Morality, Religion and Atheism

[1911RONIN]

Religion and morality isn't mutually exclusive. I was raised Buddhist, but I am not by any means religious. I question everything including the existence of a higher power. I guess that can be best described as agnostic. Morality is a byproduct of society. Society as whole, regardless of religious views or lack thereof, has at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist. Obviously, history has shown those guidelines are seldom followed. Whether or not those guidelines were influenced by religion is irrelevant. Many wars have been fought in the name of religion. This is just my opinion.
I believe myself to be a morally sound person, though it isn't derived from my fear of god, heaven, or hell. For me, it comes from within. I look at myself and I ask, am I proud of the person I am. Can my children be proud of the man I am, not only as a parent, but a human being. If not, what can I do to change it?

But what makes anything you do right or wrong? You might say your morals, but what makes your morals any better or worse than the next person's? Can you see the problem here? If you say society, that is an abstraction, not a norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Look around you, morality is whatever people say it is.
Jesus told us...
"Only God is good." --Mark 10:18
And
"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." - - John 15:19.

Which people? Why them or their morality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grobie]

But what makes anything you do right or wrong? You might say your morals, but what makes your morals any better or worse than the next person's? Can you see the problem here? If you say society, that is an abstraction, not a norm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

[1911RONIN]

I would post to you that morality is more of a societal norming force that allows humans to live in cohesive groups

For example we have to decide which behaviors are acceptable in society and which behaviors are detrimental to society. Typically the morality follows that construct

For example the 10 commandments are just a list of the things humans have to stop doing if society will have any hope of functioning.

The tenants of morality are frequently espouse by the religious but less frequently practiced. Likewise I know very moral atheists and very immoral religious folks who just ask for forgiveness after they do horrible things


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How does society go about deciding moral norms? And is that what makes anything wrong?

Is murder wrong in virtue of an implicit democratic process? Or is murder wrong because it is a deep infraction against an invisible order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

Logically, then, no one and no action is right or wrong. If you believe rape is good for you, then it's good for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billvau]

Right or wrong is subjective, just as morality is.

Would it be wrong for someone to kill you (Grobie), to kill your wife, to kill your kids? Would any of those be wrong?

[Picatinny]

Boy do I like this question. I have considered this for hours and hours. I am an atheist, but I have sought out many different religious concepts for inspiration because I realize the flaw that atheism can bring. YYou have hit the nail on the head, there is a hole in the logic. I think the person who mentioned relativism as a major component to the modern atheist was really recognizing the problem in a nutshell( I realized this might not be the point they were making). This to me is What happens to me if I come across somebody from another place who has similar feeling that they are justified in their moralism but they are at odds with my perspective of specific behavior that is decent and what is right. Our country here in the United States has always been recognized by all of the court systems and all of the moral Justice police has being a Christian Nation. There are many who want to strip that component in order that everybody be seen more equally. The problem, like you say is it only leaves law and no actual moral bearing to work from. Next thing you know there are people that say well you're innocent until proven guilty, therefore you have broken no moral rule until you are proven guilty of breaking the law. I don't think this is a very slippery slope with logic, I think it is a natural foregone conclusion for people with no morality to justify their own behavior as being right and virtuous as long as it serves them well. The same behavior is even worse if it's somebody who has it some kind of religious conviction because then they feel as though they have all the weight of power of all the religious zealots behind them as well. I think in a nutshell humanity is bad (flawed) or at least prone to lots and lots of mistakes before they learn their lesson, and that is why religion came to be for most all walks of life in the first place.

[bugsy714]

How does society go about deciding moral norms? And is that what makes anything wrong?

Is murder wrong in virtue of an implicit democratic process? Or is murder wrong because it is a deep infraction against an invisible order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose murder is wrong because it is a harmful thing to do to another human being and if you want to live around other human beings in a cohesive group you cannot do harmful things to them

These are more cooperative rules that allow us to work together and build things that are greater than anyone human being could do on their own

I would pose that the above force to maintain the group dynamic and harmony is what has been personified into God or our human concept of a higher power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

I suppose murder is wrong because it is a harmful thing to do to another human being and if you want to live around other human beings in a cohesive group you cannot do harmful things to them

These are more cooperative rules that allow us to work together and build things that are greater than anyone human being could do on their own

I would pose that the above force to maintain the group dynamic and harmony is what has been personified into God or our human concept of a higher power


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CVShooter]

Even animals show morality & moral standards. They also show violations to their moral codes, just like we do. I suggest reading THE BONOBO AND THE ATHEIST, an interesting book.

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

I'd say the latter. But if "God" is a metaphor for what is good, what is part of our essential being as humans and what best expresses our better nature, then maybe it's a moot point.

[billvau]

Once you decide that one thing is wrong, i.e. always wrong, you now have an "absolute." You cannot have absolutes in a world based on evolutionary theory because there is nothing that sets/creates/maintains an absolute.

So, if your cosmology is evolution, then no absolutes. Murder is permitted. Warning: you better be able to defend yourself against those who disagree with you.

[Kokopelli]

One must define morality. Moral by what standard? Moral compared to whom? Is an Athiest moral, compared to Hitler or compared to Mother Teresa?

The standard of morality and goodness is Jesus Christ. How does __________ (insert name of any human here) compare to Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God? Compared to Jesus, there is no comparison. We are all wretched, lost, naked and blind compared to Him.

Romans 3:10b-12

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

[Grobie]

Would it be wrong for someone to kill you (Grobie), to kill your wife, to kill your kids? Would any of those be wrong?

This applies to 1911Ronin too.
Both of you apparently misunderstand me. Refer to my earlier statement, "..society at some point agreed on a set of guidelines (for lack of a better term) in which we can peacefully coexist." Society essentially dictates morality. Whether or not religion had any influence on it is irrelevant. But to answer your question, it is possible for someone to believe that killing me or or my family isn't wrong. Obviously, society has agreed that is morally wrong.(At least in the US and amongst our close allies) Now, if someone deemed it right and had intent to harm me or my family, I in turn will find it morally right to defend myself even at the cost of killing said person(s). Others may disagree and say the taking of a life under any circumstance is immoral.. so again I say, subjective. And I repeat religion and (good) morals ARE NOT mutually exclusive.

[Grobie]

Logically, then, no one and no action is right or wrong. If you believe rape is good for you, then it's good for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no logic here. Subjectively speaking, you may believe rape is good for you. That doesn't mean I believe rape is good for you. This is due to my set of morals being different from yours. With that said, WE as a society has agreed that rape isn't good for anyone, regardless or race, sex, or creed.

[bugsy714]

Even animals show morality & moral standards. They also show violations to their moral codes, just like we do. I suggest reading THE BONOBO AND THE ATHEIST, an interesting book.

Something to consider: is human morality derived top-down (moral codes given by a divine or other structure & then we adopt them)? Or bottom-up (naturally part of our social nature & only spelled out by religion)?

I'd say the latter. But if "God" is a metaphor for what is good, what is part of our essential being as humans and what best expresses our better nature, then maybe it's a moot point.