Richard Dawkins on absolute morality

Hamzah Qureshi asked: Considering atheism cannot possibly have any sort of absolute morality, is it not then an irrational "leap of faith" (which atheists themselves so harshly condemn) for an atheist to decide between right and wrong, considering they have no absolute moral standard?
What do you think?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• richard dawkins
• absolute
• morality
• religion
• scripture
• bible
• quran
• muslim
• islam
• sharia
• stoning
• death
• apostacy
• women
• gay
• rights
• christian
• christianity
• atheist
• atheism

[Skepgnostic]

"U have to follow the principles set by God otherwise a Robber is morally good because he is robbing for himself "

What is this logic?! I can do this too: "Christians and Muslims and Jews are all immoral because they WANT dividends in the form of an afterlife, so they are selfish; and selfishness is immoral."

[UnkownSoldier100]

Answer the question, Dawkins.

[Skepgnostic]

@UnkownSoldier100 What is it that you "answer the question, Dawkins" people don't understand? He states, implicitly, that objective morality DOES NOT EXIST. Get this through your fucking heads.

[Skepgnostic]

@savedbyjesusblood Clearly you do not know what the difference between a pagan and an atheist is...

[aazhbd]

@ThePenguinColonel , If it was an argument then I could have reasoned or discussed something, but what you need is a doctor. I think there are psychiatrists who help those people who feel reasonless hatred for murdering innocent civilians. I am only replying to you because your comment is directed towards me, and by the way I am not an Arab, I am living in Europe.

[leffehoegaarden]

There is no such thing as absolute morality. If god is the arbitor of what is moral he can change his mind at any time rendering what is moral today as immoral tomorrow, a god that cannot change its mind is not really a god.

[Skepgnostic]

@UnkownSoldier100 You know what's funny? Neither do Theists.

[pyrespirit]

@UnkownSoldier100 He did answer the question. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not a good one.

[UnkownSoldier100]

@watchthefaithrain When it comes to anything related to Theism, he NEVER has any clue what he is talking about.

[Skepgnostic]

@aoeu256 I'm confused. Is this in reference to something I said? Indeed, I normally say that "The Golden Rule is only as good as the person practicing it." Typically we often use the "GR" when we are referring to moral, ethical, and kind deeds. It's when we refer to immoral, horrific, unethical deeds that the "GR" falls apart. Kant's Categorical Imperative tried to do it better by universalizing ethical dispositions.

[Skepgnostic]

@aoeu256 But Kant is a deontologist, and deontology has a lukewarm absolute morality inclination to it.

[aoeu256]

@Skepgnostic

Golden Rule based morality leads to absolute rules if you "axiomize" the rules. For example, slavery of a certain people is absolutely wrong because it leads to a contradiction after generalizing "I can choose to enslave any arbitrary people" this means that the enslaver can be enslaved (contradicting the definition of slavery). Categorical Imperative.