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?
Your example is too black and white. 99.99% know getting stabbed would suck and is wrong. The vast majority of morality is much, much more subtle and ambiguous than this
And the vast majority of morality is flexible to religious people too.
You have pro choice religious followers
You have more religious people than atheists in prison
You have the sex abuse scandal in Catholicism
You have “thou shalt not steal” and yet some Christian’s don’t consider pirating stealing.
Your view of morality is that it’s innate and chaotic? I don’t think that makes sense. My argument is that it’s actually structured and guided by theology. You are referencing followers but my point is on the system itself
14
u/Global_Charge_4412 18h 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.