Do Atheists Have a Moral Code?

[Blues Man]

But standards, logic and truth are not subjective. You can't ignore this self evident fact and then try to use man's subjectivity to argue that standards, logic and truth can be anything you want them to be.

I see no need to rehash this argument with you. Been there done that.

 

[Blues Man]

But this seems to prove what I originally said... that atheists can have a moral code but only a relativistic moral code.

Morals are relative and history proves it.

 

[Clyde 154]

Only because man is subjective rather than objective.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Simplicity: "Freewill" A great deal of words to describe one's free will ability to choose between right and wrong. The answer does not lie within the mind of man, the answer was described within the question, "Is there a universal code of common decency.....?"

Yes........morality is clearly transcendently (outside the limits of man to understand its origins) superior to the mind of man.

How many posts have been presented in this thread attempting to address the question of morality........there has not been one retort addressing and explaining the origins of common morality. Why? Its beyond comprehension.......thus, its TRANSCENDENT.

Example: This exchange........thousands of words used........going in circles that can easily be summed up in one phrase, "FREE WILL" The fact that men cannot agree and accept the universal code of morality does not mean that a code does not exist, it means that men are free to choose between morality and immorality.

Laws are neither moral nor immoral........Laws only attempt to identify the social mores' that represents the society that legislates said law.....i.e., what is acceptable conduct and what is not within society.....as determined by the majority of society regardless of the construct of government......the majority always establishes common mores' that reflect said societies idea of morality. Immoral people make immoral laws.......moral people make moral laws, societies can evolve...truth cannot, truth as found in a universal code of morality.

FREE WILL is just as transcendent as a universal code of morality. We are made in the image of a SPIRIT by which this gift of free will is generated.

 

[james bond]

Yes, we know the universe exists

To assume that it could not exist without a magical creature cooking it up is childish

As usual, the atheists and you have nothing to show except admission that creationists and their scientists explain the beginnings of the universe, Earth, and everything in it better than the atheists and their scientists. Real life and hard evidence is better than a bunch of hypothesis papers based on billions of years.

For biology, perhaps it's the last battleground between whether life started due to a common ancestor or whether it's an intelligent designer who reused basic components of life.

If anyone is childish, it's you and the atheist scientists. They do not even recognize the opposition nor the severe punishment involved. It is what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, the atheists and you have nothing to show except admission that creationists and their scientists explain the beginnings of the universe, Earth, and everything in it better than the atheists and their scientists. Real life and hard evidence is better than a bunch of hypothesis papers based on billions of years.

For biology, perhaps it's the last battleground between whether life started due to a common ancestor or whether it's an intelligent designer who reused basic components of life.

If anyone is childish, it's you and the atheist scientists. They do not even recognize the opposition nor the severe punishment involved. It is what it is.

Actually, creationists got it wrong
God did not create all the creatures at once. They evolved from simple creatures.

 

[Clyde 154]

Actually, creationists got it wrong
God did not create all the creatures at once. They evolved from simple creatures.

Yeah.........the cosmic egg theory (Big Bang)........everything that is evolved from 2 gases Hydrogen and Helium.

Science proves that biogenesis is a FACT through experimentation of the Scientific Method. Yet......you persist in declaring that man evolved from simpler life forms outside of species? Simplicity creates Complicated? Randomness creates Order?

And that's based upon common sense? More can come from Less? You can get a superior number by substracting from a lesser number?

Creation as presented in scripture totally agrees with the Pasteur Model proving biogenesis as a fact of science, not a theory. Life can only be reproduced from preexisting life within the same species.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so. And God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24-25

God creates then nature reproduces, each after its own kind. God created the 1st chicken who then naturally reproduced within species through laying the egg. Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg......is common sense. But apparently not universally common.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet......you persist in declaring that man evolved from simpler life forms outside of species? Simplicity creates Complicated? Randomness creates Order?

Yes, biology, geology, fossil records and DNA all prove without a doubt that life evolved from simpler creatures

 

[Care4all]

Actually, creationists got it wrong
God did not create all the creatures at once. They evolved from simple creatures.

Even the Bible's Genesis, doesn't have God twinkling his nose and creating all things and creatures at once...there is an evolvement... Creationists tend to not recognize that... Sea creatures are before land animals, etc... man is after all else evolved (or were created by God pretty much in sequence of how science is saying we evolved, even though it is represented in days, we don't know what a day is, to God, who is an entity that lives forever....according to us believers)

Even in genesis, it says God formed man from the dust of the earth.... Forming man took time.... God didn't just create man in an instant....again the Bible says He FORMED man, then when God saw that He was good to go, He 'breathed life, in to him', in to man...which, if a Believer...could be the Holy ghost....a conscience.

I think you can believe in both the Science of it all and God's short story version of billions of years, that is in the Bible!

Neither side on this issue, wants to agree with the other side....

And that's a darn shame...imho!

 

[WinterBorn]

To me, it's just your opinion and some atheist celebrity's. He's a magician or some trickster who can easily fool you. Why can't you express your own belief and evidence? All you care about is semantics instead of anything credible or with evidence. Face it, you're a weak atheist and atheists have no moral code.

OTOH, Christians have Moses and the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building and the Ten Commandments in public squares across the nation.

Maybe the political forum will suit you better. What if I said, I got Paul the Apostle to back me up? I guess his credibility would trump your celebrity's cred.

I am not a weak atheist. I am an atheist. Not believing in something is not weak or strong.

And yes, the 10 Commandments are on the US Supreme Court Building. That does not give them any more merit or weight than other sets of laws.

 

[ding]

Morals are relative and history proves it.

No. History proves that people are subjective. Morals are standards which exist in and of themselves and are based upon logical reasons. Whether or not man accepts those standards depends on if man is being subjective or objective.

The definition of subjective is... based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Morals don't have personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Man does.

It is categorically false to say that morals themselves are subjective and categorically true to say that man is subjective.

 

[james bond]

So then all atheists are thieves, murderers , rapists etc?

If one abstains from those things whether he believes in a god or not then he is following a moral code.

No, but I would say thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals are the majority atheists. They don't have a moral code.

Yet, the topic is whether atheists have moral codes and they prolly don't as a group. Most go by the civil and criminal laws to avoid the penalties. If there wasn't any penalties, then would they have a moral code? I would guess they still would, but eventually their personal values and society would crumble or they would make excuses to become the exception. For example, I didn't know I was doing something illegal or immoral because I didn't know there was a law or social value against it. We don't want an atheist society, but now we have solely atheist science and look how farked up that has become, i.e. lies piled upon lies.

 

[james bond]

I am not a weak atheist. I am an atheist. Not believing in something is not weak or strong.

And yes, the 10 Commandments are on the US Supreme Court Building. That does not give them any more merit or weight than other sets of laws.

It shows our laws in the gold ol' USA are based on the Ten Commandments. Thus, your opinion is wrong.

Furthermore, you believe in something without any evidence nor anything in society that represents it. You don't have "In Atheism We Trust" on your money. What do atheists have representing them or a symbol in society. Yet, you opined on the side of atheism. You don't have to answer if it's too much for you. You can just run along oh weak one.

 

[james bond]

Actually, creationists got it wrong
God did not create all the creatures at once. They evolved from simple creatures.

Wrong again. Where is your evidence?

God created them on different days. He created dry ground and plants on day 3. He created birds and sea creatures on day 5. He created land animals and humans on day 6. They were fully developed adult creatures. It would make sense as creating embryos or baby organisms likely would not survive.

It goes to show that macroevolution didn't and doesn't happen. You believe in a made up pseudoscientific fairy tale since the animals are still the same as they were created, i.e. didn't become different species. If you had contrary evidence, then you would show me. It should be easy enough. Instead, I "still" question why monkeys are still quadrupedal?

 

[Meriweather]

You don't have "In Atheism We Trust" on your money.

Nor do we have "In Christianity We Trust" as that is as far from the meaning of the motto as "In Atheism We Trust." "In God We Trust" was added to our money when a few other nations were telling their citizens that their leader(s) were their highest power. They were to trust in their government leader. The US responded by noting that there is a higher power than our President, Congress, and Supreme Court.

God is the ideal of all that is good. So for atheists who have no belief in God, can believe that what is good (inalienable rights) is the higher power--not the government.

 

[james bond]

Nor do we have "In Christianity We Trust" as that is as far from the meaning of the motto as "In Atheism We Trust." "In God We Trust" was added to our money when a few other nations were telling their citizens that their leader(s) were their highest power. They were to trust in their government leader. The US responded by noting that there is a higher power than our President, Congress, and Supreme Court.

God is the ideal of all that is good. So for atheists who have no belief in God, can believe that what is good (inalienable rights) is the higher power--not the government.

I learned it was advocated by the majority during the Civil War. You may have a point about Christianity, but no question it was referring to Christianity. I hadn't heard it had anything to do with leadership at the time, but did it have to do with the split between the North and South?

With atheism, it is closely related to Communism. The atheists here may as well be Commies. We can't trust them.

 

[rightwinger]

He created land animals and humans on day 6. They were fully developed adult creatures.

How do you create fully developed adult creatures?
Magic

 

[WinterBorn]

It shows our laws in the gold ol' USA are based on the Ten Commandments. Thus, your opinion is wrong.

Furthermore, you believe in something without any evidence nor anything in society that represents it. You don't have "In Atheism We Trust" on your money. What do atheists have representing them or a symbol in society. Yet, you opined on the side of atheism. You don't have to answer if it's too much for you. You can just run along oh weak one.

The thing is, the 10 Commandments is indeed on a frieze on the US Supreme Courthouse. Or rather, Moses is. He is depicted holding the tablets.

But that is not proof of anything concerning our laws, other than the recognition of Moses as a historic lawgiver.

Also depicted on the US Supreme Court Building is Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Does that mean the laws in the "good ol' USA" are also based on Islam?

Also depicted are Hammurabi, Confucius, Octavian, Justinian, Charlemagne, Chief Justice John Marshall, Napoleon, and Menes (king of the 1st dynasty in Egypt).

None of the friezes are shown more prominently than the others. So your claim that the laws in the "good ol' USA" are based on the 10 Commandments is simply inaccurate.

And of the 10, only 4 are part of our laws. And even that, bearing false witness, is only illegal in some circumstances.

As far as the "In Atheism We Trust" thing, I am sure you are aware that the "In God We Trust" was added in the mid-20th century just as a way to "fight" the communists in the Cold War.


What do we atheists have to represent us? How about the US Constitution? Since it has been consistently ruled by both the courts and constitutional scholars that the gov't cannot represent or favor any religion, nor discriminate against any or no religion, that stands as our protection and representation.

Every business that is open on Saturday represents atheists, since they are in violation of 4th commandment.

Perhaps it is even better than there are so few representations for atheists. It shows we do not require others to believe as we do. It shows we do not punish those who believe differently than we do with the laws of the land.



No, it is not too much for me at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

I learned it was advocated by the majority during the Civil War. You may have a point about Christianity, but no question it was referring to Christianity. I hadn't heard it had anything to do with leadership at the time, but did it have to do with the split between the North and South?

With atheism, it is closely related to Communism. The atheists here may as well be Commies. We can't trust them.

My beliefs or lack thereof, have nothing to do with my politics or preferences for an economic system.

I am a capitalist through and through. But if calling all atheists "commies" makes you feel better, then feel free. It really amounts to nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

I learned it was advocated by the majority during the Civil War. You may have a point about Christianity, but no question it was referring to Christianity. I hadn't heard it had anything to do with leadership at the time, but did it have to do with the split between the North and South?

With atheism, it is closely related to Communism. The atheists here may as well be Commies. We can't trust them.

It was first proposed in the 1830s. In the early 1900s it was added to a few coins. But the words "In God We Trust" was not added to paper money until 1957.

 

[Meriweather]

I learned it was advocated by the majority during the Civil War. You may have a point about Christianity, but no question it was referring to Christianity. I hadn't heard it had anything to do with leadership at the time, but did it have to do with the split between the North and South?

Some coins had the imprint during the Civil War, and that was because of the upswing of religious sentiment during the Civil War (both sides). It was added to paper money is the 1950s.