Changes

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

[[Slavery]], which was taken for granted in the [[Bible]] and throughout most of [[history]], was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a [[suffrage|woman's vote]], in an [[election] or on a [[jury]], is the equal of a man's. In today's enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, [[Saudi Arabia]]), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted [[Abraham]] for [[child abuse]]. <ref>[[Dawkins, Richard]], "[[The God Delusion]]", Houghton Mifflin, 2006, pp. 265-266</ref>

[[Slavery]], which was taken for granted in the [[Bible]] and throughout most of [[history]], was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a [[suffrage|woman's vote]], in an [[election]] or on a [[jury]], is the equal of a man's. In today's enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, [[Saudi Arabia]]), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted [[Abraham]] for [[child abuse]].<ref>[[Dawkins, Richard]], "[[The God Delusion]]", Houghton Mifflin, 2006, pp. 265-266</ref>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

==Controversy==

==Controversy==

The moral ''Zeitgeist'' is incompatible with moral [[absolutism]] and religious morality.  Moral absolutism suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong, regardless of the context.  Religious morality suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the religion's teaching (see [[Buddhism]]) or the revelations of a [[deity]] or deities<ref>Some religious people would consider their morals absolute</ref>. The moral ''Zeitgeist'' suggests that actions are morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the opinions of the masses.

The moral ''Zeitgeist'' is incompatible with moral [[absolutism]] and religious morality.  Moral absolutism suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong, regardless of the context.  Religious morality suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the religion's teaching (see [[Buddhism]]) or the revelations of a [[deity]] or deities.<ref>Some religious people would consider their morals absolute</ref>  The moral ''Zeitgeist'' suggests that actions are morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the opinions of the masses.

== Moral Realism and the Moral Zeitgeist==

== Moral Realism and the Moral Zeitgeist==

The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]], the notion that true moral facts exists. Atheist and secular [[humanist]] Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes

The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]], the notion that true moral facts exists. Atheist and secular [[humanist]] Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes

<blockquote>"Thus we can explain all moral controversy and progress. For when we try to argue that someone is wrong about a moral proposition we always find ourselves arguing in either of two ways: either we point out how their understanding of the facts is wrong, or we point out how they have deduced the incorrect values from the actual facts. Both can be valid arguments. For instance, we tell the [[Nazi]] that his beliefs, like that [[Jews]] are not human beings and that they are [[conspiracy theory|plotting to take over the world]], are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding the Jews are in error"<ref> Carrier, Richard, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, AuthorHouse, 2005, pp. 336-337</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"Thus we can explain all moral controversy and progress. For when we try to argue that someone is wrong about a moral proposition we always find ourselves arguing in either of two ways: either we point out how their understanding of the facts is wrong, or we point out how they have deduced the incorrect values from the actual facts. Both can be valid arguments. For instance, we tell the [[Nazi]] that his beliefs, like that [[Jews]] are not human beings and that they are [[conspiracy theory|plotting to take over the world]], are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding the Jews are in error"<ref>Carrier, Richard, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, AuthorHouse, 2005, pp. 336-337</ref></blockquote>

==Quotes==

==Quotes==

-- [[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''

-- [[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''

==See Also==

==See also==

* [[Moral relativity]]

* [[Moral relativity]]

* [[Moral degeneration]]

* [[Moral degeneration]]

[[Category:Atheism]]

[[Category:Atheism]]

[[Category:philosophy]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]

[[Category:Morality]]

[[Category:Morality]]