CDZ A Question For Atheists

[SUPERMAN1929]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

 

[Spare_change]

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

I didn't say I was the "ultimate arbiter" of my own actions, whatever that means.

I'm saying if you need a religion to tell you lying, stealing, cheating, and killing is wrong - then you probably lack some basic things in your brain that most normal people have (like the capacity to experience empathy).

Ok -- so then, who IS the ultimate arbiter of your actions?

 

[Spare_change]

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

Nonsense.

Individuals are perfectly capable of conducting moral, responsible lives absent the authoritarianism of subjective, errant religious dogma.

Atheists actually commit far less crime than those with religious beliefs. While 2.5% of the general population identifies as atheist - less than 1% of people in prison are atheist.

Your numbers are probably tainted by the fact that prisoners who don't attend church are required to stay in their cells on Sunday morning.

 

[Agit8r]

Morality comes from human empathy. That is why societies that condition their children to reject empathy are so corrupt.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

If I let the bibles be my moral guide, I'd be selling my children to slavery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

I have absolutely no trouble sleeping. I don't have to lie to myself, because they're MY morals and I can change them whenever they don't fit with the way the world works. I don't have to worry about how I might measure up to others. That's what REALLY bothers you, huh?

What bothers most conservatives is diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, such as refusing to conform to the authoritarianism that is religious doctrine and dogma.

 

[dblack]

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

I have absolutely no trouble sleeping. I don't have to lie to myself, because they're MY morals and I can change them whenever they don't fit with the way the world works. I don't have to worry about how I might measure up to others. That's what REALLY bothers you, huh?

What bothers most conservatives is diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty, such as refusing to conform to the authoritarianism that is religious doctrine and dogma.

Yes, yes... conservatives kick puppies and liberals worship Stalin. Don't you people ever get tired of this nonsense?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.

Christians and other theists have no 'monopoly' on morals and values.

 

[Spare_change]

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.

Christians and other theists have no 'monopoly' on morals and values.

I have made no mention of morals being contrived by a 'deity', though, admittedly, mine are. He, and He alone, judges my actions.

The best I've been able to get so far -- atheists determine their own morals, and are the ultimate arbiters of their compliance. My point is that would seem to make the court kinda slanted ... if it's in your own best interest to find that you didn't violate your rules because, after all, you must have had a good reason to do it in the first place.

Kinda sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

 

[Spare_change]

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

The mistake you make is to perceive morals, values, and principles of personal conduct as things contrived by a 'deity' and imbued with some sort of 'divine authority,' when in fact there are no 'deities,' and morals, values, and principles of conduct are human constructs available to all to use for moral guidance – both theists and those free from faith.

Christians and other theists have no 'monopoly' on morals and values.

Given the slippery ground your values are based on, I would suggest, maybe, we do.

 

[Wuwei]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

See what these countless thousands of Christians did.
Christian Atrocities Victims of Christianity Catholic Church Inquisition Crusades
Atheists don't burn witches at the stake.
Nor behead thousands of non-converts.
Etc.
My point is that you have no point, and neither do I.

 

[sealybobo]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Are you saying the Greeks who lived during the greek gods didn't know right from wrong?

Are you saying people didn't know thou should not kill before moses?

 

[oldernwiser]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

 

[Spare_change]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Are you saying the Greeks who lived during the greek gods didn't know right from wrong?

Are you saying people didn't know thou should not kill before moses?

Nobody has said that - not a single person. Yet, you, and your compatriots, immediately leap to an us-vs-them mentality. Recognizing the superiority of my God is no different than believing the God of Sun controls your life. In fact, many of us believe that they are one in the same God - only called by different names, whether it be Lord, Mohammed, Buddha, Ra, or whatever.

 

[Spare_change]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

 

[oldernwiser]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

My response to SUPERMAN1929 wasn't an argument, it was a response to a very ignorant comment.

You are obviously reading into this more than what's out there. I'm not judging anyone. If you choose to hand over the reins to some greater power, hope that works out for you. It doesn't for me. However, you also have no right to be condescending in your responses either - I didn't denigrate your faith although it would be an easy thing (however pointless) for me to do so. I never once denied human frailty, in fact, I brought it up a while back and said that I accept responsibility for my own actions. This is different from having dogma cover for you (a little scary for the uninitiated too).

A question was asked about atheistic morals - do you respect the answer given, or do you feel this now entitles you to a sense of superiority? Do you feel that you can simply deny my response because it wasn't what you expected and it challenged your own belief system a little? I'm always curious as to why people ask a question and then work so hard to refute the answer.

I understand religion - I wasn't raised in a vacuum. And I understand that in most religions, if you do something wicked, you can get right with your creator and still live a happy life. You don't HAVE to learn from it - in fact, you can do it over and over as long as you get right with your God - because he loves and forgives you. That's the source of your "moral superiority" - forgive and forget. Because I don't believe in a "higher power" (and have never heard voices that aren't there - sorry, but you brought it up) and answer to myself alone, I have no choice but to analyze my own actions and atone for things I have gotten wrong to myself as well as those I may have wronged. It's not exactly guilt, but it certainly is conscience. That's all the motivation I need.

I think the crux of this conversation is revealed in your last sentence: "...there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen." I don't believe that to be the case, and that's what really frosts you, isn't it? (I won't discuss theology with you. I can't explain to you why faith is ridiculous and you can't explain to me how it's the only answer. You're just going to have to accept that we have a different opinion.)

 

[oldernwiser]

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

I also want to point out that even this simple assessment is incorrect. Buddhists don't buy into the frailty nonsense either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Atheists wouldn't know morality if it dick slapped them in the face. See what these atheists did.
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

Well... if you want to go THERE...

“25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES

A dumb argument .... on both sides.

We clearly recognize the frailty of the human experience. The only difference is that you somehow believe that you aren't subject to those frailties, because you have set yourself up as judge and jury of right and wrong.

Christians, and all other religions, believe that the frailty of the human psyche, means that there must be somebody else smarter and more powerful to whom we must listen.

This fails as a fallacy, that humans are fallible in no way 'proves' the existence of a 'deity,' or warrants the authority of religious dogma.

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Proof god exists.