Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

Morals are effectively standards. They exist independent of man.

I'm not so sure, Ding. Who but man uses morals? Certainly horses don't. Dogs don't. Man judges morality. Morality may come from the heart, inspired by faith, driven or guided from within, but just as a tree falls in the woods, without mankind, of what need, use or value are morals? Morals are guidelines and goals set by MEN I think.

What you are discussing is the perception of morality. Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral. Abortion and slavery are good examples.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral

Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.

 

[ding]

Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral

Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.

The fact that you are morally indignant and expect this belief to be universally understood by all proves my point.

 

[Hollie]

Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species.

So you would say that morality is based upon your own perceived view of what is best for your survival?

No, I would say "Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species".

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me, kill me?

If you answer no, then gods aren't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt (not you personally, the greater “you”), and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

You do realize that people who claim that there is a God historically have also been murderous, right?

For example, there is an element within Islam that thinks that murdering infidels is God's will.

So your argument is a strawman, just because you believe in a God does not mean it discourages you from committing murder or even genocide.

In fact, convincing people that God wants them to kill is one of the most effective ways to motivate people to kill.

In history, we see men try to convince others that they were a god in order to serve them and kill for them, but when that no longer worked, they convinced people that they spoke for God, but when that no longer worked, the tried to convince people that there was no God, thus making themselves a god to the people. Interestingly, these types of regimes, mostly communist, have murdered the most people.

We are largely in agreement. We disagree that I believe in god(s).

We obtain our morality from people who have authority over us, such as the state, the church, your parents, etc, as well as our innate sense of right or wrong.

In this sense, we all have "gods" or a God that we look to for guidance.

Historically we have seen how the morals of society have been swayed with such issues as abortion and slavery. Before they were made legal, they were seen as OK, but once they are illegal, they are seen as immoral. In this sense, we are lemmings, or as the Bible calls us, sheep.

Baa, baa, baa.

I agree in the sense that our morality is largely a function of societal norms.


People are on the precipice of a slippery slope if they’re suggesting that religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before the currently configured gods existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few or even one)?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.


Interesting observation about sheep

A child is bereft of a critical platform to make a valid choice, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of the three competing religions:

Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep…

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: Rigidly question, for I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore. No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.

 

[ding]

So you would say that morality is based upon your own perceived view of what is best for your survival?

No, I would say "Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species".

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me, kill me?

If you answer no, then gods aren't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt (not you personally, the greater “you”), and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

You do realize that people who claim that there is a God historically have also been murderous, right?

For example, there is an element within Islam that thinks that murdering infidels is God's will.

So your argument is a strawman, just because you believe in a God does not mean it discourages you from committing murder or even genocide.

In fact, convincing people that God wants them to kill is one of the most effective ways to motivate people to kill.

In history, we see men try to convince others that they were a god in order to serve them and kill for them, but when that no longer worked, they convinced people that they spoke for God, but when that no longer worked, the tried to convince people that there was no God, thus making themselves a god to the people. Interestingly, these types of regimes, mostly communist, have murdered the most people.

We are largely in agreement. We disagree that I believe in god(s).

We obtain our morality from people who have authority over us, such as the state, the church, your parents, etc, as well as our innate sense of right or wrong.

In this sense, we all have "gods" or a God that we look to for guidance.

Historically we have seen how the morals of society have been swayed with such issues as abortion and slavery. Before they were made legal, they were seen as OK, but once they are illegal, they are seen as immoral. In this sense, we are lemmings, or as the Bible calls us, sheep.

Baa, baa, baa.

I agree in the sense that our morality is largely a function of societal norms.


People are on the precipice of a slippery slope if they’re suggesting that religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before the currently configured gods existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few or even one)?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.


Interesting observation about sheep

A child is bereft of a critical platform to make a valid choice, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of the three competing religions:

Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep…

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: Rigidly question, for I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore. No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.

Morality is not relative. Man's perception of morality is relative. It is relative because man is subjective. Man did not invent moral laws. The moral laws of nature exist independent of man. Man discovers the moral law much in the same way Einstein discovered special relativity. Einstein did not invent special relativity. Einstein discovered special relativity. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes. In part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, I would say "Morality is largely a function of those elements / behaviors that further survival of the species".

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If anyone thinks otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me, kill me?

If you answer no, then gods aren't needed.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt (not you personally, the greater “you”), and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

You do realize that people who claim that there is a God historically have also been murderous, right?

For example, there is an element within Islam that thinks that murdering infidels is God's will.

So your argument is a strawman, just because you believe in a God does not mean it discourages you from committing murder or even genocide.

In fact, convincing people that God wants them to kill is one of the most effective ways to motivate people to kill.

In history, we see men try to convince others that they were a god in order to serve them and kill for them, but when that no longer worked, they convinced people that they spoke for God, but when that no longer worked, the tried to convince people that there was no God, thus making themselves a god to the people. Interestingly, these types of regimes, mostly communist, have murdered the most people.

We are largely in agreement. We disagree that I believe in god(s).

We obtain our morality from people who have authority over us, such as the state, the church, your parents, etc, as well as our innate sense of right or wrong.

In this sense, we all have "gods" or a God that we look to for guidance.

Historically we have seen how the morals of society have been swayed with such issues as abortion and slavery. Before they were made legal, they were seen as OK, but once they are illegal, they are seen as immoral. In this sense, we are lemmings, or as the Bible calls us, sheep.

Baa, baa, baa.

I agree in the sense that our morality is largely a function of societal norms.


People are on the precipice of a slippery slope if they’re suggesting that religious beliefs are the model for defining good/evil, right/wrong or moral choices.

Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before the currently configured gods existed. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few or even one)?

Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.


Interesting observation about sheep

A child is bereft of a critical platform to make a valid choice, which is why they need caring for. Look at the terminology of the three competing religions:

Be as a child
Faith alone
Belief, and it shall be
I am the shepherd, you are like sheep…

Notice a theme there? Not once are we extolled: Rigidly question, for I the LORD hath made thee with a brain, and thee hath the world before thee to explore. No, instead its surrender the brain I gave you.

Morality is not relative. Man's perception of morality is relative. It is relative because man is subjective. Man did not invent moral laws. The moral laws of nature exist independent of man. Man discovers the moral law much in the same way Einstein discovered special relativity. Einstein did not invent special relativity. Einstein discovered special relativity. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes. In part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

.

Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes.

so says the 4th century christian ... too bad their discovery's remain conveyed in their religions book of forgeries.

 

[ding]

To properly understand that morals are standards that are independent of man you have to look at diametrically opposed behaviors. Outcomes reveal the higher standard.

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures.

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct that exist in nature.

 

[Moonglow]

Why does God violate the morals set for humans?

 

[ding]

Why does God violate the morals set for humans?

See Job 40.

 

[yragnitup]

E.g Abrahamic religions claim we get the idea that incest is immoral only because of their God. This is funny. In that case, their God should have created 2 pairs of Adam & Eve alike to avoid their kids having sex together to keep the human progeny alive.

Another point this tread is missing, unlike Abhramic religions, religions elsewhere does not necessarily mean God too.
For instance, Buddhism has nothing to do with God. It's perfectly accepted by their followers that Buddha is just a man & the moral values he espoused are within the capacity of humans to evolve it. E.g Buddha taught to even love those who hate you 600 years before God supposed appeared as a goat herder in Israel & said the same thing.

 

[Hollie]

Why does God violate the morals set for humans?

The unknown authors of the Bibles wrote their tales / fables at different times from different experiences. That would account for the errors and contradictions.

 

[ding]

Why does God violate the morals set for humans?

The unknown authors of the Bibles wrote their tales / fables at different times from different experiences. That would account for the errors and contradictions.

What errors? What contradictions?

 

[Hollie]

Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral

Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.

There is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to the Christian gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.

Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus?

 

[ding]

Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral

Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.

There is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to the Christian gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.

Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus?

Are you sure you aren’t talking about the Old Testament? Which atrocities?

 

[ding]

Man can damn near rationalize anything he wants as being moral

Just as man can snap fit nonsense religious texts to any morals he chooses. That's why 15th century ding was torturing infidels, subjugating women, amd enslaving brown people. But morals based o. Reason are far superior, as we have the benefit of secular and scientific enlightenment to grant us some knowledge.

There is no greater villian iin all of history written history than the atrocities in the bible linked to the Christian gods. Just look at the damage to humanity they have caused.

Christianity forbade medical practice for 1600 years. DaVinci (who recorded his own love affairs with young boys) had to practice medicine under the cover of darkness lest he be burned at the stake. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, lived 500 years before Jesus, and worshipped Zeus. So how come Zeus doesn't get the credit? What is different between Jehovah and Zeus?

It’s super convenient to blame religion for everything. Why don’t you blame the Jews, Hollie?

 

[ding]

If I held those beliefs I would question them.

 

[sparky]

If I held those beliefs I would question them.

Isn't that what you're doing ding?

~S~

 

[Marion Morrison]

How would atheists know if they were moral?

 

[Likkmee]

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

No. Because if one is a true atheist why not be like Fidel or Saddam and " all for me- it" ?. The agnostic is one who is afraid because he's unsure. The what if it's true ? " factor comes into play. Often good people. Just havent read or prayed enough to get it.Many do when confronted with death.
These will be the most heard words on earth when Yeshua returns. " OH SHIT IT IS TRUE"

 

[ding]

If I held those beliefs I would question them.

Isn't that what you're doing ding?

~S~

Actually I am asking clarifying questions that are intended to bring out the incongruity of her beliefs.

She transposed OT events onto the NT and ignored the Jew’s culpability in her beliefs.

I on the other hand see religion as a good thing and read these passages and subsequent acts of religious persons in the context of the day.