Can Atheists be Moral?

[PoliticalChic]

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 not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

"Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men."


In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages.

and also the killing of gays.


Roy Moores' source for his desire to have homosexuality made illegal.

So if the christian bible (and i have no doubt that the only religion/bible that you approve of is the christian one)
is used as a source of morals or laws gays and atheists would be slaughtered and blacks would still be slaves.

Would this be an example for you of "Making America Great"?

"In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages."

I love it when Leftists suddenly try to quote the Bible.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved and Greek doulos to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf




"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.

while you overlook the deaths FROM religion.

There is no possible way to equate the slaughter by you Leftists with those attributable to religion.


"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury.
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left


Some major examples:

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Chiang Kaishek...10,214,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......122,064,000




Get it, mud??????

Of course Hitler is a bad example.

There is no evidence that he was an atheist. MOST evidence indicates that he believed in the occult (if nor orthodox religion) On the other hand there can be no doubt that the people who committed the actual slaughter were MOSTLY protestant and partially catholic. The guys stuffing ovens with jews monday thru saturday went to church on sunday and felt fine about themselves.

Your other examples are undeniable. They were certainly non-believers and they certainly had millions slaughtered.

Unforgivable!

So ANY "ism" that promotes the dehumanization and demonizing of any portion of society should be denounced.

So I denounce ALL "isms" that promote dehumanization and vilification. ATHEISTIC or RELIGIOUS.

and I find it a little disturbing that you consider it a matter of "degree".

"communism is EVIL because they killed MULTI MILLIONS of people."
"christianity is ok because they didn't kill as many"

 

[anynameyouwish]

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 not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

"Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men."


In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages.

and also the killing of gays.


Roy Moores' source for his desire to have homosexuality made illegal.

So if the christian bible (and i have no doubt that the only religion/bible that you approve of is the christian one)
is used as a source of morals or laws gays and atheists would be slaughtered and blacks would still be slaves.

Would this be an example for you of "Making America Great"?

"In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages."

I love it when Leftists suddenly try to quote the Bible.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved and Greek doulos to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf




"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.

nice spin!

you should write for FOX news. You are great at cherry picking what you want and omitting anything that doesn't serve your agenda.

1. SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN slave owners defend slavery using the very quotes I used!

so
if you have a problem with their use of the bible go argue with them.

2. Slavery is slavery. Is this another matter of degree for you?

SOME slavery (as long as it is not you being enslaved, of course, is not a bad thing?

Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV / 1,792 helpful votes
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

"Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men."


In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages.

and also the killing of gays.


Roy Moores' source for his desire to have homosexuality made illegal.

So if the christian bible (and i have no doubt that the only religion/bible that you approve of is the christian one)
is used as a source of morals or laws gays and atheists would be slaughtered and blacks would still be slaves.

Would this be an example for you of "Making America Great"?

"In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages."

I love it when Leftists suddenly try to quote the Bible.



1. " Africans played a direct role in the slave trade, selling their captives or prisoners of war to European buyers.[19] The prisoners and captives who were sold were usually from neighbouring or enemy ethnic groups. These captive slaves were considered "other", not part of the people of the ethnic group or "tribe"; African kings held no particular loyalty to them. Sometimes criminals would be sold so that they could no longer commit crimes in that area. Most other slaves were obtained from kidnappings, or through raids that occurred at gunpoint through joint ventures with the Europeans." Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia


2. Not only is the above not endorsed by the Bible…..but it is expressly forbidden.
The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today, the colloquial meaning, are the following:

a. permanence of bondage

b. treatment as material assets

c. control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death

d. an escaped slave had to be returned to his master….as decreed in the Dred Scott Democrat Supreme Court decision.


3. None of the above are allowed to the 'slave owner' by the Bible.


"The Bible uses the Hebrew term eved and Greek doulos to refer to slaves. Eved has a much wider meaning than the English term slave, and in many circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker."
Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia


e,g, "God spoke face-to-face with Moses but Joshua will be instructed by Eleazar; Moses was the servant of God but Joshua is Moses’s minister (Joshua 1.1)." https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/sites/ca.grebel/files/uploads/files/CGR-22-1-W2004-1_1.pdf




"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
Exodus 21:2


So….if the Bible is your excuse for the imposition of slavery….the argument fails at the briefest perusal of the text.

nice spin!

you should write for FOX news. You are great at cherry picking what you want and omitting anything that doesn't serve your agenda.

1. SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN slave owners defend slavery using the very quotes I used!

so
if you have a problem with their use of the bible go argue with them.

2. Slavery is slavery. Is this another matter of degree for you?

SOME slavery (as long as it is not you being enslaved, of course, is not a bad thing?

Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV / 1,792 helpful votes
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.

Those are Democrats.

Democrats.

Clearly not followers of the biblical proscriptions.


And they have been grouchy ever since the Republicans pried their slaves away from them.




. The Supreme Court Dred Scott decision- due to collaboration by a Democrat Judge and a Democrat President- deemed slaves as personal possessions, and escaped slaves had to be returned to their 'rightful owners.'


Is this consistent with the Bible's authorizations?


Not in any way, shape or form.


" If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
Deuteronomy 23:15


The aspects that identify what we call 'slavery' today include control of the life and death of the slave: the slave could be beaten to death with no crime having been committed by the slaves "owner."

That's not what is found in the Bible.

"… the Bible does record instances of slavery, but not in the cruel way in which we think of today. In today’s age, the idea of slavery conjures up images of a black man with whip marks on his back and bleeding blisters on his hands, working tirelessly day and night to please his ruthless white “master.” This is not the idea of slavery according to the scriptures.


When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.-Exodus 21:20-21

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.

while you overlook the deaths FROM religion.

There is no possible way to equate the slaughter by you Leftists with those attributable to religion.


"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury.
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left


Some major examples:

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Chiang Kaishek...10,214,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......122,064,000




Get it, mud??????

Those are all religions. The head of the state was the god.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Of course they can. Atheism is simply the religion of natural law. They believe the universe works and happens without a conscious plan and direction. They can be moral, just that their morality won't involve spirituality.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Of course they can.

The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"

That's a great question. Let's ask the baby-killing progressives.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Of course they can.

The bigger question is "can religious folks, like child-molesting Catholics, be moral?"

That's a great question. Let's ask the baby-killing progressives.

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

 

[ding]

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

Of course they can. Atheism is simply the religion of natural law. They believe the universe works and happens without a conscious plan and direction. They can be moral, just that their morality won't involve spirituality.

Or relativity.

 

[toobfreak]

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

Can't think of a single person.

 

[Crepitus]

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

Can't think of a single person.

View attachment 240400
View attachment 240401
View attachment 240402
View attachment 240403

None of the people shown kill babies.

 

[toobfreak]

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

Can't think of a single person.

View attachment 240400
View attachment 240401
View attachment 240402
View attachment 240403

None of the people shown kill babies.

How do you know that?

1. You are a mystic.
   
2. You know all of them personally.
   
3. You have their signed statements.
   
4. You're just a stupid, flaming jackass that just throws words out there and says shit.

Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies in Abortions Last Year | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Has Killed 6,803,782 Babies in Abortions | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Number of Babies Killed

Really sucks when you walk into a boldfaced lie with your pants down and foot up own ass, doesn't it?

 

[Crepitus]

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

Can't think of a single person.

View attachment 240400
View attachment 240401
View attachment 240402
View attachment 240403

None of the people shown kill babies.

How do you know that?

1. You are a mystic.
   
2. You know all of them personally.
   
3. You have their signed statements.
   
4. You're just a stupid, flaming jackass that just throws words out there and says shit.

Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies in Abortions Last Year | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Has Killed 6,803,782 Babies in Abortions | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Number of Babies Killed

Really sucks when you walk into a boldfaced lie with your pants down and foot up own ass, doesn't it?

Oh give me a fuckin' break. None of those people kill babies and you know it. Stop with the mouth-foaming nonsense.

 

[Chuz Life]

 

[ding]

Ooh, nice straw man. Do you know anyone who kills babies? I don't.

Can't think of a single person.

View attachment 240400
View attachment 240401
View attachment 240402
View attachment 240403

None of the people shown kill babies.

How do you know that?

1. You are a mystic.
   
2. You know all of them personally.
   
3. You have their signed statements.
   
4. You're just a stupid, flaming jackass that just throws words out there and says shit.

Planned Parenthood Killed 321,384 Babies in Abortions Last Year | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Has Killed 6,803,782 Babies in Abortions | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Sets Record for Number of Babies Killed

Really sucks when you walk into a boldfaced lie with your pants down and foot up own ass, doesn't it?

Oh give me a fuckin' break. None of those people kill babies and you know it. Stop with the mouth-foaming nonsense.

It's easier to justify ending their lives when you dehumanize them, right?

 

[cnm]

Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Complete bullshit. For example the Plains Indians considered it absolutely moral to torture members of competing tribes. Morals are community norms, they differ as communities differ.

 

[SweetSue92]

Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Complete bullshit. For example the Plains Indians considered it absolutely moral to torture members of competing tribes. Morals are community norms, they differ as communities differ.

"Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.

 

[cnm]

"Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.

They did it to amuse themselves. They could have killed them quickly, after all. It was completely moral.

 

[SweetSue92]

"Members of competing tribes". So I guess you missed what I said. Don't torture for fun.

They did it to amuse themselves. They could have killed them quickly, after all. It was completely moral.

Anybody could kill quickly when they torture, and if they're torturing, they're not killing quickly. You're still twisting what I said. I'm not talking about torturing your enemies. I'm talking about torturing for fun, as a pastime or hobby, as in serial killers. Sorry, there is absolute morality.

 

[cnm]

Ffs. They tortured their enemies for fun! Do you consider that moral, as in you'd do it?