Can there be morality without God? What is the basis of "atheist morality"? (Buddhism, Islam)
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.
Well it does actually. That part where it gives specific instructions to stone the rape victim to death (for not screaming loud enough).
In other places the bible gives specific instructions to kill, enslave and rape.
There is one area in which atheists and Christians differ in moral values and that is sex before marriage. Christians consider sex before marriage a sin, ie, immoral. It doesn't stop them of course (although some actually do adhere to that).
But perhaps we should look to other animals that can't read and or speak. Dogs for instance - where do they get their moral code? They don't rape, or murder. What about deer and antelope? Or what about those peoples that never heard of the bible and God until missionaries came along?
I think it was Celt who a young couple would live together for a full year and if they still wanted to marry they would be. A much sounder system than that in the Bible
All humans are animals by default, the result of being neither vegetable or mineral. Christians have an "ingrained understanding" that a corpse returned to life and flew away. They got that notion from somewhere. Like ALL religious believers, they largely got their beliefs from their mommies and daddies.
Ah, you are so literal. No one has an "ingrained understanding" of God.
They have an ingrained understanding that when they become hungry they need to eat. Morality comes into play when they decide how they are getting the food. Are they stealing it? Will they kill and eat you?
Christians got the belief of divine forgiveness and sacrifice from Jesus. They did not witness a corpse returning to life and flying away. They witnessed the miracle of life beyond the one they know.
Can you relate to life beyond the one you know? Maybe not, but maybe you can relate to it if someone shows you how a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly. Is it not somehow possible then? Are miracles not possible without a scientific explanation? I believe they are. My religion says they are. My personal experiences in life and with death have shown me that they are. The idea comforts me.
If you find it more comfortable to believe that when you die you will simply decay and turn to dust, I can accept that, but I would throw out there that science doesn't agree with you. You, and everything you do think see and say are all energy. Einstein has proved that there is no energy lost.
In a society that doesn't forbid slavery I would not be looking for anyone to claim it is wrong. The trick here is did Jesus claim it was right?
Maybe he would have. It is hard today to understand the ways of tribes for many. Tribes war. If the loser of the war is lucky, those people will be taken as slaves, or sold to other people in trade. If the winning tribe doesn't want to be bothered, they just kill you and every other member of your tribe. Im not going to make a judgement on which is more moral of a disposition for a tribes enemies.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
You can't determine whether or not it is moral to kill all men, women and children, except the virgins, which you can keep for yourself? You can't see that as immoral?
If you can determine it is wrong to own another human being, and the god of the bible can't or won't, I will argue that you are more moral than the god people worship.
The god of the bible is a horrible miscreant, a horrible immoral entity that has no business demanding anything.
Well it does actually. That part where it gives specific instructions to stone the rape victim to death (for not screaming loud enough).
In other places the bible gives specific instructions to kill, enslave and rape.
There is one area in which atheists and Christians differ in moral values and that is sex before marriage. Christians consider sex before marriage a sin, ie, immoral. It doesn't stop them of course (although some actually do adhere to that).
But perhaps we should look to other animals that can't read and or speak. Dogs for instance - where do they get their moral code? They don't rape, or murder. What about deer and antelope? Or what about those peoples that never heard of the bible and God until missionaries came along?
This is the significant point: "Those people that never heard of the bible and God"
Similar societal morals are exhibited in places where God and the Bible are unheard of. Societies in India, China, Japan, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Tibet, Nepal, etc., all share similar societal norms with societies where the Abrahamic religions are dominant. These societies do not condone murder, theft, slavery, rape, kidnapping, etc., any more than societies such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Western European countries. Those similarities indicate that God and the Bible essentially have nothing to do with society's mores. If it did, there would be marked differences between those societies where God and the Bible are widely known and those societies where they are not.
You can't determine whether or not it is moral to kill all men, women and children, except the virgins, which you can keep for yourself? You can't see that as immoral?
If you can determine it is wrong to own another human being, and the god of the bible can't or won't, I will argue that you are more moral than the god people worship.
The god of the bible is a horrible miscreant, a horrible immoral entity that has no business demanding anything.
You are passing judgement on the ways of nomadic people from 4000 or more years ago, or as recent as today in some parts of the world.
God never said it was wrong - it is not a commandment that ancient people should never own anyone. All the tribes of Israel were once enslaved to Ramses. Did God not become angry and help set the tribes of Israel free?
Anyone, including the Queen, was basically a slave to any King in more modern times in history.
Let's look at this from another light. I am poor. The only thing I have to barter with is my labor. Is it wrong for me to sell myself into indentured servitude in the hope of possibly bettering myself in seven years time when I am released from my obligation - as Levitical Law says I should be?
Is it wrong for the losing tribe to accept their slavery rather than to demand death? Maybe later we can run away. There will be no later if we demand death.
Yes, seriously. Do you really believe you can compare society today to ancient society? SERIOUSLY?
So are you saying you would be no idea that it is wrong to rape and murder if the Bible didn't tell you so?
The Bible doesn't tell you not to rape. It says if you rape, you must buy her afterwards. If you feel rape is wrong, you came to that belief some other way.
Ah, you are so literal. No one has an "ingrained understanding" of God.
They have an ingrained understanding that when they become hungry they need to eat. Morality comes into play when they decide how they are getting the food. Are they stealing it? Will they kill and eat you?
Christians got the belief of divine forgiveness and sacrifice from Jesus. They did not witness a corpse returning to life and flying away. They witnessed the miracle of life beyond the one they know.
Can you relate to life beyond the one you know? Maybe not, but maybe you can relate to it if someone shows you how a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly. Is it not somehow possible then? Are miracles not possible without a scientific explanation? I believe they are. My religion says they are. My personal experiences in life and with death have shown me that they are. The idea comforts me.
If you find it more comfortable to believe that when you die you will simply decay and turn to dust, I can accept that, but I would throw out there that science doesn't agree with you. You, and everything you do think see and say are all energy. Einstein has proved that there is no energy lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser
If you find it more comfortable to believe that when you die you will simply decay and turn to dust, I can accept that, but I would throw out there that science doesn't agree with you. You, and everything you do think see and say are all energy. Einstein has proved that there is no energy lost.
There was a time before I existed. There will be a time when I no longer exist. But the material that I am composed of will continue on. Every particle of our bodies has existed, been used and reused, over and over for 14 billion years AT LEAST!. And will continue to do so after we are dead. If the law of conservation of energy is inviolate, than every particle of our bodies has existed eternally, and will continue to exist eternally. That IS Science.
There was a time before I existed. There will be a time when I no longer exist. But the material that I am composed of will continue on. Every particle of our bodies has existed, been used and reused, over and over for 14 billion years AT LEAST!. And will continue to do so after we are dead. If the law of conservation of energy is inviolate, than every particle of our bodies has existed eternally, and will continue to exist eternally. That IS Science.
So, you see at least some of the truth of a life beyond the one you know being possible? Death might be just a transition into another form of existence, similar, but not literally like, that caterpillar goes on as a butterfly.
You might want to consider that you have always existed and will continue to exist. Afterall, you cant prove that you haven't.
He goes on to write some nice things about atheists.
He points to the Bible as a reference point for the moral code of people who are religious.
He asks what the reference point of atheists is or would be.
Although I am religious and had religious instruction as a child, at the time I grew up, TV was a big thing. And, television shows in the late 60s and early 70s were very social minded, so a lot of what I believe comes from different sources.
I have the 10 commandments in the Bible along with the loving nature of Jesus.
I have TV and books with social messages about acceptance and right and wrong based on the social movements of the time in which I grew up.
I would love to say my family was a reference point, but they were not, sadly.
Aside from not having religious instruction - if they didn't because not every atheist comes from atheist parents - I would think reference points for atheists wouldn't be much different.
You don't always need a punishment hanging over your head to make you want to do the right thing.
I don't see it as demonising atheists either. It is putting some points and asking questions. That's what the forum is about. We're happy to explain where we think morality comes from and why it does not need religion. At least not any more. perhaps once, it did.
As Badlander pointed out, there are some familiar arguments. The one about evolution 'survival of the fittest' implying that atheism (basing morality on evolutionary competition rather than the Bible) will lead to a a vicious and cold -blooded society. That's an understandable error, but it's still an error because we are humans and we can think. We have the social instincts of animals and we can sympathise with others, too.
As i say, the misunderstandings are understandable, but we really don't expect to see them again after they have been corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser
You are also an animal and don't have an ingrained understanding of the truths you state. It is simple, but like everything else in your life, you learned it somewhere.
Exactly. The instincts of social animals are there to start off with. Education of social responsibility does the rest. In theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Dawkins and Adam Smith missed one very important element of evolution and economics and that is community. Sure we are selfish and want what is best for us, BUT evolution should teach that survival value is greater in community in many ways so that sense of justice we can recognize as knowing that without a just system any one person or group is subject to deleterious discrimination: "first theycame for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew..."
Look up "enlightened self-interest" and consider what that "enlightenment" might consist of.
They are not sociologists so far as i know. Dawkins did useful work in suggesting an evolutionary basis for social order and perhaps empathy in higher animals including humans.
A complex society teaches people what is and is not acceptable. I don't think they do a very good job of saying why, perhaps because they don't know why. They just know the rules. We learn them. That's what I would consider 'enlightenment'. Dawkins and so on will have to say what they mean by it.
Bottom line is that the rules of society are actually better than the rules in the Bible.
I do notice however a better understanding of the mechanics of morality by our theistic posters here. It's great improvement on the Old Days of 'without God's absolute morality there would be no morality'. Well done, lads.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-15-2018 at 04:07 PM..
Reason: so many corrections.
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.
