Can Atheists be Moral?

Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:

Plane crash survivor describes the moment he resorted to cannibalism

Morally it's wrong. But if it's life or death?


As a guy who won't eat food that touched the floor (even if for less than 3 seconds!) I can assure you that I would NOT EVER go cannibal.

Easy to say if you're not in the situation.

I've spoken to Germans who were starving after WW2, and resorted to eating cats and rats.

I can't imagine doing such a thing, sitting here in a warm room, with plenty of nice things to eat and drink in the kitchen
 
Can you imagine being confronted with the moral dilemma of this:

Plane crash survivor describes the moment he resorted to cannibalism

Morally it's wrong. But if it's life or death?
What is morally wrong is profiting financially from it.

What? Writing a book about it? I suppose so.

But I'd interested in reading about that emotional dilemma. Eating your friend. Could haunt you for the rest of your life.
Yes, writing a book about it.

Obviously if he is going to profit from it, it can’t be haunting him too much.
 
I think people learn to be moral. Morality often means considering things outside your own needs and desires. Religion provides an opportunity to see beyond self. Society needs people to work together on some level, so laws reflect a certain moral code Anyone can develop morals, some have under developed ones.
 
Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International
Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, ‘morality’ is a creation of man – just as flawed, inconsistent, and subjective as anything else man creates.

Consequently, theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality – indeed, theists often fail to abide by the moral tenets their religious dogma dictates them to follow, and those free from religion are often as moral as theists, if not more so.
 
Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, ‘morality’ is a creation of man – just as flawed, inconsistent, and subjective as anything else man creates.

Consequently, theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality – indeed, theists often fail to abide by the moral tenets their religious dogma dictates them to follow, and those free from religion are often as moral as theists, if not more so.

Seems like the theist would be doubly penalized by violating both law and committing a sin. Since you don't believe in sin, how does their failure hurt you? You seem offended. By the way, Gideon's are okay that you stole that Bible.
 
Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International
Given the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, ‘morality’ is a creation of man – just as flawed, inconsistent, and subjective as anything else man creates.

Consequently, theists have no ‘monopoly’ on morality – indeed, theists often fail to abide by the moral tenets their religious dogma dictates them to follow, and those free from religion are often as moral as theists, if not more so.
That’s total bullshit. But I understand why you believe this. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
 
Dingerred is triggered into his unsupported assertions. lol no wonder he's universally , left and right, treated like a dunce-cap wearing bartholomew
View attachment 238753
Its ok, dingerred. Nobody expects you to understand the difference between justification and assertion. Your brain always, literally ALWAYS points towards the most adolescent view of things. It's nobody's fault, I'm sure you get by.
Can you explain what you disagree with, GT?
 
Dingerred is triggered into his unsupported assertions. lol no wonder he's universally , left and right, treated like a dunce-cap wearing bartholomew
View attachment 238753
Its ok, dingerred. Nobody expects you to understand the difference between justification and assertion. Your brain always, literally ALWAYS points towards the most adolescent view of things. It's nobody's fault, I'm sure you get by.
Can you explain what you disagree with, GT?
No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.

You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.

Random example....you stated the Universe shows preference for an outcome.

Ummmmm....

Preference implies agency.

The universe is an Agent?

You have no clue (its okay).

Preference is a very specific word.

Cause and effect working out a certain way does not* equate to evidence of a "wanted" way, or "preference." It simply points to the uniformity, or the nature of things. Not preference. Thats really basic.

Its as much evidence for preference as it is for happenstance, but you're too autistic brained to understand such things.

That was just the random, OBVIOUS example of what youve asked.
 
Last edited:
Dingerred is triggered into his unsupported assertions. lol no wonder he's universally , left and right, treated like a dunce-cap wearing bartholomew

He has faith. That will get you a long way on Earth and in Heaven.
 
No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.

You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.

Random example....you stated the Universe shows preference for an outcome.

Ummmmm....

Preference implies agency.

The universe is an Agent?

You have no clue (its okay).

Preference is a very specific word.

Cause and effect working out a certain way does not* equate to evidence of a "wanted" way, or "preference." It simply points to the uniformity, or the nature of things. Not preference. Thats really basic.

Its as much evidence for preference as it is for happenstance, but you're too autistic brained to understand such things.

That was just the random, OBVIOUS example of what youve asked.

It was actually backwards of reality. The Universe seeks entropy, therefore it must have a force that seeks order. That may well require a higher power.
 
No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.

You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.

Random example....you stated the Universe shows preference for an outcome.

Ummmmm....

Preference implies agency.

The universe is an Agent?

You have no clue (its okay).

Preference is a very specific word.

Cause and effect working out a certain way does not* equate to evidence of a "wanted" way, or "preference." It simply points to the uniformity, or the nature of things. Not preference. Thats really basic.

Its as much evidence for preference as it is for happenstance, but you're too autistic brained to understand such things.

That was just the random, OBVIOUS example of what youve asked.

It was actually backwards of reality. The Universe seeks entropy, therefore it must have a force that seeks order. That may well require a higher power.
Its evidence (the Universe) for a lot of things. The proof comes when it's justified beyond a reasonable doubt as being....something.

A hole in a wall with marker-ink inside of it is evidence that someone poked a hole with a marker.....and its also evidence that a hole was there, already, and a kid traced the hole with a marker.
 
No need. You're a mother fuckin moron, and 99.9% of all folks reading have always agreed.

You jump to conclusions as easily and as narrowly thought out as a 9yr old.

Random example....you stated the Universe shows preference for an outcome.

Ummmmm....

Preference implies agency.

The universe is an Agent?

You have no clue (its okay).

Preference is a very specific word.

Cause and effect working out a certain way does not* equate to evidence of a "wanted" way, or "preference." It simply points to the uniformity, or the nature of things. Not preference. Thats really basic.

Its as much evidence for preference as it is for happenstance, but you're too autistic brained to understand such things.

That was just the random, OBVIOUS example of what youve asked.

It was actually backwards of reality. The Universe seeks entropy, therefore it must have a force that seeks order. That may well require a higher power.
I am glad you brought that up.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

"We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create." George Wald​

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
 
What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: GT
What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.
 
What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.

Except I have not redefined God. We are made in His image, He is omnipresent and all the other terms used in Christianity. Tony has not existed since the beginning of time. Also Frosted Flakes would not get soggy in milk if it were Holy.
 
What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?
God cannot be matter and energy and exist outside of space and time. It isn't possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time.

God must be something different. Specifically, God must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. In fact, science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Science is literally telling us no thing (i.e. spirit) created space and time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top