Can Atheists be Moral?

[sealybobo]

Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?

'One fatal flaw: Kant's failure to push his thought beyond its common sense subjective biases and conformism. This flaw is what Deleuze calls Kant's 'moralism', and it is so significant that the dogmatic Image of thought is synonymously referred to throughout Difference and Repetition as the 'moral Image' of thought. Deleuze contests the dogmatic Image of thought in the way that he claims Kant could not: by subjecting it to a 'radical critique.' According to this radical critique, the Kantian critical model Deleuze has laid out nust undergo its own critique and submit to a series of radical modifications aimed at the 'common sense' presupposition of morality that Deleuze believes Kant failed to abandon....His radical critique thus begins not by overthrowing the original Kantian initiative (the effort to turn the examination of the relationships and limits of power inward) but by applying that initiative to a systematic evaluation of the dogmatic Image of thought and the moral presuppositions on which it is built.'
(Carr CL, Deleuze's Kantian Ethos: Critique as a Way of Life, pp. 80-1)

Here is what I got out of this. I notice one of the biggest sins in Christianity is doubting god or not believing in god. If a real god visited he would expect his religion would be able to pass the scientific process. And it would encourage doubt in a story that rationally couldn’t possibly be true.

This is how and why I believe religion is holding us back. It’s asking Muslims, Mormons, jews and Christians to believe the unbelievable despite the evidence.

 

[Mindful]

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

But how do you get your morality from god? The Bible?

I was on another thread and half of the people there said prostitution should be legal. What does your holy book say about prostitution and why do so many believe it should be legal?

Like abortion maybe it’s not moral but it’s a immoral act that our Christian nation might allow?

MY holy book?

 

[BreezeWood]

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

But how do you get your morality from god? The Bible?

I was on another thread and half of the people there said prostitution should be legal. What does your holy book say about prostitution and why do so many believe it should be legal?

Like abortion maybe it’s not moral but it’s a immoral act that our Christian nation might allow?

MY holy book?

.

MY holy book?

How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?

the religion of denial and temptation ...

 

[BreezeWood]

As Christians we seek to act in accordance with the perfect will of God.

what makes that different being a christian ...

If you can show me the other person who has ALWAYS thought and acted selflessly (there was one), I'd really like to meet that person.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”

always, is your construct, no need for the Almighty for that ... the metaphysical does provide doubt.

hopefully in accordance with the religion of antiquity you might someday meet one - triumphal (always), not being capable yourself, christian.

Are you arguing that non Christians seek to act according to the perfect will of God. Non Christians do you concur?

"always in your construct..."

It's not my construct.

" no need for the Almighty for that... "

Are you arguing that it's human nature to be selfless (any parents of toddlers want to chime in here).

"the metaphysical provides doubt"

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1.

Evidence provides knowledge not faith. Mankind's self serving sin nature provides all the doubt any need.

No one is capable - that's the point.

.

No one is capable - that's the point.

that's what they added to your 4th century christian bible to make you a christian including a messiah -

they, the 4th century forgers abandoned the Religion of Antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - as prescribed by the Almighty, the perils of noah ... good luck.

Are you arguing that non Christians seek to act according to the perfect will of God. Non Christians do you concur?

the will of the Almighty is to triumph over evil - there is no free ride with a messiah however that fits for you christian.

 

[badger2]

Defining Ethics and Morality

'Yes, establishing ways of existing or styles of life isn't just an aesthetic matter, it's what Foucault called ethics, as opposed to morality. The difference is that morality presents us with a set of constraining rules of a special sort, ones that judge actions and intentions by considering them in relation to (transcendent values [italics]) (that is good, that's bad....); ethics is a set of optional rules that assess what we do, what we say in relation to the ways of existing involved. We say this, we do that; or say through mean-spiritedness, a life based on hatred, or bitterness toward life. Sometimes it takes just one gesture or word. It's the style of life involved in everything that makes us this or that[....].'
(Gilles Deleuze in Conversation with Didier Eribon, Negotiations, 1995)

'Morality understood as the application of a transcendent standard to a case, was seen as a false step, something to be avoided and gotten rid of -- "to be done with judgement" was one of Deleuze's wishes. Ethics is understood as the immanent evaluation of an encounter of bodies; what is evaluated is the affective dimension of the encounter, that changes in the composition of the bodies and the concomitant change in the power of the bodies, a change felt as joy or sadness, depending on the valence of the change.'
(Deleuze and Ethics, A Review)

 

[badger2]

'It is as though the fall "outside" the Pleroma amounted to a loss of dimension. The demiurge plummets into the depths of darkness, but it is a false depth that amounts to no more than an erasure of the original depth of the Father. It is not a spatial outside, which would indicate, as Irenaeus maintains, the finitude of the Pleroma. Just as depth is always distorted when an object is projected onto a flat surface, so too is the depth of the Pleroma perverted by its negative image. On a two-dimensional surface, depth is portrayed through a line that indicates an edge or cut. Depth is thus misunderstood as a division, not as a virtual, differential folding within beings and the infinitely folding field on which beings emerge. The "outside" is thus the loss of inflection found in this misrepresentation and resulting from ignorance that has "no root....Oblivion did not come into existence from the Father, although it did indeed come into existence because of him" (Gospel of Truth, NHL 1.3.17.30, 18.1-4)

Enormous consequences follow from this error. Positivity is mistaken for a unitary source reducing all centers to a single Creator and understanding difference through a created hierarchy. Cause and effect are externalized, so that the relations between creatures are those of limitation and contradiction, both logical and existential (see The Book of Thomas the Contender, NHL 2.7.139.2-11). Two creatures can be affirmed simultaneously only through the identity of their Creator, and the Creator is affirmed only as the transcendent apex of its hierarchy. The fullness of the Pleroma is distorted into a determinate totality in which the Creator rules through a Law of retributive justice. The result is a deficient and dead world in which the positive difference of the Pleroma can appear only as a threat to the demiurge's hierarchy. The vestige of pleromic light within human souls must therefore be buried: humanity is thrust into a mundane world, blamed for its condition, and then given a moral system that implicates it more deeply within the cosmic order (see The Testimony of Truth, NHL, 9.3.29.22-30.17). Despite these efforts, however, this difference consistently eludes all attempts to contain it, mocking the demiurge and his archons.'
(Widder N, Genealogies of Difference, p. 109)

 

[badger2]

'The attainment of gnosis awakens this pleromic element, lifting the veil of ignorance and exposing the negative nature of the limit of the One. The philosophy of the One now seems only to implicate its followers more deeply in the negative, who then struggle against all that threatens to expose its fallacies. The idea of positivity as a One that grounds a Many is but an error of the negative; the limits and determinations established within this philosophy are pale images of the true difference understood through gnosis. It is not surprising that Gnostic practices were largely nonhierarchical, operating on principles of equal access and participation and even allowing women to preach, nor that Gnostic ethics reject the moral alternatives offered by philosophies of the negative....But one must consider the problem of desire from a Gnostic viewpoint to see why moral law is a mistaken solution.'
(Widder, op cit)

 

[MedfordMan]

Its not only Catholics who molest children, just as many Protestants do as well.
and haredi jews, Jerusalem - Chief Rabbi Lau: Do Not Sweep Sexual Abuse Claims Under The Carpet

The question to ask, is why are not all Christians moral?

Why are so many christians less moral than atheists?

Once again morality is a human construct.

By less moral, I assume you mean less tolerant.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance it teaches love. (One is selfish and one is selfless)

Jesus was extremely intolerant of sin, but in a loving way.

Sin isn't bad because it is forbidden. Sin is forbidden because it is bad (for us).

unfortunately our selfish sin nature wants to do what it wants to do and it makes us recoil from anyone or anything that tells us what to do.

Therefore mankind brands intolerance (even when it's actually love) hate.

Morals are 100% relative. I've argued that til I'm blue in the face.

But "intolerance is love"?

Pull the other one.

Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)

"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.

How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery.

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?

 

[MedfordMan]

'The attainment of gnosis awakens this pleromic element, lifting the veil of ignorance and exposing the negative nature of the limit of the One. The philosophy of the One now seems only to implicate its followers more deeply in the negative, who then struggle against all that threatens to expose its fallacies. The idea of positivity as a One that grounds a Many is but an error of the negative; the limits and determinations established within this philosophy are pale images of the true difference understood through gnosis. It is not surprising that Gnostic practices were largely nonhierarchical, operating on principles of equal access and participation and even allowing women to preach, nor that Gnostic ethics reject the moral alternatives offered by philosophies of the negative....But one must consider the problem of desire from a Gnostic viewpoint to see why moral law is a mistaken solution.'
(Widder, op cit)

Christians beware the false self importance of Gnostocism, which by definition of it's principles is anathema to God's will.

This is a dangerous philosophy.

 

[buttercup]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

 

[MedfordMan]

Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?

'One fatal flaw: Kant's failure to push his thought beyond its common sense subjective biases and conformism. This flaw is what Deleuze calls Kant's 'moralism', and it is so significant that the dogmatic Image of thought is synonymously referred to throughout Difference and Repetition as the 'moral Image' of thought. Deleuze contests the dogmatic Image of thought in the way that he claims Kant could not: by subjecting it to a 'radical critique.' According to this radical critique, the Kantian critical model Deleuze has laid out nust undergo its own critique and submit to a series of radical modifications aimed at the 'common sense' presupposition of morality that Deleuze believes Kant failed to abandon....His radical critique thus begins not by overthrowing the original Kantian initiative (the effort to turn the examination of the relationships and limits of power inward) but by applying that initiative to a systematic evaluation of the dogmatic Image of thought and the moral presuppositions on which it is built.'
(Carr CL, Deleuze's Kantian Ethos: Critique as a Way of Life, pp. 80-1)

Here is what I got out of this. I notice one of the biggest sins in Christianity is doubting god or not believing in god. If a real god visited he would expect his religion would be able to pass the scientific process. And it would encourage doubt in a story that rationally couldn’t possibly be true.

This is how and why I believe religion is holding us back. It’s asking Muslims, Mormons, jews and Christians to believe the unbelievable despite the evidence.

According to the Bible there is only one sin that is not forgiveable, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Rejecting God is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

God can't forgive someone who rejects him, because as a loving God he has to honor that person's choice to do so.

Science is the method by which mankind, limited by natural laws, tries to understand a super natural God.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Atheists are more moral. They aren’t burdened by conflicting bible verses.

 

[Flopper]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

 

[Crepitus]

Why are so many christians less moral than atheists?

Once again morality is a human construct.

By less moral, I assume you mean less tolerant.

The bible doesn't teach tolerance it teaches love. (One is selfish and one is selfless)

Jesus was extremely intolerant of sin, but in a loving way.

Sin isn't bad because it is forbidden. Sin is forbidden because it is bad (for us).

unfortunately our selfish sin nature wants to do what it wants to do and it makes us recoil from anyone or anything that tells us what to do.

Therefore mankind brands intolerance (even when it's actually love) hate.

Morals are 100% relative. I've argued that til I'm blue in the face.

But "intolerance is love"?

Pull the other one.

Sometimes intolerance is love.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, but he warned her to go and sin no more (demonstrating his intolerance of the act which brought her into his presence)

"Go and sin no more" is the opposite of intolerance.

How do you figure?

What tolerant person would even have the right to express their own morals to this woman and suggest she conform her actions to their set of beliefs, risking making her feel bad?

Still, since you persist in this untenable position, I'll give you another example.

In the old testament adultery is forbidden in the ten commandments. In the new testament, Jesus says if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart you've already committed adultery.

would you consider it intolerant of Jesus to tell others what represents sexual impropriety for them, especially when he teaches that this sin will land them in Hell?

Explaining where someone went wrong (in your opinion) and encouraging them not not to do it again is not intolerance.

 

[Mindful]

One could also examine moral justification. Portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable.

 

[buttercup]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

 

[ding]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

But even so morals have never really been diametrically opposed such as black is white.

 

[sealybobo]

Ding: 'atheists who troll religious forums.' Where would ding like for this thing called 'trolling' to happen, a bowling alley?

'One fatal flaw: Kant's failure to push his thought beyond its common sense subjective biases and conformism. This flaw is what Deleuze calls Kant's 'moralism', and it is so significant that the dogmatic Image of thought is synonymously referred to throughout Difference and Repetition as the 'moral Image' of thought. Deleuze contests the dogmatic Image of thought in the way that he claims Kant could not: by subjecting it to a 'radical critique.' According to this radical critique, the Kantian critical model Deleuze has laid out nust undergo its own critique and submit to a series of radical modifications aimed at the 'common sense' presupposition of morality that Deleuze believes Kant failed to abandon....His radical critique thus begins not by overthrowing the original Kantian initiative (the effort to turn the examination of the relationships and limits of power inward) but by applying that initiative to a systematic evaluation of the dogmatic Image of thought and the moral presuppositions on which it is built.'
(Carr CL, Deleuze's Kantian Ethos: Critique as a Way of Life, pp. 80-1)

Here is what I got out of this. I notice one of the biggest sins in Christianity is doubting god or not believing in god. If a real god visited he would expect his religion would be able to pass the scientific process. And it would encourage doubt in a story that rationally couldn’t possibly be true.

This is how and why I believe religion is holding us back. It’s asking Muslims, Mormons, jews and Christians to believe the unbelievable despite the evidence.

According to the Bible there is only one sin that is not forgiveable, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Rejecting God is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

God can't forgive someone who rejects him, because as a loving God he has to honor that person's choice to do so.

Science is the method by which mankind, limited by natural laws, tries to understand a super natural God.

Ridiculous! And we aren’t rejecting god. If god made himself known I would embrace him. It’s your fake god I reject. The real god will understand.

And what a great guy your sick god is. Send me to burn in hell for eternity just because I don’t believe he exists.

Sooo fucking funny. Because he’s loving he has to honor my bad choice? No parole after 100 years of torture? That’s loving? Sorry god but from what I can tell you don’t really exist.

I wish you christians knew how stupid you sound

 

[G.T.]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

Human suffering is the basis.

 

[Mindful]

I haven't read the thread, since it's 64 pages. But imo the question isn't whether atheists can be moral. The question should be, what is their morality grounded in? The real problem with atheism is that it has no solid basis for objective morality. That's why most atheists will say that morality is subjective, or relative. And I have yet to meet an atheist who is bright enough to understand that if morality is subjective, then it's ultimately meaningless, since no one morality can ever be better than any other.

I think there is an argument to be made for moral relativity within the context of culture and time. Stoning a woman to death for adultery would surely be regarded as immoral today but not 5000 years ago. When Aztec priests ripped the heart out young girls in a sacrifice to their god a thousand years ago it was consider not just moral but the ultimate virtuous act.

That argument has been made, but I think there's a big misunderstanding there. Yes, cultural ideas on morality have changed over time, but it doesn't follow that the true nature of morality is relative or subjective. Adultery was wrong then and it's wrong now and it will always be wrong. (Regardless of what anyone believes.) The punishment for it has changed over time, as you brought up, but just because certain laws or customs are temporary doesn't mean that true (everlasting) morals and principles don't exist.

I hope that was clear.

You say adultery is wrong. But isn't it wrong to have married that person you don't love enough, in the first place?