Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?
They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.
And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?
Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.
I didn't say I was the "ultimate arbiter" of my own actions, whatever that means.
I'm saying if you need a religion to tell you lying, stealing, cheating, and killing is wrong - then you probably lack some basic things in your brain that most normal people have (like the capacity to experience empathy).
Nonsense.Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.
And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?
Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.
Individuals are perfectly capable of conducting moral, responsible lives absent the authoritarianism of subjective, errant religious dogma.
Atheists actually commit far less crime than those with religious beliefs. While 2.5% of the general population identifies as atheist - less than 1% of people in prison are atheist.
I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.
You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.
How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?
What bothers most conservatives is diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, such as refusing to conform to the authoritarianism that is religious doctrine and dogma.I have absolutely no trouble sleeping. I don't have to lie to myself, because they're MY morals and I can change them whenever they don't fit with the way the world works. I don't have to worry about how I might measure up to others. That's what REALLY bothers you, huh?I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?
I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.
Oh yeah, here we go ----
You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.
The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.
Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.
Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.
You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.
And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.
... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.
What bothers most conservatives is diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, such as refusing to conform to the authoritarianism that is religious doctrine and dogma.I have absolutely no trouble sleeping. I don't have to lie to myself, because they're MY morals and I can change them whenever they don't fit with the way the world works. I don't have to worry about how I might measure up to others. That's what REALLY bothers you, huh?I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?
I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.
Oh yeah, here we go ----
You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.
The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.
Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.
Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.
You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.
And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.
... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.
The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.
Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.
I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?
I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.
Oh yeah, here we go ----
You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.
The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.
Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.
Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.
You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.
And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.
... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.
The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?
I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.
Oh yeah, here we go ----
You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.
The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.
Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.
Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.
You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.
And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.
... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.
Christians and other theists have no 'monopoly' on morals and values.
The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?
I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.
Oh yeah, here we go ----
You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.
The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.
Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.
Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.
You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.
And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.
... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.
Christians and other theists have no 'monopoly' on morals and values.
See what these countless thousands of Christians did.Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
Are you saying the Greeks who lived during the greek gods didn't know right from wrong?I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.
You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.
How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?
Well... if you want to go THERE...Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
Are you saying the Greeks who lived during the greek gods didn't know right from wrong?I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.
You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.
How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?
Are you saying people didn't know thou should not kill before moses?
Well... if you want to go THERE...Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
My response to SUPERMAN1929 wasn't an argument, it was a response to a very ignorant comment.Well... if you want to go THERE...Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
A dumb argument .... on both sides.
We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.
Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.
Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.
This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.Well... if you want to go THERE...Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
A dumb argument .... on both sides.
We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.
Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINEThis fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.Well... if you want to go THERE...Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse
“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
A dumb argument .... on both sides.
We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.
Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.
