So this is usually my argument. Morals are subjective because, everyone has their own moral standard of what is right and wrong. I can admit that a lot of people are against murder and theft, but even in that regard, it isn't always wrong. For example: If we break down the word murder to its definition we get "unlawful premeditated killing" So what in the definition makes it wrong? I think it is the killing aspect, but some think it is the unlawful aspect, and thus can be okay with capital punishment, or war. As for stealing many societies in the past have taken from those they have conquered in war, is that stealing? I think it is important to discuss morals in order to look at things from someone else's perspective, but when the conversation about god comes up the debate. Morals are objective come up, and even though I think that the morals conversation is important I don't always want it to boil down to this. So I will sometimes take the easy way out, to continue with the god conversation by stating "If morals are objective then we all have the same morals and why bring it up?" (Something of this nature anyway.) I admit it is a cop out but it is more so I can put a pin in it and move on. On the note that evestrat brought up, I kind of have my own check list "does it infringe on anyone's rights/life?" "Does it benefit anyone?" "Is it harmful?" now this is just for me personally, and you still have to use personal judgement. Not far off from what she said. I will also state that just because I think morals are subjective does not mean I will not hold people accountable for their actions if I deem their actions as immoral. Thanks for the discussion, have a nice day.

This comes from a bass-ackwards concept of morality. They are taught from the cradle that morality is handed down from on high -- externally defined and slavishly adhered to. Also, that their belief-system is the protector of this morality, without which the world would descend into chaos.

The reality is that morality is an emergent property of explicit and implicit societal interactions and negotiations. It's a group effort to reach a consensus society that is acceptable to most of us that live in that society. It was born the first time two humans had to coexist or cooperate in some way. Religion simply takes this and claims to be its originator and sustainer.

As such morals are mutable, relative and subjective. This is another sticking point for theists. To them, it must have a "backing authority" to enforce it, and this means it must be drop-dead simplistic or else you can easily do the "wrong" thing.

The reality is that morality that can evolve and is a little fuzzy around the edges is actually completely adequate to its purpose and in fact is a feature rather than a bug. Our understanding of cause and effect is always evolving. It needs to, because it's imperfect to begin with. We have (or at least had!) a much more elevated understanding of human rights, slavery, equality, etc., than 200 years ago, so things that used to be tolerated -- slavery, Jim Crow, women not voting -- are now (supposed to be) unacceptable. That's called "progress".

Much of the religious forms that we object to here are authoritarian and fascistic in nature -- based on and framed by paternalistic, patriarchal, tribalist, king-led forms of government that are forcibly imposed to maintain order, rather than on more truly populist or egalitarian or cooperative concepts.

Just take a look at some of the "Christians" spouting their crap. Morality is both partly learned and partly internal. I'm a devout atheist, sure I'm correct there by the way, and behave morally toward everyone I interact with.

Theists are empty shells. They have to grab their morals because they have none of their own. They wrap themselves up in imposed morality.

I wish they'd all move to Western Sahara or Antarctica.

As Marionville has just stated, if I may paraphrase, the ground rules were laid down long ago. It seems that some religious communities have hi-jacked the common sense ideas involved here and have cleverly integrated them into their doctrines. Now it is projected that appropriate behaviour is a result of these doctrines. 'Good' to use a term doesn't need religious, or any other, justification. Its easily identifiable by any human being. It only needs justification when it is attempting to cover an alternative and dubious motivation.

Long before religions were invented by man we humans were hunter gatherers, we formed into groups which was basically to be stronger against wild beasts to help us survive we needed the cooperation of others. From this we enlarged to become tribes, in order to keep from fighting with each other rules such as not stealing or killing and just generally looking out for each other were developed this was just logic and was about survival. from these early moral codes which expanded from the tribe to territorial areas and then through time to nation states we have the origins of our moral codes. Religion came along a long time later and incorporated these innate human morals into their creeds and then told the rest of us they alone got gifted them from their God. Just give credit to man and not God for our moral code...thats what I tell any bible thumpers who come out with this sanctimonious rubbish.

I would ask what objective is. If objective means something pretty much universally accepted then most folks would agree that murder is pretty much universally seen as an objective moral wrong. Even then there have to be nuances and we can always come up with an example that would break the rule thus proving that morals are not set in stone. The problem that I have seen is that theists try to make objective mean something that is an absolute, out in the ether, that they can’t explain, much like their invisible friend. If you could get a person to admit that any rule has grey areas that must be examined on a case by case merit then you might get somewhere, but most theists have been trained to not be rational.

...yeah I don't think there is such a thing as right and wrong. Only positive and negative.

Suck on that, theists.

The truth is that most religions have some really messed up morals like christianity and preaching religion to children, or being a martyr, How about the Jewish religion that mass murdered races for the promised land, or other religions that inflict pain on themselves by piercing their skin with needles for their god. morals are nothing but ideas about what an individual feels is right for their life. The problem is when people feel that they need to push their morals on others!

I don't debate with theists. If someone brings up the subject I ignore them and change the subject. If they persist, I remember I have to be somewhere else, and leave. It quickly trains them to stick to neutral subjects.

This website has a bit of a learning curve. Here is some information that might be helpful for dating here.

New members are encouraged to earn website points, and help other members get to know them better, by writing an informational profile that includes their hobbies and interests, and answering all the profile questions, since that's the first place many women look when they see a new member.

The website algorithm uses profiles to find member matches, so the more details one includes, the better the match.
Many women prefer to quickly look at a list of hobbies and interests to see if there's a match with a potential dating partner.

People make comments and write their own posts to earn more points and privileges; for instance, at level two someone can private email people. There are different perks with each level, and when you reach level eight you get an agnostic T-shirt.

In case you didn't know yet, to find members near you, click on the "Meet" button at the top of the page, then on "Members," and enter your preferred search parameters.
Or click on the "About" button at the top of the page to find links to FAQ or the website tutorial.
Click on the 'Meet" button to find member matches