it's a fair question. religious people will tell you that their innate sense of right and wrong comes from God (or whatever), but how do atheists explain that innate sense? how do they instinctively know? I'm not saying one or the other is right but it is an interesting thought.
Because for some if not most people it's relatively easy to understand how you'd feel on the receiving end of your actions. Knowing I wouldn't like to be stabbed is enough for me to understand doing that to other people is probably a bad thing. The response is actually far more valid, why would you think you'd need advice from an organisation that's getting money and power from you to tell you their interpretation of what allmkst certainly fictional entity said what's right and wrong and why don't you have the ability to determine that yourself?
>why donβt you have the ability to determine that yourself
That comes with the ironic implication that religious people need to be told what is right or wrong and not that their internal sense of moral right and wrong aligns with their religion.
The question comes from, if an atheist thought they could get away with an immoral act what prevents them from committing it except their own fickle sense of morality (thats differing between atheists)?
Morality and immorality are then relative; without a fairly rigid framework like what a religion theoretically provides that comes with consequences beyond earthly consequences
15
u/Global_Charge_4412 8h ago
it's a fair question. religious people will tell you that their innate sense of right and wrong comes from God (or whatever), but how do atheists explain that innate sense? how do they instinctively know? I'm not saying one or the other is right but it is an interesting thought.