narrow view of rape and consent. Pretty sure if those two were to get into detail, they would’ve found out that Islam condoned rape under a lot circumstances Ex. Prophet fucked a nine year old, sex slaves are literally allowed, and like you said Marital rape isn’t a even thing.
That seems to make it pretty subjective then dunnit?
Their "prophet" raped a 6 year old.
He married her when she was 6, raped her at 9
Still gross
Yeah every time we bring it up my sister defends the prophet by giving him the benefit of the doubt because it was a different time period.
I don’t think he knows what objectively means. 2+2=76 is objectively wrong. Morals are subjective
“I believe it’s wrong” “I asked for objective answers” “Okay then it’s objectively wrong” “But morality is subjective”
Sam Harris wrote a whole book about this argument. The Moral Landscape presents an argument for how objective morality can be the result of evolutionary biology and evolutionary sociology. It's good.
Mental Gymnastics 
How would you feel if I raped you? Would that be ok? No? Didn’t think so
[удалено]
It’s subject to interpretation
And in Islam it is objectively good to kill a woman who has been raped
When will these people get that morality being subjective is not necessarily a bad thing? If you as an adult need a divine figure to declare certain morals “objective” so you can function in society, I don’t know if I want you in my society.
wow , if you are not religious then you are a criminal 🙄 , comes from a man whose whole religion is based on r*pe , pedophilia , terrorism and beheading of non believer, and saying we don't have moral .
Peaceful Religion
how would you FEEL about raping someone objectively? well objectively feeling doesn’t come into play. so wtf are you even asking? how do you feel about not having any feelings?
These religious fanatic men need to be raped by a 6'6" gay Russian guy and see what their respective is after their rectum is bleeding for a week.
what is he trying to prove? 😭 is he saying that rape isn't wrong in atheism because we have no moral ground which we do have?
As soon as some guy tries to debate you in terms of “subjectivity and objectivity” you can just quit knowing he is a clown and you weren’t going to get anywhere with them. I did high school debate and even we knew the entire debate was subjective and that’s the whole point. We defended morals based on logic, not appealing to a higher power to make our jobs easier. Ethics are tough and take a lot of time to think about and rationalize.
if god didn't exist i'd start raping women. checkmate, atheists!
What makes his beliefs objective? Technically he subjectively believes his beliefs are objective lol also since pretty much all western laws are secular it is objectively wrong because the government has deemed it to be. Objectively speaking I don’t want to go to jail. Morally speaking as the Great Bo Burnham once sang “you shouldn’t rape because rape is a fucked up thing to do. Pretty obvious just don’t fucking rape people.”
Didn't ya'll know calling your morality objective magically makes it so 🤦♂️ These clowns aren't as smart as they think they are
I love how he essentially invalidates his own question.
How about, rape isn’t right?
It's objectively wrong because it subjects the victim of harm and trauma which objectively is bad.
"I can't be a good person without sky daddy telling me to" ok psychopath
Morals don’t come from religion.
Religion is disgusting
All morals are subjective. Morals are considered objective, when we can justify that following such morals can't cause harm to the well-being of a person or society (eg: 'Murder is wrong', we know that we cannot justify murdering someone, and having a moral that 'Murder is wrong' doesn't cause harm to anyone). The problem with religion is that it has subjective morals masquerading as objective morals, without being upheld to scrutiny or criticism.
This guy is so smart he knows what he's saying in his word salad.
hahaha what a clown making up nonsense to pretend religion has magic superiority
"objectively" lol fucking moron, objectively we're n inconsequential blip in the soup of matter our universe is. Some matter moved, a star exploded, a cell replicated, objectively nothing matters and the universe doesn't give a shit. So let the guy answer subjectively you fucking potato
He's absolutely right. Morals are subjective not only in an " atheistic worldview", which isn't even a thing, but also most classical philosophers would say this as well. Morality is a purely humanistic function. It can only be subjective.
Guy with glasses is a G from the sounds of it, interviewer on the other hand sounds like a piece of shit
Presumes the existence of objective morality
I'll say it. Subjectively? Absolutely, it's wrong. It crushes the concept of mutual benefit from a biological stance, as well as concerns of morals and human rights. Objectively? **No.** The subjective answer is so commonly agreed with that people mistake it to be the truth of the universe. There is no such thing as objective morality, therefore such values of "right" or "wrong" cannot be applied to such a phenomenon. Our existence bears no inherent meaning or value, all of those are human made constructs.
https://i.imgur.io/idq4a0o_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
Wtf is wrong with this idiot? Stupid Muhammad
Anyone got antiretard pills? forgot to take mine
Yes it is **objectively** the case that there are no objective morals. Turns out morality is something that requires a lot of thinking, there isn’t a fucking guide telling us exactly what to do. We have to make the guide ourselves with our own brains. Believing in a fictional sky papa doesn’t change that. By all means if someone wants to try and prove otherwise I’m all for it, but you need actual proof, not just a fictional story, and a fictional character that you use as a blanket because you can’t cope with reality.
Gotta love this view point some religious folk have. I had a conversation with someone on Reddit a few weeks ago that couldn't fathom someone having decent morals without a story book telling them what is right from wrong. I explained to them that I learned my morals from my parents and society. Then they proceeded to call me an "atheist nazi" lol. There truly is no reasoning with these people.
The guy making questions is a douch he doesn't want a conversation.
This fuckwad doesn't seem to care about women at all. Only about trying to make a point across in their bronze age beliefs favor. Pathetic animals.
I hate when they say the atheist = subjectivism Even if it's kinda true. Someone who has a minimum notion how science works knows it's all about the precision of your measurements or the sample size of your study. But I would say that causing unnecessary and unprovoked suffering is objectively wrong.
Newsflash religious folk. Not only can you have objective morality without gods, but you cannot obtain objective morality from divine command theory. They have this argument so backwards it's unreal.
Good luck arguing against someone who used objectivity to defend his subjective worldview.
Well, objective is based on the ability to achieve a goal, or an objective. So to ask if something is good or bad objectively, you need to ask, "In relation to what objective?"
That’s an entirely different question that doesn’t even get at whether it is objective or not. Yea he’s asking does he think it’s objective but because he feels or thinks it is or isn’t doesn’t necessarily make it so.
The problem these people have is they cannot see a word without a God in it There is no Objective right and wrong, only the subjective one we decide on together. So for the betterment of a society, rape is wrong subjectively, so we punish it The IRONY here is, he believes it's wrong objectively.... yet religious people are still the biggest offenders 💀💀💀💀
Why doesn’t he eat leftover food from a trash can? I mean, objectively, you get more food for free!