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 is with the forum lately, with these constant implications that atheists can’t be moral? I am simultaneously offended that theists would think this of people, while being appalled that apparently the threat of eternal punishment is the only thing keeping Christians from killing me in my sleep.
I'd noticed a sudden resurgence of the "atheism means immorality" apologetic. I thought that one had been put to bed. Well, the debunk of that os well known, so it shouldn't take long, not only to knock it on the head, but show up religion as indulging in a smear campaign against atheism, yet again.
So, you're anxious to "show up religion [not a religion, not a handful of religious apologists, but religion in general] as indulging in a smear campaign against atheism". It's not all that hard to see who is smearing whom. And where is the morality in that?
But religion (1) can - and often does -give them the weapon they need and the justification for using it.
Religion has never given me any weapon to oppress anyone. I already have the weapon given to me since birth (potential to do bad) that can be used to oppress people but knowledge about my religion reminds me to use positive potential rather than the negative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Religion can give people a feeling that they need to oppress others where otherwise (if they followed humanist morality, rather than some supposedly -dive command) they wouldn't.
Religion has never given me a feeling that I need to oppress others. In fact, my religion is against oppression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
(1) I wrote quote a post on "definition of religion" but cancelled it (you'd be surprised how much I cancel ) but defining religion is futile in a practical sense and really an academic exercise. in this context it comes under the heading of "Doing things for imaginary reasons". It's similar to superstition.
You are correct. Religion (English word) can mean as many things as people's mouths or fingers. That's why you had to give up defining religion. This is also why there are religions that are definitely not for everyone. I have already described what my religion ("deen" in Arabic meaning "way") is about. It is not about doing things for imaginary reasons but very much for doing things for earthly life. Only the belief part of it you can call imaginary part. The rest involves humanity and real life on earth. That is the practically and the main part for me that is called "deen" ("way").
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
P.s that also answers yout last post. Yes, humans do what humans do. This is what humanism recognizes. And yes, religion can get people to do good things because their religiin says so. Doing good for the wrong reasons. They can also do bad for invalid reasons - because they think their religion says so.
My religion does not tell me to do bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You slipped up badly with the 'atherists do bad things' liner.
You slipped up badly when taking only a part of my comment about atheists and by discarding the rest. If you had taken it as a whole and not ignored the rest, you would have realized that I said nothing against the atheists that I haven't said about any other human due to their potential to do good as well as do bad. I am not sure why any atheist will just jump at me for mentioning them doing both good and bad. Why get so touchy by reading "do bad things" but not by reading "do good things"? Don't they ever do bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Of course we don't claim to be plaster saints. We do claim to be no worse than any other humans, including the religious. The Morality argument against atheism utterly fails.
If you read my posts carefully, you will find that what I am describing is potential in everyone to do bad as well as good. I am not plastering atheists and regarding all religious the saints. Some of the worst humans I have come across in my life have been regarding themselves "religious". Am I now expressing morality argument against the religious people? No. I am talking about human potential to do bad. Atheists are no exception. As I stated earlier on, atheists too are humans just as I am a human.
So please do not turn this thread into an atheists verses religious morality argument.
I think most of us agree that murder, rape, stealing, etc, are wrong. But I also have co-workers that do things I don't do, and that I believe God doesn't want me to do. It doesn't make me a better person, but we do adhere to different standards of morality.
Those are great values to start with. Ultimately, true morality starts with what God has stated is moral and immoral.
That's how I see it. We all more or less seem to agree on a way toconduct society. That is common to all societies or whatever religion, so can be regarded as a human characteristic- not a god given moral code. Now, as you say you may do things the others don't do, because of your religion. Let's make those general religion -based directives, not specific to you. They may be good - like doing charity. They may indifferent like not eating prawns. They may bebad, and you don't need me to give examples. But good, bad or indifferent, they none of them show a god to be real, or justify the religion or show that unbelievers don't have a morality.
So, you're anxious to "show up religion [not a religion, not a handful of religious apologists, but religion in general] as indulging in a smear campaign against atheism". It's not all that hard to see who is smearing whom. And where is the morality in that?
That's how I see it. We all more or less seem to agree on a way toconduct society. That is common to all societies or whatever religion, so can be regarded as a human characteristic- not a god given moral code. Now, as you say you may do things the others don't do, because of your religion.
It's the other way around, actually. They do things I don't do.
And yes--we do all agree on the "big stuff"....but there is more to morality than simply agreeing killing people is bad. The Bible tells us that this Law is imprinted on our hearts. We know what is good.
Quote:
Let's make those general religion -based directives, not specific to you. They may be good - like doing charity. They may indifferent like not eating prawns. They may bebad, and you don't need me to give examples. But good, bad or indifferent, they none of them show a god to be real, or justify the religion or show that unbelievers don't have a morality.
What is the authority that you believe determines right or wrong? If you don't have something to define it, then why is killing someone wrong if we're all just big chemical reactions? Wouldn't it be simply us doing what we've evolved to do?
Religion has never given me any weapon to oppress anyone. I already have the weapon given to me since birth (potential to do bad) that can be used to oppress people but knowledge about my religion reminds me to use positive potential rather than the negative.
Religion has never given me a feeling that I need to oppress others. In fact, my religion is against oppression.
You are correct. Religion (English word) can mean as many things as people's mouths or fingers. That's why you had to give up defining religion. This is also why there are religions that are definitely not for everyone. I have already described what my religion ("deen" in Arabic meaning "way") is about. It is not about doing things for imaginary reasons but very much for doing things for earthly life. Only the belief part of it you can call imaginary part. The rest involves humanity and real life on earth. That is the practically and the main part for me that is called "deen" ("way").
My religion does not tell me to do bad.
You slipped up badly when taking only a part of my comment about atheists and by discarding the rest. If you had taken it as a whole and not ignored the rest, you would have realized that I said nothing against the atheists that I haven't said about any other human due to their potential to do good as well as do bad. I am not sure why any atheist will just jump at me for mentioning them doing both good and bad. Why get so touchy by reading "do bad things" but not by reading "do good things"? Don't they do ever bad thing?
If you read my posts carefully, you will find that what I am describing is potential in everyone to do bad as well as good. I am not plastering atheists and regarding all religious the saints. Some of the worst humans I have come across in my life have been regarding themselves "religious". Am I now expressing morality argument against the religious people? No. I am talking about human potential to do bad. Atheists are no exception. As I stated earlier on, atheists too are humans just as I am a human.
So please do not turn this thread into a atheists verses religious morality argument.
You're a slippery Tyke. Let's just make a few observations.
Whatever you personally have done or felt (or so you claim), that does not apply to those who hold other religious views - including mainstream Muslims, as I gathered from our previous discussion.
I'll look back at the 'slipping up badly'. You had a nice little ploy of claiming you had been misunderstood, when in fact you havd been understood very well. But I might have got you wrong here.
And let us get one thing absolutely straight and crystal clear old mate - do not waste your time telling me what to post and what not to post.
...
(Khalif)"An atheist could be doing good and living moral life but what's there to hold him back from doing bad as he has the potential to do so unless he also fears God as a consequence of his bad act?"
This is a clear and rather passe 'without hellthreat, an atheist has no reason to behave morally" argument.
(Khalif)"You slipped up badly when taking only a part of my comment about atheists and by discarding the rest. If you had taken it as a whole and not ignored the rest, you would have realized that I said nothing against the atheists that I haven't said about any other human due to their potential to do good as well as do bad."
No, you slipped up here by trying to be slippery again. You may have commented on others doing good or bad, but you singled out atheists as having a particular disincentive to behave well because they do not have hellthreat hanging over them. I'd say you have been caught being evasive.
And the answer by the way is - yes: atheists do not have the need or threat of punishment for behaving well. Thus when they do - and they often do - from a sense of social responsibility and a belief that it benefits everyone, it is a superior morality to the one that behaves well because they are afraid of divine punishment if they don't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-05-2017 at 08:54 AM..
It's the other way around, actually. They do things I don't do.
And yes--we do all agree on the "big stuff"....but there is more to morality than simply agreeing killing people is bad. The Bible tells us that this Law is imprinted on our hearts. We know what is good.
What is the authority that you believe determines right or wrong? If you don't have something to define it, then why is killing someone wrong if we're all just big chemical reactions? Wouldn't it be simply us doing what we've evolved to do?
Yes, I get that. I recall a long time ago when during a tube strike the transport official appealed to people to buy their tickets. The general view was that they wouldn't pay if they didn't have to and anyone who did was a fool. Very well. I might be thought a fool, but at least I could look at myself in the miror and not flinch.
Now maybe they do or do not do things that you do or don't, and you may think that is right. But is it? After all if it is 'Imprinted on our heart' (or as i say instinct and education) why are you not all doing the same? Well, you may say the refusal to buy tickets was ignoring what was impriinted on our hearts'. I'd say that there was a lack of social conscience which was rastional humanism applied before I even heard of it.
but if it's another thing like having the girlfriend (or whatever) stay overnight, or go to play or watch a game rather than go to church on a weekend, I'd say that was not disregarding morality, but not bothering about religious orders, and why should anybody care about those?
but if it's another thing like having the girlfriend (or whatever) stay overnight, or go to play or watch a game rather than go to church on a weekend, I'd say that was not disregarding morality, but not bothering about religious orders, and why should anybody care about those?
What makes ANYTHING moral or immoral? What's the deciding factor? How is that determined?
Again...if we're all just natural beings, and we evolved to do what we want, why is anything moral or immoral?
What makes ANYTHING moral or immoral? What's the deciding factor? How is that determined?
Again...if we're all just natural beings, and we evolved to do what we want, why is anything moral or immoral?
Those are good questions and they were quite a problem for atheism (or humanism) to begin with. But the basic instinct for well being and the benefit of the individual, family group and indeed the tribe, is evolved instinct. That's all the basis you need.
Now I know as well as you that this will lead to some really bad behaviour within and without the tribe, and I have to say is still going on within our species today, and you may ponder Trump brandishing his aerial strike force at North Korea (I'm not saying Kim Jung Ill isn't asking for it) while you're at it.
I would suggest it was settled farming and herding leading to complex society that made for the need for judging between rival disputes, but the ethical principles are quite simple. Reciprocity of various kinds (the Golden rule being a manifestation recognized independently in various cultures - and often before the Jewish version was Hi -jacked and perverted in the Gospels) and the ongoing developments of law codes and formulation of Ethics had led to the various forms of consensus -morality we have, and there are cultural differences, but a surprising number of similar solutions.
The advantage of this is that it is Not Absolute: it can be improved and so it is, with Monarchy leading to democracy, slavery being replaced by equal rights, and various kinds of discrimination being done away with - such changes often and notably being fought furiously by religions.
You can see how the basis of morality as a human instinct, convention and consensus is as valid as could reasonably be expected, and if it is not set in stone, immutable and imposed by an unchanging authority, we can be thankful for that.
I was these people on the religious right had been born not in the culture their parents chose for them that was the basic majority culture in the world they happened to be from. If they had been in born in Thailand or Cambodia or Burma theyu would have been Buddhist. If they had been born in many parts of India theyu would have been Hindu. They were one of the "lucky" silver spooners.
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.
You're a slippery Tyke. Let's just make a few observations. 
