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.
GoCardinals believes morality is a concept EXCLUSIVELY based on a Deity, period. He is trying to get atheists to acknowledge that unprovable and unsupportable premise. He does not recognize that morality is a concept born of and responsive to social congress among social beings. He does not believe morality can exist without God. He is wrong, but there is no way to reconcile his concept of morality with atheism which is the point he is trying to promote, IMO.
It's not even semantics to be honest. Tzaph was upset with my choice of words of 'think' and 'know', when what she was really upset about was the idea that atheists can be good people without any expectation of reward.
So when I changed the wording to suit her, she didn't like that either, because she had focused on entirely the wrong thing to start with.
This premise behind this whole thread frankly, is for atheists to have to prove themselves that they have a sense of morality, and then when you give them perfectly valid responses, the religious don't like the answers, probably because it undermines the idea that unless you think you have someone watching over your every move, like some kind of celestial big brother, and will face the great reckoning in the afterlife, you can't possibly understand how to behave yourself in this life. It's just a nonsense.
I'm glad to have lived my life without such outdated notions.
What we need to acknowledge is that our early origins as primitive savages did require conditioning via reward and punishment to instill some self-control over our self-serving selfishness. Even today rewards and punishments are employed with children for the same reasons even though they are technically not primitives or savages. Moral development is a process and that is the mechanism used in Stage 1 of Kohlberg's 6 Stages.
It's not even semantics to be honest. Tzaph was upset with my choice of words of 'think' and 'know', when what she was really upset about was the idea that atheists can be good people without any expectation of reward.
So when I changed the wording to suit her, she didn't like that either, because she had focused on entirely the wrong thing to start with.
This premise behind this whole thread frankly, is for atheists to have to prove themselves that they have a sense of morality, and then when you give them perfectly valid responses, the religious don't like the answers, probably because it undermines the idea that unless you think you have someone watching over your every move, like some kind of celestial big brother, and will face the great reckoning in the afterlife, you can't possibly understand how to behave yourself in this life. It's just a nonsense.
I'm glad to have lived my life without such outdated notions.
I agree with most this post.
But can't help myself:
I'm one religious, who agrees with you relative to who can possess moral Truth.
I would ask though, is that moral Truth subjective? Or is it universal.
I would also disagree that moral Truth is outdated. I may concede that the jargon and interpretations are outdated in many cases.
But not the Truth itself.
GoCardinals believes morality is a concept EXCLUSIVELY based on a Deity, period. He is trying to get atheists to acknowledge that unprovable and unsupportable premise. He does not recognize that morality is a concept born of and responsive to social congress among social beings. He does not believe morality can exist without God. He is wrong, but there is no way to reconcile his concept of morality with atheism which is the point he is trying to promote, IMO.
GoCardinals believes morality is a concept EXCLUSIVELY based on a Deity, period. He is trying to get atheists to acknowledge that unprovable and unsupportable premise. He does not recognize that morality is a concept born of and responsive to social congress among social beings. He does not believe morality can exist without God. He is wrong, but there is no way to reconcile his concept of morality with atheism which is the point he is trying to promote, IMO.
Sorry, but you are totally off-base here.
Where morality is sourced from is NOT in the equation.
Again and again and again - The OP does NOT talk about God, religion, faith and SOURCE of morality.
The OP asks Atheists if they believe in the existence of morality REGARDLESS of how it’s sourced and REGARDLESS of it having any association or not with any religion or God or faith.
Where morality is sourced from is NOT in the equation.
Again and again and again - The OP does NOT talk about God, religion, faith and SOURCE of morality.
The OP asks Atheists if they believe in the existence of morality REGARDLESS of how it’s sourced and REGARDLESS of it having any association or not with any religion or God or faith.
Then you must not have any knowledge of Kohlberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development which is the "evidence" you seem to want that morality exists even among atheists. I suggest you correct that deficiency by reading Kohlberg.
But can't help myself:
I'm one religious, who agrees with you relative to who can possess moral Truth.
I would ask though, is that moral Truth subjective? Or is it universal.
I would also disagree that moral Truth is outdated. I may concede that the jargon and interpretations are outdated in many cases.
But not the Truth itself.
I think morals are mostly subjective. Even within households where children are raised in identical environments, there can be strong disagreements over what's right and what's wrong. I refer again to Katherine Hepburn's comment about what made her feel uncomfortable. I think that's a good rule of thumb.
Societally, I think morals evolve and change. I doubt many people want a return to an ancient Roman society for example, where human murder was a popular sporting event, or an Edwardian era where viewing a ladies ankle was considered risqué. Even very recently we've seen big changes. Does anybody these days think chemically castratiing someone for being gay, such as happened to Alan Turing, one of our most brilliant minds in the 1950's, was the right think to do?
These days in the western world, it's not perfect but I think we have a reasonable balance. I'm glad that most people are able to live their lives without judgement from others about who they are allowed to have as a life partner.
I think morals are mostly subjective. Even within households where children are raised in identical environments, there can be strong disagreements over what's right and what's wrong. I refer again to Katherine Hepburn's comment about what made her feel uncomfortable. I think that's a good rule of thumb.
Societally, I think morals evolve and change. I doubt many people want a return to an ancient Roman society for example, where human murder was a popular sporting event, or an Edwardian era where viewing a ladies ankle was considered risqué. Even very recently we've seen big changes. Does anybody these days think chemically castratiing someone for being gay, such as happened to Alan Turing, one of our most brilliant minds in the 1950's, was the right think to do?
These days in the western world, it's not perfect but I think we have a reasonable balance. I'm glad that most people are able to live their lives without judgement from others about who they are allowed to have as a life partner.
Agree, society evolves as do it's beliefs and morals.
I'm merely attempting to defend an eternal universal morality. Which I do believe exists.
Societies seems to be in a continual quest for it, and yes, may define it differently at different times and places, but the desire for it never ends.
Where morality is sourced from is NOT in the equation.
Again and again and again - The OP does NOT talk about God, religion, faith and SOURCE of morality.
The OP asks Atheists if they believe in the existence of morality REGARDLESS of how it’s sourced and REGARDLESS of it having any association or not with any religion or God or faith.
If you are asking if morality exists, that's a bit of an odd question.
It depends on how you are defining 'exist'. It's a bit like asking if happiness exists or gravity exists.
Existence usually refers to a state of being, but in a broad sense can include being known or recognised.
Morality is a desciptor to express the idea of how people feel about whether things are right or wrong. It's not a tangible existence like a flower but as a concept.
So in that very broad sense yes I suppose you could say it exists as a concept or thing we all understand the meaning of.
I just skimmed this whole thread. I see no hostility. I see no arguing. I see no yelling.
Maybe, at best, I see some frustration with people trying to politely answer the question and constantly being told they are answering it incorrectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
lol, looks like I have rattled a dog cage here.
I went back to quote this. Anyone else picturing OP super proud of him/her self that he/she started a discussion that has gone on this long? So proud!
"lol, look how much they are discussing it! I got 'em going now!"
Rattled cage? Because it's gone on this long? Not sure what's got you thinking by page 4...that this is a rattled cage...
This is City-Data...we'll go on for over 30 pages to discuss how bad drivers are in Phoenix, Arizona.
It's honestly sad to me that this person feels they are somehow better then those that don't believe. That's the attitude I am picking up. "Oh my, they just cannot even ANSWER my question..."
Major props to those replying in this thread that do have religion and also think the OP is being unreasonable.
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.
What we need to acknowledge is that our early origins as primitive savages did require conditioning via reward and punishment to instill some self-control over our self-serving selfishness. Even today rewards and punishments are employed with children for the same reasons even though they are technically not primitives or savages. 
Moral development is a process and that is the mechanism used in Stage 1 of Kohlberg's 6 Stages.
