Morality of Non-Believers

[KittenKoder]

Humanity comes with a minimum age requirement?

KK, sometimes your hatred of children galls me.

Hmmm ... what an odd misconception you have. I envy children so how is it I hate them?

But meh, I think you missed the hidden insult there ... really badly, use science as the background not religious belief to understand the insult better.

 

[N4mddissent]

Got to play a little devil's advocate here

Many things people don't do because they fear the wrath of a god aren't even illegal (thanks to liberal thinking). It's not illegal to cheat on a spouse, but some people refrain because they made a promise before God.

And some people don't cheat just because they don't want to hurt the other person. That's strong motivation for a non-believer like me. But then again, I'm one of those secular progressives destroying our country. It's no wonder I would have such a twisted value system.

So, you wouldn't have been in favor or putting a bullet in Hitler's head to save 6 million jews? I think sometimes killing is a necessity. I wouldn't enjoy having to do it, but I think that sometimes it needs to be done.

So why didn't god do it? If it was the right thing to do, he could have had hitler miscarried and never born, or after he rose to power god could have influenced someone to kill him or made him slip on ice or even a heart attack before the final solution was put into effect. If god didn't think killing hitler was necessary, then how can man justify making that decision?

I think the country is becoming less Christian all the time.

I'm not so sure. Apparently around 1780 less than 30% of Americans adhered to a church with some states having less than 10%. Now, while only about 20% of Americans go to church every week today (despite 40% claiming to do so), more than 70% claim to be christian, and about 43% of adults claim to be either baptist or catholic. Throw in the other large denominations, and it's obvious that far more than 30% claim to adhere to a specific church. So while overall christianity has declined in recent years, America's christian religiosity is still very high compared to historic rates and compared internationally.

I think that things becoming more and more liberal over time is inevitable, which I think is regrettable. Loss of morality leads to the downfall of civilizations and I think we're on a downward spiral.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but for my part I think ignorance and complacency has more to do with the downfall of nations. When a state reaches a point where it's power is great enough, it seems to begin to value power over learning. Why learn and attempt to understand when you believe you can hammer the world into the view you prefer? Too late they seem to realize that knowledge is power- a credo often stated but rarely acknowledged through actions.

I struggle with trying to be the person I think I should be daily.

As do I, and I doubt that our efforts would differ greatly. We probably both attempt to help our fellow man in the way that seems best. We both try to exhibit kindness and patience. Yet, you are christian and I am apostate. You are conservative and I am liberal. I think moral decay in America is a topic worthy of discussion and debate, but I believe it clouds the issue when it is defacto associated with being non-religious or politically liberal since obviously one can be those things and still be a moral person. I believe Albert Einstein was a moral person (not perfect, but then who is?) and he would most definitely fit that description.

You may hate some of the things done in the name of a religion, but without it we'd still be living a primitive life in small tribes.

Perhaps, but then again, I don't think Greek religion was overly important in their society. They became extremely advanced, with various individuals arguing for heliocentrism, atoms, measuring the circumference of the earth and the distance to the moon, etc... Who knows how much more knowledge was accumulated by greek scholars and how quickly society would have advanced with that knowledge if it weren't for the Great Library at Alexandria being burned on the orders of a priest, and the church forbidding such knowledge as heresy; all of which lead to the dark ages. Society actually owes a debt to Islam because it was muslim scholars who actually preserved those texts from ancient greece which upon their reintroduction centuries later led to the renaissance. Of course that was before muslim scholar became virtually an oxymoron due to the rise of fundamentalist interpretations.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh good grief, not the Peter Singer thing again.

Remember, people, Peter Singer is in prison, doing hard time, for terrorism.

Do you just make up the stupidest, most random shit?

Also remember that he thinks it should be okay for ppl to have sex with animals, and it should be acceptable in our society.

Do you have a rational objection, or are you looking to commit more petitio principii fallacies, as you always do?

 

[Ocean56]

I think some believers insist that non-believers have no morals because they must. To acknowledge that someone can live a happy and successful life without religion means that their religion (or anyone's religion) is not necessary and they can't admit to that.

No, they certainly can't, not the most militant ones anyway. I've known a few honest and real Christians who aren't threatened in any way by people who choose NOT to believe. They can accept a person's lack of belief in their god and religion without getting angry and resorting to the lame "you'll burn in hell" threats I've seen so often coming from militant "believers." Regrettably, they are few and far between.

 

[Ocean56]

Yes, we can look to the superiority of the nations of ISLAM to see how much better civilization is when religion is politically mandated.

Yeah. Right. Like the "civilization" of countries dominated by the monument to cruelty and oppression, aka the catholic church? The church that was directly responsible for their TERRORIST campaigns of the Inquisition and Malleus Maleficarum? The church that insisted that TORTURING people was somehow "doing god's work?" You really believe that such insane and evil practices were "better?"

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh good grief, not the Peter Singer thing again.

Remember, people, Peter Singer is in prison, doing hard time, for terrorism.

Do you just make up the stupidest, most random shit?

Also remember that he thinks it should be okay for ppl to have sex with animals, and it should be acceptable in our society.

Do you have a rational objection, or are you looking to commit more petitio principii fallacies, as you always do?

It's not stupid or random. Someone who holds up Peter Singer as the epitome of philosophical refinement is a few hammers short of a full belt.

 

[Diuretic]

Oh good grief, not the Peter Singer thing again.

Remember, people, Peter Singer is in prison, doing hard time, for terrorism.

Do you just make up the stupidest, most random shit?

Also remember that he thinks it should be okay for ppl to have sex with animals, and it should be acceptable in our society.

Do you have a rational objection, or are you looking to commit more petitio principii fallacies, as you always do?

It's not stupid or random. Someone who holds up Peter Singer as the epitome of philosophical refinement is a few hammers short of a full belt.

He disturbs people's smugness, that's a good thing. Too many of us accept certain things uncritically, Singer makes us think about concepts we uncritically accept.

 

[JohnStOnge]

There is the social contract i.e. If I won't kill you, you won't kill me.

The problem is that that only works as long as "I" don't think I can get away with killing you without worrying you about killing me. Without a belief in something outside of and "above" humankind that sets the rules, there really is no basis for any morality. As long as I am confident that I can get away with what I'm doing, as long as I have the power, there's no intrinsic reason for me not to do it.

Take Joseph Stalin. He killed tens of millions of people. He was as ruthless as ruthless gets. But, as far as we know, he lived his life the way he wanted to and died a natural death. What was "wrong" with what he did? What he did served him. Without the concept of something beyond us that sets intrinsic rules, he did no wrong. There is no such thing as "wrong," in fact. What is just is.

That doesn't mean that people who don't believe in a God can't be what we call moral. They can. But, if they're right, there's really no reason for them to do so beyond trying to make sure they can get by. If they get to the point where they can be what most would call "immoral" and be confident in getting away with it, there's really no reason for them not to do it.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's not stupid or random. Someone who holds up Peter Singer as the epitome of philosophical refinement is a few hammers short of a full belt.

That's not a sufficient response. You wouldn't make it through a introductory ethics course.