Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

I have forgotten more science than you ever knew

No ding. I know you like to dance and prance and say this, but you say very dumb things about science.

Militant atheists like yourself are the antithesis of open mindedness.

You also love that "militant" term. You embarrass yourself every time you use it. "Militant" to you is anyone who doesn't accept your preferred magical fetish. Which, of course, makes you the ideological "militant". But, being the dishonest fraud you are, you think you provide cover for yourself by accusing others of that of which only you are guilty. You know, like 5 year old does.

You are militant in every sense of the word.

If you could get away with it you’d be a nazi.

 

[Hollie]

So those kind people would not have been kind, without their imagination telling them their sky daddy is telling them to be kind? That doesn't speak highly to their moral grounding. A better world will have people being kindto be kind, not in some tramsparent scam of an effort to preserve their imagined afterlife.

Like most atheists you completely disregard the moral and ethical development of cave dwelling humans just a step up from wolves, lions and bears.
Without the moral constraint of a God what would cause me to not bash in someone's skull and take his mate and children as my own to improve my condition in a harsh nasty kill or be killed environment?
Who is there to stop me? All living together in nice cooperative harmony won't get me a woman or the children I need to help me in my daily struggle for mere subsistence.
It's certainly easier and more efficient to simply take what I would need to survive than
depending on the help, which or may not exist at the time, to get by somehow.

The threat of retribution for stealing someone's family from a God who can make thunder and fire would be a much more impressive deterrent and stick than the carrot of all living together in a Candy Land scenario where everyone just intuits that they must all be good and kind to each other, for some reason.

What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,

Really? There was a time "before religion" and no one knew of gods?

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 ahem -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to murder people?

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

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

Plenty of civilizations who never heard of your particular religious myths operated under the same rules and codes of behavior and they did just fine-- in fact, better in many cases. Research a king of India named Asoka -- probably one of the greatest rulers of all time who established public education, functional welfare, medical support, etc.

And tell me, why is it we see rudimentary social structures in animals that don't really have any special creation? Why do higher apes adhere to "moralities" in terms of not blindly killing one another? I suppose you must believe that the gods have touched them as well. Interestingly, I would like to see anyone use the primary Judeo gods as a role model for moral behavior. Just make a list of the things Yahweh has done, and then go on and try to live according to that morality. They are the example after all, right?

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.

 

[ding]

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion.

Clearly you don’t know understand the implications of free will. We are left to our own device. The choice is implanted. Not the outcome. We are free to choose immorality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion.

Clearly you don’t know understand the implications of free will. We are left to our own device. The choice is implanted. Not the outcome. We are free to choose immorality.

That's entirely consistent with what Hollie said.. so you refuse to admit she was not only correct, but covered far more ground with fewer words.

Example:

The point is God has always been a moderating force on human behavior whether you like it or not.

So ding, why didn't you post that screed in response to Eric Blair rather than Hollie?
Morality was/is the subject, not free will.

 

[buttercup]

What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,

Really? There was a time "before religion" and no one knew of gods?

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 ahem -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to murder people?

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

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

Plenty of civilizations who never heard of your particular religious myths operated under the same rules and codes of behavior and they did just fine-- in fact, better in many cases. Research a king of India named Asoka -- probably one of the greatest rulers of all time who established public education, functional welfare, medical support, etc.

And tell me, why is it we see rudimentary social structures in animals that don't really have any special creation? Why do higher apes adhere to "moralities" in terms of not blindly killing one another? I suppose you must believe that the gods have touched them as well. Interestingly, I would like to see anyone use the primary Judeo gods as a role model for moral behavior. Just make a list of the things Yahweh has done, and then go on and try to live according to that morality. They are the example after all, right?

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.

Because we all have a conscience. An inner knowledge of 'Natural Law', which is God-given. Unfortunately, it is possible to damage or mess up one's conscience, to the point of it being nearly gone.

 

[buttercup]

Do atheists think this is funny?

View attachment 262320

I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.

We don't fear God in the way you are describing. And I have no fear of devils or the other stuff you mentioned. Any other misconceptions you need to be cleared up?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do atheists think this is funny?

View attachment 262320

I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.

We don't fear God in the way you are describing. And I have no fear of devils or the other stuff you mentioned. Any other misconceptions you need to be cleared up?

Hopefully you'll address questions stemming from your denials:
By "We" are you including James?
Was James' cartoon not suggestive of what Hollie mentioned?
If not to promote such fears, why would James post that link ?

 

[buttercup]

Do atheists think this is funny?

View attachment 262320

I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.

We don't fear God in the way you are describing. And I have no fear of devils or the other stuff you mentioned. Any other misconceptions you need to be cleared up?

Hopefully you'll address questions stemming from your denials:
By "We" are you including James?
Was James' cartoon not suggestive of what Hollie mentioned?
If not to promote such fears, why would James post that link ?

I only replied to her post, I didn't see all the previous posts in the discussion. But I just took a quick look at that cartoon, and it doesn't look what you guys seem to think it's about. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like some rocker guy who wants to sell his soul for greatness... I don't see what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?

We don't fear the enemy. Why would we? As the word says, the one who is in us is greater than the one in the world.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No previous post reading required, but I take it that:

1) You are presuming to speak for James with all of those "We"s.
2) You don't think James' cartoon was suggestive of what Hollie mentioned.
3) You have no idea why James linked that cartoon.

Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.

So "what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?" It's a projection. Naturally both Christians and atheists would prefer everyone to be more like them. Many Christians do indeed fear devils so project that upon atheists. Initially, to circle their wagons by painting them as their enemy, and secondarily to try and convince atheists to fear devils too, thereby converting them to Christianity.

 

[buttercup]

No previous post reading required, but I take it that:

1) You are presuming to speak for James with all of those "We"s.
2) You don't think James' cartoon was suggestive of what Hollie mentioned.
3) You have no idea why James linked that cartoon.

Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.

So "what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?" It's a projection. Naturally both Christians and atheists would prefer everyone to be more like them. Many Christians do indeed fear devils so project that upon atheists. Initially, to circle their wagons by painting them as their enemy, and secondarily to try and convince atheists to fear devils too, thereby converting them to Christianity.

When I said we, I was talking about Christians in general. I didn't have James in mind (I don't even know him.)

As for his cartoon, I would have to read the discussion to see what he was trying to say with that. But I'm not a mind reader, so if you didn't already, you should just ask him why he posted that.

I almost never bring up satan or things like that to atheists, as it would be completely pointless. I did mention militant pro-aborts being possibly demonically influenced on another thread, but I was just making an observation. Again, I don't fear those things Hollie mentioned, because I don't have to, I know who the highest power is, and who has the last say.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fair enough.

 

[Hollie]

What's missing in your comment about moral and ethical development is that cave dwellers never had your version of the gods for guidance. Yet, somehow, they managed to survive,

Really? There was a time "before religion" and no one knew of gods?

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 ahem -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.

The suggestion that angry gods somehow "keep us under control" or that morality is implanted by the gods is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there are no gods. Would such information suddenly cause you to murder people?

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

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness. Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestors total lack of moral compass?

Plenty of civilizations who never heard of your particular religious myths operated under the same rules and codes of behavior and they did just fine-- in fact, better in many cases. Research a king of India named Asoka -- probably one of the greatest rulers of all time who established public education, functional welfare, medical support, etc.

And tell me, why is it we see rudimentary social structures in animals that don't really have any special creation? Why do higher apes adhere to "moralities" in terms of not blindly killing one another? I suppose you must believe that the gods have touched them as well. Interestingly, I would like to see anyone use the primary Judeo gods as a role model for moral behavior. Just make a list of the things Yahweh has done, and then go on and try to live according to that morality. They are the example after all, right?

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.

Because we all have a conscience. An inner knowledge of 'Natural Law', which is God-given. Unfortunately, it is possible to damage or mess up one's conscience, to the point of it being nearly gone.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by conscience. I think you're referring to a sense of right and wrong or a moral code, (to swing back to the thread topic).

I would agree with some reservations. Attitudes change, worldviews change subject to events and challenges and societies flex and adjust to internal and external influences.

Of course, surely some basic morals work well from generation to generation, from society to society. Let's choose wanton murder as a behavior that is socially destructive to a successful species, and murder is rightfully consistently a moral issue that generally maintains its proscription (and sure some societies sabotage this, like the Nazis, or Stalin, and a number of Islamic societies etc.-- but those societies are doomed to fail. You just can't keep wantonly murdering your own constituents.). But other morals change for reasons both trivial and important. Slavery was once considered a perfectly acceptable aspect of many cultures but forced slavery is so heinous to the perspective of modern societies (at least some) that it has become morally reprehensible to allow it. So this could be categorized as a change of morality that is important.

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?

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.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just an example from the git 'em quick before it's too late department!

 

[james bond]

Do atheists think this is funny?

View attachment 262320

I think it’s funny, in a mordant sort or way, that folks such as you spend your lives in trembling fear of angry gods, devils, satans waving a pitchfork and other absurdities.

I guess I laughed because Christians think one's spriit is most important in relation to God the Father. We need to be pure to enter heaven. As to it being mordant, I would think it's because humans think that Satan will deliver what one asks for if they sell their soul to him. I assume they become bad. However, that's a lie because Satan cannot grant such wishes. People swear against God, but they should swearing against Satan. Satan is quite powerful. Do you think he influences you in your insistence of ID/creationists or whatever your worldview is? Even when you write "god" in lower case, you honor Satan as he is the god of the world and prince of the power of the air.

 

[james bond]

Just an example from the git 'em quick before it's too late department!

Are you complaining about this? Making fun? Being a God fearing person is good. Then you won't fear Satan and death.

 

[james bond]

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?

Incest was okay before the Flood. Our genetic makeup was pure enough so that people would not become deformed or have genetic disorders. Afterwards, it was not fine as it produced what we have today. Today, incest is not morally correct and verboten.

 

[james bond]

If not to promote such fears, why would James post that link ?

You misunderstand. I would think it's a funny cartoon to Christians as explained in #2714. I would think atheists would think it's funny, too, but not sure. It's the ingrained stereotype of Satan.

If you think, I posted to promote fear of God to atheists, then you would be mistaken. I don't think atheists will be swayed by that if they believe in no God.

I rather give evidence for God's existence than try to show Satan exists. Satan exists, but you think he doesn't exist. All that exists is the stereotypes of Satan or his mythology to you. To me, Satan exists. He's not a mythology, but I would not argue for you to believe in Satan.

ETA: It doesn't meant that I won't argue for the existence of Satan. I rather atheists/agnostics believe in God before Satan. Satan would sway you to his side.

 

[james bond]

Then allow me to explain the cartoon. A devil is depicted taunting a stupid atheist. Why presume he's an atheist? Because his soul is described as worthless. Why stupid? Because after wishing aloud to be the greatest ever he sells his soul for only a box of crackers.

So "what that has to with Christians supposedly fearing?" It's a projection. Naturally both Christians and atheists would prefer everyone to be more like them. Many Christians do indeed fear devils so project that upon atheists. Initially, to circle their wagons by painting them as their enemy, and secondarily to try and convince atheists to fear devils too, thereby converting them to Christianity.

My bad. I didn't think of it that way at all. The guitarist could be anyone. If anything, I hoped it would lead to seriously discussing Satan since I learned that Satan isn't some entity that can be easily dismissed.

 

[james bond]

God = objective morality.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Incest was okay before the Flood. Our genetic makeup was pure enough so that people would not become deformed or have genetic disorders. Afterwards, it was not fine as it produced what we have today. Today, incest is not morally correct and verboten.

Why was incest okay after the flood?

While the flood myth is disproven, literalists seem not to understand that the gods leaving only Noah and his immediate family alive to repopulate the planet requires incestuous / familial relations.

Otherwise, the early Egyptian dynasties existed before the invention of your gods. There is no reason to believe that the Egyptians had any special biology that would have prevented birth defects from incestuous relations.