Can Atheists be Moral?

[hobelim]

Yes, but wouldn't you have developed that same skill after finding out the amulet you just bought was worthless?

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.

I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.

 

[G.T.]

Ot as well refined, no. I would not have had the benefit of the scientific enlightenment, or classical liberalism, etc. More likely I would have thought the magic amulet was real and *I* was flawed.

And also i would have been more likely to believe that some serpents can and do talk. Because I would have had virtually no understandong aboit the natural world. That is why we know that the people who wrote those stories did,in fact, believe there was a talkong serpent.

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions. They didn't need to go to college to know that snakes are poisonous and can kill you with a bite and they would have known that only humans can talk after their mommy read them their very first fairy tale.

You can take any 4 year old kid living in the desert southwest who can't read, doesn't know the first thing about science, never went to college, and has no real understanding of the natural world and ask them if snakes can talk and they would ask you if you were an idiot.

You can take a 4 year old desert dweller and convince him of a sky daddy, because theyre still being convinced to this day. Your nobody is this gullible argument is disproven by the mere testimony of folks who DO believe these things.

Poor folks in that age especially, it was likely written to placate them and oops, it spread like a cancer.

These stories were written by Jews for Jews who understood the torah was instruction ,not history. The problems arose whenever their superstitious, irrational, and violent enemies tried to usurp authority over those writings without having the slightest clue about figurative language or that the subjects were hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Ohhh so I cannot find Jewish folks who believe in the God of the Bible..


ahhhhkayyyyyy


You're just being an apologist because you found a few things in the Bible and youre incapable of reconciling them.

#1. Allegories that convey common sense wisdom.

#2. Direct commandments to worship a God.

#3. Ridiculous contradictions.


And in order for you to reconcile all of that, you use a presupposed apologetic that it all falls under #1, which it doesnt and thats established based on the History and testimony.

I'm sure you can find many Jews who believe in God. They just won't ever believe that he became a human being or is edible.

I think your argument should be with people who profess to believe such nonsense.

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible.

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

You cannot use the same terrible reasoning and mock one and not the other because that's hypocritical, and lacks something like a spine.

 

[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.

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.

There are probably some things such as adultery that have been recognized as immoral because the structure of society would disintegrate if it became acceptable throughout society. Likewise moral values such as trustworthiness, honesty, peace, concern for others, human dignity are universally accepted as a moral value. However many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past such as torturing criminals in the middle ages and slavery which was widely accepted in most cultures until the 19th century. Who is to say that many immoral acts today will become acceptable in a few hundred years. The status of abortion which has been recognized as immoral for centuries is rapidly changing.

I believe what you refer to as everlasting morals are those that are necessary in order for society to function acceptably.

 

[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.

There are probably some things such as adultery that have been recognized as immoral because the structure of society would disintegrate if it became acceptable throughout society. Likewise moral values such as trustworthiness, honesty, peace, concern for others, human dignity are universally accepted as a moral value. However many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past such as torturing criminals in the middle ages and slavery which was widely accepted in most cultures until the 19th century. Who is to say that many immoral acts today will become acceptable in a few hundred years. The status of abortion which has been recognized as immoral for centuries is rapidly changing.

I believe what you refer to as everlasting morals are those that are necessary in order for society to function acceptably.

You guys don't get it, that is very apparent. When it comes to objective moral truths, it doesn't matter what people believe or disbelieve. It doesn't matter that certain societies have other ideas about adultery or abortion or what have you. And it doesn't matter that "many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past." It doesn't matter what people believe at all. You're looking at it from a purely anthropocentric point of view. But I do understand why you think that way. If you're an atheist, that's the way your mind works, you can't think of it in any other way.

 

[Mindful]

I suppose we could move on to the definition of belief.

 

[G.T.]

I suppose we could move on to the definition of belief.

We don't need to define it colloquially. The standard works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They were more intimately acquainted with the natural world than you ever were living nomadic lives in tents in desert regions.

And yet didn't understand it, believed wild myths, and attributed phenomena to magic.

So my point stands.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

There are probably some things such as adultery that have been recognized as immoral because the structure of society would disintegrate if it became acceptable throughout society. Likewise moral values such as trustworthiness, honesty, peace, concern for others, human dignity are universally accepted as a moral value. However many actions that are considered immoral today were certainly acceptable in the past such as torturing criminals in the middle ages and slavery which was widely accepted in most cultures until the 19th century. Who is to say that many immoral acts today will become acceptable in a few hundred years. The status of abortion which has been recognized as immoral for centuries is rapidly changing.

I believe what you refer to as everlasting morals are those that are necessary in order for society to function acceptably.

Adultery is only immoral because deception is immoral. When both married partners consent, it's not immoral. A religious person may disagree, due to the "holy vows".

 

[danielpalos]

I don't mind if women prefer to start out slow and watch GunSmoke, Season 3, episode 11 with me.

 

[cnm]

He uses any nefarious excuse to bash America.

Therefore he is dishonest, and therefore immoral.

Only where using nefarious excuses to bash the US is not a community norm.

 

[cnm]

For example, it might be a community norm to accept a king having sex and children with his siblings. The Pharoahs and the Romans went through that. The community accepted it..but it wasn't considered *moral*

Yes it was. You appear to lack comprehension.

 

[cnm]

No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.

Slavery was moral to the South. ....

No, it was not.

Fair enough. Demonstrate how the South considered slavery immoral then.

 

[cnm]

Likewise the German community accepted it as a community norm to kill Jews in the street. It wasn't considered *moral* just because it was common and accepted.

If it was common and accepted it was moral to Germans. Demonstrate how Germans considered it immoral.

 

[cnm]

Does morality require the existence of a god?

Ffs. Do you really not read your own thread?

 

[cnm]

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.

Valid morals assist the survival and prosperity of the community.

 

[cnm]

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

No, it is the method by which nature is explained.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

YES

 

[cnm]

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

Oh. You mean face splashing, or enhanced interrogation? I think those were determined to be norms which did not assist the survival or prosperity of the community.

 

[BreezeWood]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

 

[G.T.]

They're no less ridiculous than folks who believe in a metaphorical edible. (presence)

They, too, believe in something not empirically proven or even evident.

that is not true, metaphysical effects are both provable and evident, evolution is an example of the metaphysical presence in the universe.

Not unless you don't know what metaphysical means.

Evolution is the antithesis of metaphysics. Its entirely described in terms of the physical.