Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is all a tempest in a teapot anyway because within a given society there is no significant difference between the morality of theists and that of atheists, which is precisely what one would expect if morality and ethics evolve to support the sustainable viability of that society. Theists and atheists alike must pick their battles and for the most part they want to stay out of jail and other kinds of societal troubles. So they do. The theist claims to do a better job and credits god. Fine. Show me sound statistics that show that Christians lie, steal, cheat, rape and divorce less. Show me how liberal, egalitarian, and largely godless societies like Denmark have descended into chaos.
Actually the diversion is on your part like all arguments on morality with atheists where they flip the argument into saying atheists are CAPABLE of living a moral life
No one is saying atheists are INCAPABLE of living a moral life.
It's that there is no universal standard one can hold an atheist to.
If you appeal to government, where is the justification for intervention or punishment of leaders of another government that did not have the same laws?
If a Nazi Germany made it legal to exterminate Jews, how can they justifiable be held to a code of ethics beyond their own?
Actually the diversion is on your part like all arguments on morality with atheists where they flip the argument into saying atheists are CAPABLE of living a moral life
No one is saying atheists are INCAPABLE of living a moral life.
It's that there is no universal standard one can hold an atheist to.
If you appeal to government, where is the justification for intervention or punishment of leaders of another government that did not have the same laws?
If a Nazi Germany made it legal to exterminate Jews, how can they justifiable be held to a code of ethics beyond their own?
lol ... 'rational assessment'! That differs doesn't it? For many it is a rational reaction to shoot an unarmed 17 year old walking home from the store because he looks suspicious. For others, it is not rational behavior.
Wow! How politically "toney" of you! Who says that Trayvon was a moral person, and, as we hear his family now chanting as their official lie ".. he was just someone's teenaged son walking home from buying Skittles™!"
So what? So a mugger or street thuggo has Skittles™ in his pocket! You have NO IDEA what cute little Trayvon had on (or in..) his mind, now do you? And yet, you seem to know, in the most absolute sense, exactly what GZ had in his mind? You God or what?
Assumptions: this, as we see so clearly here, is the entire basis of theistic morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albinoni
Ok,
There is no such thing as an Atheist who has an objective moral understanding with a definitive God. And therefore reports to no one but self , self goals, friends etc or the authorities.
Since the atheist admits zero relationship other then self in objectivity, nothing is ever measured other then opinionated self goals , friends, society, survival and authorities.
Q #1, albinoni: Are you using some sort of English translation software? Your points are often very difficult to figure out!
Now then, there is little difference between the ethics and morals of atheists versus theists in a given society, except that atheists do less harm because they are free to disregard ancient "as written!" morals. How can we reasonably expect to literally adhere to the bible's old mythical moral standards, but selectively? (We don't follow the bible's commandments word for word, rather we use Convenience and Selectiveness as our tools of interpretation. Easily demonstrated.)
Generally, we do not rape other "tribe's" women nor do we kill their children. Unless of course, it's what the Qu'Ran or military momentum and tactical needs may require of it. And please note that every NATO/Allied/US/German/Turkish and so on... military commander, as well as our very own US POTUS, look down and say, in various versions, "May God be with us!"
If there were no "assumed-absolute" but always selectively interpreted theistic beliefs in the majority of citizens in this world, I would expect a quiet peace to break out over the land!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
...historically we have two gods. One demands child sacrifice, clearly deeming it moral. The other forbids it, clearly making it immoral. Both moralities or divine, given by a god. How do you choose? How can you objectively choose which morality is right?
Maybe a starting point would be to objectively determine if Moloch or YHWH actually exist? Without such objective evidence, you are just picking the morality that seems right to you.
-NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by albinoni
The pilgrim attempts to interact with the distinct being God where it is believed there is interest in an over all accomplishment through truth and good will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
(Demonstrably, hogwash and theistic babble!)
The devout hypothetical worldly atheist doesn't interact with anything of essence other then the essence of creation, and once an essence is obliged to creation without abridgement, the only possible tribute to the comprehension in morality is self, by notice. In other words a conversation with self, by self's notice in attribute good will and truth built into creation and evolution, a condition.
Pretty much knew it would get to what God ? and without establishing a God in the sky there is no foundation. That's why I referred to a God of honesty and good will. This would be the majority if not all popular God belief understanding's.
As far as societies with amoral (anti good will and honesty) but acceptable cultures 1000's of years what happen's to them, they either get conquered by those who have advanced ahead due to truth and good will and are saving their massive suffer due to corruption, collapse due to disorder on their own, or people vacate the disordered scene. A community won't work or go forward with an anti life agenda, its only a matter of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Wrong. We are just such a culture, but overpopulated as well, as one major difference between the "good old days" and now. Whatever we do now will have global implications, and thus our demise as a species is pretty much assured, with or without your imaginary sky daddy God.
Natural law is all about infinity where man knows good will and honesty work's. All I would say in general is the believer approach's assistance or a second opinion from what is believed not only connected by a believed essence of infinity, but the believed God who would be interested in the positive goals in their integrated priority, for meaning.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
One, a believer's belief may change the way they behave or think, but the truth of the belief is something different entirely. Unless you have established the objective truth of the belief, then the foundation of that believer's morality is the same as anyone else's, evolutionary instinct, biology, and social conditioning.
Two, we can easily see from history that this idea of a generic "god of goodness" is a fabrication. Many cultures believed their gods were harsh and brutal, wanting to be appeased rather than loved. In fact this loving, all good, all wonderful god is a fairly modern concept.
On top of that, even using a good, loving god as a foundation for morality didn't stop Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats from slaughtering each other based on religious groupings. The morality based on a loving god didn't rule out the bombings of the IRA, or the planes in the twin towers, or the drones killing women and children. Even in the Bible, we see that MOLOCH ordered children to be killed, and even YHWH, that god of goodness and truth, ordered his followers to commit genocide, rape, and murder as moral actions.
I don't have an interaction with things that don't exist, and /or down have any meaningful impact on the world. I have to build my morality off of things that I can observe and experience, like my own feelings and the inference that others feel the same things I do.
For me, this leads to a morality that is based on trying to treat others in a way I would appreciate, and expecting reciprocity form them as well. I strive for honestly, because I don't like being lied to, I try to respect the decisions of others, because I don't like being second guessed.
The thing that I don't have that believer's do have is a back door. Believers throughout history have been able to say that they should be good and moral, but not to certain people, becasue god gives me an exception. The Israelites were supposedly given exceptions when they slaughtered the Amalekites and Canaanites, the Catholics believed that they had a free pass to kill an torture heretics, Moors, and Jews. Some Muslims believe they could be righteous and kill women and children. Religion may impose a morality with one hand, but it hands out free passes for bad behavior with a nod and a wink.
As an atheist, I don't have that. I have no one to give me a free pass, and say that even though I violated a principle of my own morality, its ok. I have to either acknowledge my own failure or change my moral framework, (or live in denial, there is always that )
But this "universal goodness god" has condoned suicide bombings, lynchings, and murder across the globe, in every culture. There are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus who have been committing violence against others believing they have god's approval to do so. Without an objective test, you cannot show them to be wrong. all you have is your subjective opinion that god would never do that.
-NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by overcastg4
NoCapo: "But that doesn't deal with a god... Just because you can make a consistent moral framework around something, doesn't make it a god."
Well, you uphold materialism as what is good and just (moral) and follow its ways. You're the follower and it's your god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
And that folks is what happens... when someone so wrapped up in theistic world views... is unable to frame a non theistic world view in non theistic terms.
...all it does is result in definitions of "god" so dilute and useless that the only thing they are good for is passing comedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I used to also unthinkingly subscribe to the idea that "everyone worships something, even if only themselves". It sounds profound but actually it is just a projection of your own need to worship something. Not everyone has that need
... return the favor and keep this discussion on a factual level instead of trying to run it off the rails into straw man territory.
Atheism is not a rejection of the One True God, its the end of belief in all gods. And it is not much of a leap; any monotheist is an atheist anyway about all gods but their particular One True God™. We just finish the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC
Let's be clear
#1) There are People who are Christians who pick and choose which morals they want to abide by
When an atheist picks and chooses morality there is no standard to be held to.
That's why atheism is moral anarchy. And any atheist that says another person commits an immoral act is just making an autobiographical statement based on the set of rules they have personally adopted to go by
Therefore each individual atheist has in essence almost deified themselves
Blah blah blah! No, you should have stated "atheists adhere to their own reasoned moral standards, which, like everything in our world, is always subject to interpretation and the conditions of the moment, which obviously are highly variable!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
√ The laws of the society the atheist lives in. The values the atheist was raised with and socialized to. You know, the same standards that theists are held to. When a theist breaks the law, it is the civil authorities that punish them, not god.
√ Theists attribute their code to their holy book / guru / whatever but the truth is that they willingly choose to submit to that code, just like everyone else willingly subscribes to their moral code.
√ This is all a tempest in a teapot anyway because within a given society there is no significant difference between the morality of theists and that of atheists, which is precisely what one would expect if morality and ethics evolve to support the sustainable viability of that society.
√ Show me sound statistics that show that Christians lie, steal, cheat, rape and divorce less. Show me how liberal, egalitarian, and largely godless societies like Denmark have descended into chaos.
Do not expect a rational answer to this one, mordant. Ardent, stubborn, intransigent and devout Christians are unjustifiably proud of their moral superiority. That's exactly what they have had drummed into their spiritually dependent heads since their first Sunday School lesson.
And so, it supports the now short-lived survival of an antiquated and morally moribund philosophy which daily shows it is far more extinct than any dinosaur species. When the current post-war generation of well-rehearsed Christians die off, the neo-Christian minority will fade away. After asll, we no longer deny them the teaching of logic and common sense, and they also have abundantly obvious evidence of the vast failings of Christian "morality" in the modern warring, slaughtering and disruptive world community of man.
I have often heard atheists argue that theists: say Christians, pick and choose their morality from the Bible. But then again, don't atheists do the same? I am not sure how they decide what is moral or not.
Not all atheists are NOT pro-choice. Not all atheists are pro-gay-rights. So aren't they as a group also picking and choosing their morals? Yet they criticize the religious for doing the same thing.
You mention the Bible. Indeed, there are many Christians who run to Leviticus over homosexuality, yet want nothing to do with most of the rest of Leviticus.
But where is the atheist text of rules from which atheists pick and choose? What atheist tome states that homosexuality is good or at least benign and should thus be permitted and accepted? Atheists who are not pro-gay rights are not flouting some list of atheist tenets. They're wrong, certainly, in my opinion. But unlike Christianity, atheism has no textual or dogmatic stance on homosexuality. It is no more concerned with homosexuality than geology or supply-side economics are concerned with homosexuality. The only reason atheists tend not to be anti-gay is that there is no logical reason to be anti-gay, and atheists lack the pointless gay-is-bad rules of many forms of Christianity (and many other religions). But atheists are still human, and some of them find illogical reasons to be anti-gay.
Actually the diversion is on your part like all arguments on morality with atheists where they flip the argument into saying atheists are CAPABLE of living a moral life
No one is saying atheists are INCAPABLE of living a moral life
Glad to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC
It's that there is no universal standard one can hold an atheist to.
That is because no one have been able to provide evidence that there is an immutable universal standard. That being said, you can hold anyone to any standard you like, provided you can enforce it. That isn't about truth though, just coercion. Not a fair thing to do is hold me, personally, to the morality that I personally claim. I realize this is not acceptable since you can't lump all non believers together. If I, for instance, claim to be using Kant's categorical imperative as my moral foundation, and yet I am being dishonest then I should be called on that. To try to hold me to some standard that I have not agreed to follow is like me condemning Christians who are not strict pacifists like the Amish.
On the flip side, I have never gotten an answer from someone about what exactly is the single universal code of morality, and how they verified that it was the correct one. It is easy to claim a universal standard, but I have never seen anyone actually detail what that means...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC
If you appeal to government, where is the justification for intervention or punishment of leaders of another government that did not have the same laws?
If a Nazi Germany made it legal to exterminate Jews, how can they justifiable be held to a code of ethics beyond their own?
So this is a complicated issue, and I will try to explain my thoughts without being too wordy, but bear with me.
I argue that morality is a social construct. In terms of morality, if there were only one person in the world, there would be no need of morality. Stealing is not possible, nor is murder, rape, jealousy, or dishonesty. Once you have two beings, morality becomes important. At this point it is simply the stronger dominates the weaker, but if the two are reasonably matched or don't want to live in constant conflict, they hammer out some basic moral rules, like don't kill, rape, or hurt each other, don't take my food, etc...
Now lets assume lots of little extended family groups. Each has their own set of rules, or morality. This is not problematic, until they meet. When they meet, if their rules are similar, they may be able to both maintain their individual moralities without problems. If they are very different, they may avoid contact with each other or they might try to eradicate the offensive morality through force. In the case that they can coexist, their two distinct moral outlooks will often blend and blur, creating a new moral framework.
Several extended families either blend or conquer until they form a tribe, then a nation where the over all moral framework of the group is formed by these smaller moralities blending and changing. Tribes become nations, nations become empires. Empires collapse back into tribes, and the moral framework of each successive group is changed by its interactions with others.
In this sort of a framework, if Hitler's atrocities had taken place in isolation, maybe the way genocides and wars happened in pre-colonial Africa, they would have been ignored by the rest of the word, in the same way two caveman families who never meet ignore each other. Hitler's Germany was not isolated, but was part of a larger community of other nations. In this case the morality of Nazi Germany differed so greatly from the rest of its community that it was excised by force, in the same way a pedophile is removed from a neighborhood, or in the same way Jews were removed from their communities.
The question, "Is this action morally right?" depends on the person you ask. There are many who would claim that they can give universal answers, but they can offer no evidence that their interpretation is the one true interpretation. Without that, the best we can do is a sort of consensus based, emergent morality.
I argue that morality is a social construct. In terms of morality, if there were only one person in the world, there would be no need of morality. Stealing is not possible, nor is murder, rape, jealousy, or dishonesty. Once you have two beings, morality becomes important. At this point it is simply the stronger dominates the weaker, but if the two are reasonably matched or don't want to live in constant conflict, they hammer out some basic moral rules, like don't kill, rape, or hurt each other, don't take my food, etc...
Now lets assume lots of little extended family groups. Each has their own set of rules, or morality. This is not problematic, until they meet. When they meet, if their rules are similar, they may be able to both maintain their individual moralities without problems. If they are very different, they may avoid contact with each other or they might try to eradicate the offensive morality through force. In the case that they can coexist, their two distinct moral outlooks will often blend and blur, creating a new moral framework.
Several extended families either blend or conquer until they form a tribe, then a nation where the over all moral framework of the group is formed by these smaller moralities blending and changing. Tribes become nations, nations become empires. Empires collapse back into tribes, and the moral framework of each successive group is changed by its interactions with others.
In this sort of a framework, if Hitler's atrocities had taken place in isolation, maybe the way genocides and wars happened in pre-colonial Africa, they would have been ignored by the rest of the word, in the same way two caveman families who never meet ignore each other. Hitler's Germany was not isolated, but was part of a larger community of other nations. In this case the morality of Nazi Germany differed so greatly from the rest of its community that it was excised by force, in the same way a pedophile is removed from a neighborhood, or in the same way Jews were removed from their communities.
The question, "Is this action morally right?" depends on the person you ask. There are many who would claim that they can give universal answers, but they can offer no evidence that their interpretation is the one true interpretation. Without that, the best we can do is a sort of consensus based, emergent morality.
-NoCapo
Try spending 3 years out in a cabin in the wilderness with no food alone and see how far your idea of goodie two shoes (morals) last. That idea is not going to work. Territory, manners,morals. I thought I told you all your wasting your time here with a claim and no evidence. No marketing, law here thats for sure. Where's the balance of thought going? The moral good today is.. if its not nailed down it's mine, right? prove it wrong and then how is it not the active moral construct which you present itself?
I'm pretty sure you would be dead well before three years.
Three weeks might be closer to the mark, if he had an adequate fresh water supply and shelter. Three months if he eats bugs, bark, grass and whatever he might come across that he can catch.
Three weeks might be closer to the mark, if he had an adequate fresh water supply and shelter. Three months if he eats bugs, bark, grass and whatever he might come across that he can catch.
Are you implying that you know more about survival then I ? go ahead. Leave out the sarcasm a hole and make a relevant point other then your useless BS. Read my entries and respond like the big man that pulls the bow outta the lake and thinks he's done something. Go ahead big 'bow man reply directly to my entries.
are expected to have evidence and facts for what the say
so bring the facts
or be something less,
get it?
As mentioned earlier this afternoon, what is this personal morality without proof. How can morality not be personal? relative.
Thread:
Atheists pick and choose their morals.
WOE!
Define morals and go from there. So far there has only been one or two attempts to define morality.
EVIDENCE.
Last edited by macpherson; 07-19-2013 at 02:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
