Questions for atheists on having a standard of morality

by Matt Slick | Jun 8, 2011 | Atheism, Secular Issues

I ain’t going to be verbose, unless me mind wants to rant. You know, ADHD. Furthermore, it is the Three of Me that discuss what we feel is moral. Every person has their own Three of Me: Me, Myself, and I.

For my Three of Me: “I” is the intellectual one. “Myself” is a complete arse. “Me” just mediates between the other two. Every time you have a debate with your self deciding whatever, you are having a debate betweeen the Three of Me that you have. Think.

Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
- No. I have a subjective set of mores. Just like what every person “codifies”for them self as THEIR Code of Morality.
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
- The Three of Me discuss it extensively.
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?
- All mores are completely, utterly, totally, absolutely, entirely, wholly, exclusively SUBJECTIVE and RELATIVE to each individual person. All persons decide for themselves what their mores are. When many agree, thus come our laws. Or, are YOU that stupid?
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God-Thing of the Bible?
- Titus Anama to judge others in accordance to My Moral Code, regardless. For example, my judgment is that Matt Slick and his carmite cult have no mores.
If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
- 7734 NO! No one is obligated to follow my mores. Just like I am not obligated to follow your LACK of mores.
If you say that people should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?
- It is not. ONLY to Me, Myself, and I. The Three of Me. We can discuss our differing Moral Codes and find many similarities. That also means we shall find contradictions. T…H…I…N…K…
If you say that people should adhere to your subjective moral standard, then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?
- I never have said anyone should follow my Moral Code. Never EVER. That is something for each person to conclude for their self.
If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?
- The Three of Me discusses the issue. Sometimes in rather heated debate.
If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?
- It is. But ONLY for me. If I discuss my Moral Code with others, and they want to use mine as a basis for their own, that is their decision. I never force my Bullshit onto anyone. Yet, Matt Slick will be so stupid, he would say that my writings are trying to force my Bullshit onto others. However, if you have intelligence, you shall see that I am NOT forcing my bullshit onto others. Rather, I am pointing out the Horse Hoowhee, Bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea you Religitards spew without ever thinking about what you are spewing. IRSS. Religion is Pure Lies and Pure Evil. I shall find those treatises I wrote titled “How Religion IS All Lies” and “How Can Religion BE Pure Evil.” Someday.
If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?
- There is no such thing as Objective <whatthefuckever>. Objective morals, laws, taboos, sins, etc., et al. have NEVER existed and SHALL NEVER exist. In other words, NOTHING we can hypothesize is ever 100%. We strive for as close as possible, but 100% only exists in counting things. Are there four there?
If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
- I have no objective mores. They are subjective to me. And me alone. Besides, I am Pure Rational Anarchist.
If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?
- I never rely on society. I decide everything when the Three of Me discusses the issues. Thus, ultimately, uncontradictive.
If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its society?
- In accordance to MY MORAL CODES, what the Nazis, AND THE HEBREWS, have done to others is morally wrong in accordance to my moral codes. Additionally, what have you Religitards been doing? The same god-damned thing the Nazis and Hebrews did when others have opposed you Religitards. You kill with fervor and without mores. If our secular Founding Fathers had not created this country based on “secular values”, then you Religitards in the USofA would still be burning us at the stack, drowning us, crushing us with boulders, tarring, feathering, and quartering us, hang us by neck until dead. AND, the Religitards favorite: Stoning until dead. Do not bother denying this because it is true. christinsanity teaches one moral value: “You are to beLIEve, think, read, do as WE command, else my God-Thing commands AND demands your death.” That is the ultimate summation of ALL religion. Except Janism.
How is having a moral standard based on societal norms not ultimately subjective sense that society is comprised of individuals with subjective moral standards?
- Are you sure you meant “since” and not “sense”? Language not a requirement for Religitardism. Everyone has their own subjective moral values. When many agree…
If you believe that society produces an objective moral standard, then how does an accumulation of individuals with subjective moral standards within that society produce an objective moral standard?
- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “OBJECTIVE” STANDARDS FOR ANYTHING. Why cannot your stupid retarded brain figure that out? I do not believe in society dictating anything other than the laws by which mountains of humans live together in peace and without coercion. Society is a nusance I must tolerate while I am alive. Otherwise, society is a crock of shit. And anything based upon that society is also a crock of shit. There are no objective moral standards. Never have been. Never shall be.
If society is what determines moral truth, then how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that a society determines what is right and wrong because a society determines what is right and wrong?
- Society determines nothing, except when many agree on a more. Then it becomes law. We as individuals came together and agreed that many of the mores we agree on individually, should be a standard by which society can exist. I shall always feel the True Ultimate Governmental system for any society is Pure Rational Anarchy.
If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not my God-Thing exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God-Thing derives morals from ITself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?
- Society NEVER determines what is right or wrong. Society only agrees on what the majority agrees. We vote this shit into law. Is that right? No. But it is required. As for your God-Things deciding mores, those mores are still ENTIRELY subjective to that monster. They are not objective. Mores founded upon One are not mores. They are tyrannical dictates punishable by death. T…H…I…N…K…
If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
- Question is entirely moot. Society determines nothing except what the many subjectively agree upon.
If the morals derived in society are not obligatory, then how are they proper morals that should be followed?
- Question is entirely moot. Society derives nothing. Society only exists. It is how we individually subjectively decide should be a rule for living within our society. Rational Anarchists know this.
If the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people?
- Question is entirely moot. See directly above.
If you say that society has the right to impose its morals on its people, then how can you legitimately complain against Nazi Germany or the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies imposed their morals on people?
- Society cannot impose its mores onto anyone. All society does is create laws based on the mores of the majority and the punishment applicable.
If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
- There is no such thing as common sense. Question is utterly moot.
If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?
- There is no such thing as common sense. Question is utterly moot.
If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
- There is no such thing as common sense. Question is utterly moot.
If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?
- By comparing to what it was before I changed it. Why do you think laws are ALWAYS being rewritten? Because we find a loop hole that needs closing. As said, there is no such thing as objective laws.
If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?
- By comparing to what it was before changed.
If you say your standard is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won’t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now thereby demonstrating that your moral beliefs now were really wrong?
- By comparing to what it was. As for contradicting my Knowledge, I never do unless I do it purposefully.
If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?
- But it cannot produce self-contradiction. Only improved.
If you say your morals are self-determined, then are they true for everyone or just for you?
- Only individuals are self-determined. My Moral Code is for me ONLY.
If your self-determined morals are true only for you, then do you have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, such as my God-Thing of the bible, by saying they are wrong?
- Only individuals are self-determined. As for judging that bible monster, I have absolute Titus Anamas to judge it. And I have found, by reading those 100 bible-thingies across 48,000+ religious cults, that ALL God-Things are evil monsters. And the actions of those Things already judge ALL God-Things as being the most amoral and evil characters in all of fiction. Even the creatures on my fantsy world of Etherlond cannot even come close to that monster in your 100 bible-thingies. Besides, on Etherlond, those that you may call monsters are not. Instead, they are creatures behaving as creatures do. Us humans only call them monsters since they can kill us rather easily. “”
If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you arbitrarily attach moral values?
- Instinct does not determine mores. Question entirely moot.
If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then wouldn’t that mean that different people’s brains would produce different moral values?
- Instinct does not determine mores. Question entirely moot.
If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how would you really know if anything is right or wrong?
- Instinct does not determine mores. Question entirely moot.
If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how does one neurochemical state of the brain that leads to another neurochemical state produce proper moral truths?
- Instinct does not determine mores. Question entirely moot.
If you really don’t know what is right or wrong but just go with “whatever works,” then what gives you the right to complain about anyone’s moral actions anytime or anywhere since different behaviors work for different people in different situations?
- My Moral Code gives me all RIGHTS to judge the morality of others, regardless. In my standards, Religitards have no mores. Else if they do have mores, then why do all Religitards lie? Is not lying immoral?
If you really don’t know what is right or wrong but just go with “whatever works,” then how is moral stability obtained when “whatever works” can change depending on circumstances and goals?
- Question is totally moot. EVERYTHING CHANGES OVER TIME. Even mores. When needed, you throw out a more for a better more. Or, you add addendums and corrected erratas to your mores. Just as the courts do with Laws.

For those answers that seem to be cop-outs, then you are a True Religitard. Meaning you ain’t human. Also meaning Religitards are the greatest and worstest amoral monsters to ever come from a womb. These questions also prove that Matt Slick has no mores. Additionally, those seeming cop-outs are my way of answering truthfully. I just require you to research and find out why I gave such an answer. Why should I do all your work for you, when I have already done the work for me self?

What flabbergasts me so badly, is that you Religitards cannot understand that each individual person decides their own Moral Code. When many in a society agree, then come the laws. I cannot comprehend your inability to “understand and comprehend” this as a True Truth. Yes, we teach our children the basis of mores. However, to force your moral code onto your children is classified as “Child Abuse”. Mental Rape. Emotional Molestation. Psychological Terrorism. When me mom told me she gets her mores from the bible-thingy, I said, “Thus you subjugate yourself into the beLIEfs of something other than your own intellect.” And the arse-whooping I got later… In failing to think for your selves, you Religitards simply enslave your selves to a nonexistent monster. That is so fucking sad…

Reiteration: I would much rather be damned by you Religitards, than bend the knee to a make-beLIEve monster.

I bend the knee to no one, no thing, except three persons. And all three are now dead. Thus, I shall never bend my knee to your amoral God-Thing monster. As Richard Dawkins said in perfect definition (I paraphrase): “That THING in the bible is inarguably the most horrifying, terrifying monster in all human fiction. That THING of the bible is without argument the most dreadful and abominable monster in all fiction; (let’s see how my memory serves) jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist bigot; an infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, homicidal, pestilential sociopath; a megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious malevolent bully.”

I shall admit I might not have that quote memorized verbatim. But I guaratee if you look for it, it is damned close. Just too lazy to WWW search it. You do some work for once. 7734, for all I know, Richard Dawkins may like my paraphrase. >:-P Richard Dawkins so perfectly summarized that monster of christinsanity. And it is just as applicable to ALL those other God-Thing monsters. I just cannot fathom how it seems no one except for me can see this bullshit. I mean it is right there in ALL your bible-thingies. It describes a Thing that IS wholly evil and monstrous. And I cannot understand why no one can see this FACT. You dumb-arse Religitards think your God-Things are perfect. Well…, ALL those religious texts actually proves those God-Things to be at best a bumbling idiotic fool. Your religion actually debunks ITs self. As long as one can still critically T…H…I…N…K…

— The Unknown Atheist

Top of page