Is there an atheist argument against homosexuality?

Ethical codes are guides for coexistence. If our morals aren't at least partly shared, there's no point having them.

Atheists might disagree about the fringes of moral issues, but we can all agree that killing is immoral.

It is objective in the sense that a society which doesn't permit killing as a rule is better for everyone than a society which does.

The same goes for stealing. Permitting stealing would be inherently contradictory, because it would undermine the idea of property, which would render the idea of stealing in the first place meaningless. In any case, a society which protects property rights will flourish: one that doesn't will not.

Secular ethics may not be derived from some absolute authority, but that (a) gives them legitimacy and (b) does not undermine the idea that there are moral standards applicable to everyone, irrespective of whether they subscribe to them.

I agree. But the question is are the things you consider immoral actually inherently (objectively) wrong or they are they just wrong in the context of the society you live in (subjective).

I would use that to argue that objective morality does exist and therefore God exists.

For something to be objective it has to be true regardless of peoples emotions, feelings and opinions e.g. 2+2=4 is true regardles of whether a majority of people feel that the answer is 3 or not. For morality to be objective it cant be based on peoples opinions whether it's consenses opinions or not because opinions can change.

But this implies that people have a moral responsibility to do what is best for everyone?
You are using circular reasoning you are in a sense saying "Everyone has an obligation to do whats best for society, because it's whats best for society."

That doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't tell me why I should do whats good for society at the expense of myself? If stealing benefits me why shouldn't I steal?

Now, I might have an interest in the rest of society believing that stealing is wrong because I don't want people stealing from me but that doesn't mean I shouldn't steal? If I can steal without getting caught then why is it wrong for me to steal?

That statement is self contradictory.

Ethics are rules governing peoples behaviour. But If a rule doesn't have authority then it isn't a rule its a suggestion. You are obliged to follow rules because they have authority you are not obliged to follow suggestions.

What is authority? Oxford dictionary defines it as the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:.


Therefore for secular ethics to be "standards applicable to everyone.." they would need an authority over everyone ( an absolute authority).

Which is something they don't have because they are merely the opinions and beliefs of individuals.

Okay, from what you've said I think we need to set some ground rules regarding morality.

First: if someone cares at all about being moral, they care about what it means to be a good person. If somebody doesn't care about being a good person, all bets are off - that has nothing to do with their morality, because they are not subscribing to any kind of morality. Sociopaths cannot defend their actions simply because they personally perceive no wrong in harming other people. Neither is doing stuff simply because it benefits you morally defensible.

Second: you can't use secular arguments for objective morality to justify belief in the existence of God. Those arguments by definition do not invoke any deity. If you're going to chalk any success in establishing objective moral values up to the existence of a God without any argument, there is no point in this discussion.

Third: you need to be clear about whether you're talking about morals or ethics. An ethical code is one which is prescribed, whether by a deity or by society. This can be objective. Morals are people's own judgments on the inherent 'wrongness' of certain acts. These might be objective or subjective, depending on how they arrived at them.

Fourth: all humans are by default equal in terms of the rights they have.

^^We need to agree on these before we will get anywhere.


You're right that opinion cannot have a bearing on objective moral standards. But I've presented some examples which don't rely merely on people's opinions. A society which permits people to kill each other will be worse off than one which doesn't. A society which permits people to take property regardless of whether they have earned it, or been given it by someone who has, will be worse off than one which doesn't. Why will they be worse off? Because everyone will have to spend more of their time worrying whether or not they're going to be killed or robbed and will have to divert resources into guarding as much as they can against that possibility. A society in which you don't have to do that will be more economically productive apart from anything else, (a) because you're spending more time, energy and money on doing things which are productive, and less time on guarding what you already have, and (b) because it allows people to do riskier things with their property, like invest it, or lend it while you don't need it in exchange for something you temporarily do. None of this is relative to the society you live in: it holds for all societies.

Aside from arguments on the basis of the good to society, we might go from the basic assumption that all humans are equal in terms of the rights they should have. From this we can derive the rule that you should not do to others what you would not wish others to do to you. You don't need religion to tell you this, all you need is mutual respect.

Moreover, I submit to you that ethical codes based on the teachings of the Bible or of any other text are not moral. They are simply appeals to authority, backed up with heavenly incentives/hellish deterrents. That's not moral, that's sycophantic and self-serving. Insofar as Christians are moral, they aren't so on the basis of their religious conviction.

Finally, your point about 'rules need authority, beliefs aren't authoritative' doesn't really have any bearing on my argument given the clarifications above. The requirement that you act morally isn't unconditional, it's simply premised upon some basic assumptions that you care about being a good person and that you aren't privileged above other people. If you have to ask 'why should I be moral?' then you're negating one of those basic assumptions, as well as the basis for any productive conversation about morality. Morality doesn't put people under a gun - that's the law's job.