"The problem I have (and most theists) on atheism is when it starts to talk about its worldview. I see atheism as dangerous in its worldview because of its reason-based morality that will inevitably fall to moral relativism and utilitarian approach of morality, hence no objective standard of morality. Theism, on the other hand especially monotheism, offers morality based on rules set by transcendent being (or God) which transcends from the natural/material universe and therefore objective in its sense. Whether one is a theist or not, I believe it's essential for the society to critique the fundamentalist aspect of religion so theists could avoid becoming extremists, as well as intellectuals to critique the radical idea of atheism so the bedrock of human civilization does not crumble. " - username: dummy01
There is also a problem with you're statement. I think you're interchanging objectivity and standard or uniform. When we say objective, it means we based it on some sort of scientific, reliable, or actual information. For instance, why is it that killing people is wrong, bad, and immoral for others? That is because they might have based their moral stance and perspective on historical data. They observed that past incidents that involved killing had brought negative consequences. That is being objective. That's different when you believe that killing is immoral because a supernatural force had written on two stones tablets that such act is wrong.
The latter to be classified as objective should prove all of these things: 1) The supernatural force must be existing as an entity 2) Such force is capable of performing the said action (a supernatural force writing words on a natural objects? 3) The supernatural force is a reliable source of moral values, rules, and judgments 4) The entire process or event actually happened. If these four things are not proven, we can conclude therefore that the person's moral perception wasn't derived in an objective. Rather, his moral perception was obtained through a belief system rooted in personal, religious, or sociocultural grounds.
The problem with your statement is that you mistakenly assumed that since atheists don't have a standard set of ideas and beliefs about morality, then their notion of morality is not objective. That is wrong. That is a fallacious statement (hasty generalization). First, the term "objective" is different from the term "standard". However, you're treating these two different terms as having the same meaning. I'll give you an example. A newspaper company can come up with a story regarding a crime event. They can promote the idea that the victim was killed by multiple assailants and the victim's body was burned. Then, they can add details about why the murder happened, including the motive, behavior, relationhip etc., Now, other news companies from other places can take that company's description of the crime. So, there a consensus was made, and the original version of the crime event produced by the first company became standard.
Now, tell me, that is standard because they have a crime story and that story is accepted by others. But, does that mean that the story created is already objective??? It doesn't necessarily follow that a standard idea about a crime event or incident outrighly implies that such story is objective. So, how did you come up with the conclusion that since there is a set of rules on morality from a so called "god" who you said can go beyond the physical or material realm, then theists have a more objective moral stance than atheists? ? ? Well, I pointed out where you made an error - you interchangeably used the terms "objective and standard"
Next, Do monotheistic religions have standard rules on morality? Apparently, they don't have standard rules on morality. Because inside these religions, there a lot of divisions and differences. The early Christians were already indeed divided and diversed. There were Jewish Christians and Hellenistic Christians. The Jewish Christians belonging to what is known as Jerusalem Church believed that it was acceptable to carry over their Jewish traditions even if they already converted to Christianity. The Apostle Paul, however, introduced a new set of doctrines that adapt to the traditions of Gentile Christians. There are differences between Roman Christian Churches and Orthodox Churches, Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims. There are Jewish religions now that believed in Zionism. For them.
It is morally acceptable in the eyes of their god to occupy lands belonging to Palestinians. However, there are Jewish religions that think that it's immoral to possess a land that doesn't really belong to you. See? So where is "standard" there? It's only standard if you will narrow down the people or subjects you're referring to. This means a sect, group, or faction within a monotheistic religion may have a uniform set of beliefs and moral rules. But, even a small faction has the tendency to be divided into smaller groups, sooner or later, thereby leading to the creation of another or new sets of standards!
If atheists have a relativistic or utilitarian approach to morality, that actually goes in favor of objectivity. Because people have different personalities, behaviors, and cultures, you can't impose a one-fit-all approach to morality. For instance, there are countries that allow "death with dignity". What is "death with dignity". It is a situation in which you authorize medical professionals to terminate your life when you're suffering from a health condition or disease, and you only have a few months to live. Now, is this act immoral???For some religious fanatics, this act is immoral. What if the person is experiencing a lot of physical pains and agonies each remaining day of his or her life? Will you allow him bear all all of those in the name of religion-driven morality? So, morality really has to be relative and not absolute. It should vary from one person to another depending on relevant situations and factors that need to be considered. If that's our approach to morality, we are being objective.
