Can Atheists be Moral?

[cnm]

in modern culture

A very small sample of modern culture.

 

[Mindful]

in modern culture

A very small sample of modern culture.

Go away.

 

[cnm]

Stop being dull.

 

[Mindful]

Stop being dull.

Take your spitballs and sideswipes technique back to the appropriate cess pit.

This is upstairs; incase you got lost in your trolling odyssey.

 

[cnm]

Take your spitballs and sideswipes technique back to the appropriate cess pit.

This is upstairs; incase you got lost in your trolling odyssey.

Yeah, right.

Go away.

 

[rylah]

in modern culture

A very small sample of modern culture.

Unfortunately, in my view, the culture of an honest articulate debate and intellectual rigor have been massively downgraded and are lacking in the mainstream culture.

Genuine independent thinking was never the domain of majorities.

 

[rylah]

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

An interesting subject, but I really don't understand that Greek(?) separation of morals and ethics, wouldn't know from where to approach.

My view is simple - there's truth beyond expression every soul, spirit agrees and yearns too.
Finding out and knowing, bringing the truth to consciousness is nothing if You don't act on it.
So there's actions (Mitzvah) and purpose, or as in Hebrew "the taste" of the action.

I come from a more holistic, Jewish, Jungian, Zen...duality in all of its expressions of atheism vs religiosity, morality vs crime, are insincere and infantile in a sense, it's all one truth of one reality. Don't confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself kinda thing.

Anyway too broad a subject for me, but if someone wants to spend time on the subject,
I suggest watching this exquisite exchange between these truly outstanding minds, discussing specifically the morality and ethics of modern culture from 2 different perspectives:

I'm a fan of Peterson. He certainly put a liberal superior TV female presenter in her place, with his reasoned logic.

She just fell apart; and she admitted it.

I think I saw that one.
One of Peterson's strongest Jungian tactics, is whenever the debate turns into mere projections and framing of character, to sincerely assume the side of the opponent and examine the following conclusions of their arguments together, rather as extreme opposites.

Old Jewish saying in the 2nd chapter of The Chapters of Fathers :"Make His desire Your desire, so that He will make Your desire His. Cancel your desire against His, so that He will cancel the desire of others against yours."

This is referring to G-d, where there's truth seeking You, but when dealing with people, one needs a strong spine to assume the desire of the other and still arrive at truth. The things Peterson finds common grounds with his opponents are the most common denominators to every human, he merely strives to arrive at truth that resonates with every human soul in his surrounding - and that is disarming.

 

[Mindful]

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

An interesting subject, but I really don't understand that Greek(?) separation of morals and ethics, wouldn't know from where to approach.

My view is simple - there's truth beyond expression every soul, spirit agrees and yearns too.
Finding out and knowing, bringing the truth to consciousness is nothing if You don't act on it.
So there's actions (Mitzvah) and purpose, or as in Hebrew "the taste" of the action.

I come from a more holistic, Jewish, Jungian, Zen...duality in all of its expressions of atheism vs religiosity, morality vs crime, are insincere and infantile in a sense, it's all one truth of one reality. Don't confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself kinda thing.

Anyway too broad a subject for me, but if someone wants to spend time on the subject,
I suggest watching this exquisite exchange between these truly outstanding minds, discussing specifically the morality and ethics of modern culture from 2 different perspectives:

I'm a fan of Peterson. He certainly put a liberal superior TV female presenter in her place, with his reasoned logic.

She just fell apart; and she admitted it.

I think I saw that one.
One of Peterson's strongest Jungian tactics, is whenever the debate turns into mere projections and framing of character, to sincerely assume the side of the opponent and examine the following conclusions of their arguments together, rather as extreme opposites.

Old Jewish saying in the 2nd chapter of The Chapters of Fathers :"Make His desire Your desire, so that He will make Your desire His. Cancel your desire against His, so that He will cancel the desire of others against yours."

This is referring to G-d, where there's truth seeking You, but when dealing with people, one needs a strong spine to assume the desire of the other and still arrive at truth. The things Peterson finds common grounds with his opponents are the most common denominators to every human, he merely strives to arrive at truth that resonates with every human soul in his surrounding - and that is disarming.

These interviewers, I've been studying them, all have the same thing in common. Their questions are framed in a certain way, almost confrontational. Like hounding the person into a corner, to answer emotive questions about stuff that had never occurred to them. It's manipulative and dishonest.

In other words, putting words into one's mouth. It was sheer pleasure watching Peterson deflect this nonsense. There are others too. One of my favourites being Douglas Murray.

 

[rylah]

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

An interesting subject, but I really don't understand that Greek(?) separation of morals and ethics, wouldn't know from where to approach.

My view is simple - there's truth beyond expression every soul, spirit agrees and yearns too.
Finding out and knowing, bringing the truth to consciousness is nothing if You don't act on it.
So there's actions (Mitzvah) and purpose, or as in Hebrew "the taste" of the action.

I come from a more holistic, Jewish, Jungian, Zen...duality in all of its expressions of atheism vs religiosity, morality vs crime, are insincere and infantile in a sense, it's all one truth of one reality. Don't confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself kinda thing.

Anyway too broad a subject for me, but if someone wants to spend time on the subject,
I suggest watching this exquisite exchange between these truly outstanding minds, discussing specifically the morality and ethics of modern culture from 2 different perspectives:

I'm a fan of Peterson. He certainly put a liberal superior TV female presenter in her place, with his reasoned logic.

She just fell apart; and she admitted it.

I think I saw that one.
One of Peterson's strongest Jungian tactics, is whenever the debate turns into mere projections and framing of character, to sincerely assume the side of the opponent and examine the following conclusions of their arguments together, rather as extreme opposites.

Old Jewish saying in the 2nd chapter of The Chapters of Fathers :"Make His desire Your desire, so that He will make Your desire His. Cancel your desire against His, so that He will cancel the desire of others against yours."

This is referring to G-d, where there's truth seeking You, but when dealing with people, one needs a strong spine to assume the desire of the other and still arrive at truth. The things Peterson finds common grounds with his opponents are the most common denominators to every human, he merely strives to arrive at truth that resonates with every human soul in his surrounding - and that is disarming.

These interviewers, I've been studying them, all have the same thing in common. Their questions are framed in a certain way, almost confrontational. Like hounding the person into a corner, to answer emotive questions about stuff that had never occurred to them. It's manipulative and dishonest.

In other words, putting words into one's mouth. It was sheer pleasure watching Peterson deflect this nonsense. There are others too. One of my favourites being Douglas Murray.

Well, I don't mind interviewers harshly challenging their subjects for honesty sake and critical thinking.
I really respect those journalist who can do it in a rational manner and give the subjects the benefit of a doubt to argue their position. But in my view the integrity is lost when journalists abandon the neutral position to introduce their own opinions in the line of opposition rather than those of the real people involved.
It has become very narcissistic, what Peterson does is a good cure for those tendencies and he does it in a totally non-aggressive calm manner.

Murray is great, totally forgot about him, much more energetic and passionate, You can feel the guy is hurting for his people and the western culture, but still very rational and respectful.

Would love to see more people of their stature in European politics.

 

[Mindful]

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

An interesting subject, but I really don't understand that Greek(?) separation of morals and ethics, wouldn't know from where to approach.

My view is simple - there's truth beyond expression every soul, spirit agrees and yearns too.
Finding out and knowing, bringing the truth to consciousness is nothing if You don't act on it.
So there's actions (Mitzvah) and purpose, or as in Hebrew "the taste" of the action.

I come from a more holistic, Jewish, Jungian, Zen...duality in all of its expressions of atheism vs religiosity, morality vs crime, are insincere and infantile in a sense, it's all one truth of one reality. Don't confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself kinda thing.

Anyway too broad a subject for me, but if someone wants to spend time on the subject,
I suggest watching this exquisite exchange between these truly outstanding minds, discussing specifically the morality and ethics of modern culture from 2 different perspectives:

I'm a fan of Peterson. He certainly put a liberal superior TV female presenter in her place, with his reasoned logic.

She just fell apart; and she admitted it.

I think I saw that one.
One of Peterson's strongest Jungian tactics, is whenever the debate turns into mere projections and framing of character, to sincerely assume the side of the opponent and examine the following conclusions of their arguments together, rather as extreme opposites.

Old Jewish saying in the 2nd chapter of The Chapters of Fathers :"Make His desire Your desire, so that He will make Your desire His. Cancel your desire against His, so that He will cancel the desire of others against yours."

This is referring to G-d, where there's truth seeking You, but when dealing with people, one needs a strong spine to assume the desire of the other and still arrive at truth. The things Peterson finds common grounds with his opponents are the most common denominators to every human, he merely strives to arrive at truth that resonates with every human soul in his surrounding - and that is disarming.

These interviewers, I've been studying them, all have the same thing in common. Their questions are framed in a certain way, almost confrontational. Like hounding the person into a corner, to answer emotive questions about stuff that had never occurred to them. It's manipulative and dishonest.

In other words, putting words into one's mouth. It was sheer pleasure watching Peterson deflect this nonsense. There are others too. One of my favourites being Douglas Murray.

Well, I don't mind interviewers harshly challenging their subjects for honesty sake and critical thinking.
I really respect those journalist who can do it in a rational manner and give the subjects the benefit of a doubt to argue their position. But in my view the integrity is lost when journalists abandon the neutral position to introduce their own opinions in the line of opposition rather than those of the real people involved.
It has become very narcissistic, what Peterson does is a good cure for those tendencies and he does it in a totally non-aggressive calm manner.

Murray is great, totally forgot about him, much more energetic and passionate, You can feel the guy is hurting for his people and the western culture, but still very rational and respectful.

Would love to see more people of their stature in European politics.

Yes, those types.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Peterson is a quack.

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect

 

[ding]

One can argue that if his goal is to discover objective truth he can never lose any argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^ dunning effect

^^ pseudo intellectual effect

 

[ding]

^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.

Haha,poor Ding of CopyPasta. Always lacking original thoughts.

Yes, peterson is a quack. Get your information and arguments elsewhere.

 

[ding]

^ says the one who is trying to be a pseudo intellectual.

Haha,poor Ding of CopyPasta. Always lacking original thoughts.

Yes, peterson is a quack. Get your information and arguments elsewhere.

I couldn’t be more happy for you to believe that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Haha,poor Ding of CopyPasta. Always lacking original thoughts.

Yes, peterson is a quack. Get your information and arguments elsewhere.

You consider Peterson a quack.

So for YOU he is. But for most others Peterson is a brilliant learned thinker, academic and writer. In any event you have yet to demonstrate Peterson is what you think he is, not surprisingly.

I hope this settles the matter for you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes. Atheists can be moral although if hubris is immoral they are mostly not.
For many run of the mill atheists it isn't enough to reject the concept of God. They must adopt a dismissive superior attitude about their atheistic attitudes. I don't know why they feel to need to be so insufferably smug.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

the bible....written by MEN!

when you quote the bible you are NOT quoting a god.

you are quoting primitive savages.

Not everyone born before a certain date is a "primitive savage". That you have to insist otherwise, despite all the evidence, doesn't say much for your positions.