Morality, Religion and Atheism

[bugsy714]

There seems to be much confusion about the difference between OBJECTIVE/absolute and SUBJECTIVE/relativist world views. I see it as the "front lines" in a spiritual war... so I'll add my thoughts to an "interesting" discussion about "interesting times".

We are living in the chaos of relativist "my truth", having abandoned the idea that there are immutable truths as being too uncomfortable and inconvenient. Those who cried "you're judging me" are now the judges (and executioners)... ain't it grand?

It's easier to say "there is no god", as that leaves any accountability for one's opinions and feelings on an infinitely movable scale.

IF one accepts that there is a "higher power" (in a Judeo-Christian context) that is absolutley GOOD, and that ALL men are "sinful" in the context of good and evil, it becomes uncomfortable. The relativists have discovered how easy it is to accuse others of "sin", yet they themselves are as dirty as those they accuse... and thus we have quite the mess. "Holiier than thou" or "cancel culture", just differing expressions of the same judgemental morass.


If one takes the Biblical view (however "apocryphal" you may regard it), GOD created a "good" world. The knowledge of good and evil was introduced, and we've been sinning every which a way since... When you KNOW about something, it's TEMPTING!

The 10 Commandments (or some variation thereof) have long been accepted as part of an orderly "society", lest people "doing unto others", whether in the quest for supremacy, or revenge, or whatever... burn everything to ashes. Still there has been conflict, strife, mischief, and mayhem in humans... nothing really all that new today, we just have social media to spread it around faster!

Whatever one may think about Jesus, he narrowed it down to "Love God...., and love your neighbor as yourself" - This was sufficiently unpopular with the authorities that He was killed. It broke the control/fear model most if not all "religion" is based upon.

The first concept, that one could have a relational connection with a GOOD GOD, who actually cares aobout fallen/broken humanity, rather than a capricious "god" is foundational to the idea that there is an absolute morality. The second idea that one should strive to treat others as you would want to be treated shouldn't have been so hard, but if everyone is "doing what seems right to them", it's practically impossible. There is a requirement that there is an objective standard of good/evil, right/wrong, moral/immoral. When one is faced with that, one quickly will struggle with the sad realization of how often they are on the "wrong side" of the equation despite their best efforts and intentions. Our "goodness" ain't so good, being that we are human. Yet within each of us is "hard wired" a "sense" of what is right and true and good.

We can switch the line of thought to the idea/concept of forgiveness and grace if the above makes you uncomfortable. Whatever your "beliefs".... we're all '"sinners" here, right?

Yes it is a bit like Coke and Pepsi. A re-branding of the same old BS just with a different group of people at the helm

Religion has been dominating the world for thousands of years now and I think people are ready to try some thing, anything different and see where it goes

So I guess the question is do you have faith in humanity to self govern or does it need an overseer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

What? You can define the concept of morality any way you choose. Discussion only requires you to set forth your definition so all are on the same page.

What if all are NOT on the same page? Who decides on whose version prevails?

Of course they can but so what? How does the lack of religious beliefs preclude others from proposing or justifying a system of behavioral restraints or preclude or curtail meaningful discussion on their merits?

Because virtually none would admit two things: (1) If they came up with a set of rules on their own, it's completely arbitrary as seen by someone else, and (2) (IMPORTANT) these "new and improved" self-rules cannot be forced on others.

Specifically, no such "morality" can be used to force *others* into acceptance or compliance. For example, if someone thinks that "protecting the Earth" is a virtue and someone else doesn't, buys a bunch of jet fuel and burns it just for fun, there is no argument to be had whether this is good or bad. The same goes for destroying the rain forest or nature around San Francisco.

What religious constraints? For atheist there are no religious constraints so this is simply meaningless nonsense. Furthermore, this in no way establishes that atheist do not observe some behavioral constraints, despite the fact that it appears that you do not want to call them moral constraints.

How does an atheist justify these constraints to someone else? A flying spaghetti monster told him those are the correct constraints?

It's not about having constraints, it's about determining what the authority for those constraints is. If it's just "I think so," then it's not much of a constraint. Worse, anyone else who says "I don't think so" and does what the first person thinks unthinkable, has the same valid argument of simply "well, these are my constraints and they are different."

While I agree that anarchy is, by definition, contrary to a law-based society, how does this support or confirm your claim that atheism is contrary to morality? Morality is only contrary to atheism if you expressly define morality that way and, if so, discussion and debate are a frivolous and total waste of time.

If an atheist cannot define morality other than "I feel this way" then it's a stretch to call it "morality" simply because it's a set of (arbitrary) restraints. Again, if I believe that murder is moral if I don't get caught, or that having sex with little boys is moral if he didn't fight too hard, how would you object to my moral compass if I defend myself with "well, these are MY values?"

What is getting lost in this discussion is that we live at a time where the secular urban dwellers deeply and zealously believe they hold the moral high ground and they want to FORCE others to conform. It's no longer "we think it's okay to have homosexual relationship," but it's now "we think that everyone should think it's okay." Let's skip Christians and white males (the boogiemen) and look at, e.g., Muslims - if it comes to competing beliefs of "homosexuality is a virtue" and "homosexuality is a sin" which of the two groups do we proverbially burn, the gays or the Muslims? Or, do we allow the competing values to coexist and leave both groups alone, so they can live according to their religion and their values?

Remember, the modern left does NOT allow for difference of opinions and values and will want to burn one of the groups, usually the one that is less aligned with their pseudo-values.

[bugsy714]

[IVC]

Why don't we just call it "a baby," which is a matter of semantics, and have you justify the other half. Why would it be bad to "kill a baby" if morality is relative and one can just say "I condone killing babies?" Why even the need to dehumanize before destroying? We don't have to do that in wars, we just kill, right?

[IVC]

If you burn down the trees that provide you the food that you need to survive then you will not survive.

I've burned down some trees and I have survived. Actually, I ate well some grilled meat as the product of that burning, which was more important for my survival at the time.

You won't be able to insert science into discussion of morality because science has no morality of its own. I could equally well say that I won't survive anyways, or that I don't care whether I survive if I get my gratification in the moment. All valid positions if I am allowed to make them up arbitrarily.

[bugsy714]

Why don't we just call it "a baby," which is a matter of semantics, and have you justify the other half. Why would it be bad to "kill a baby" if morality is relative and one can just say "I condone killing babies?" Why even the need to dehumanize before destroying? We don't have to do that in wars, we just kill, right?

[bugsy714]

I've burned down some trees and I have survived. Actually, I ate well some grilled meat as the product of that burning, which was more important for my survival at the time.

You won't be able to insert science into discussion of morality because science has no morality of its own. I could equally well say that I won't survive anyways, or that I don't care whether I survive if I get my gratification in the moment. All valid positions if I am allowed to make them up arbitrarily.

[IVC]

Are you implying that everybody in a society must be 100% on board with everything that happens?

I'm not implying that, but the collectivist left does. I'm quite content to be left alone and not saved by anyone who would do it "for my own good."

I had an interesting discussion with a good friend who lives in Europe, a female, very left leaning, but also interested in discussing her positions. It was about "gay marriage," where I started by telling her that to me there is no such thing simply because it requires redefinition of the language and meaning of words, something I won't do under duress. It's not about people living together or doing whatever ceremony they want, it's about not forcing me to use the language incorrectly. Her argument was that I have to be converted and forced to use the new language because the act of disagreeing supposedly undermines their relationship. It's a flavor of "you have to do it for the communal good and you better know that MY SIDE controls what a communal good is." After I told her that I would like to exercise my moral relativism to opt out of her pseudo-morality the discussion became animated, but she had no argument.

Doesn't that sound exactly like something the Spanish Inquisition would pursue against heretics?

[IVC]

This is actually the ONLY relevant question in abortion debate (and I would prefer if this thread didn't get into it, it's a quite different topic).

In fact, anyone trying to avoid calling it "baby" or pretending it's part of someone else's body (we are not amoebas to spawn) in order to avoid the phrase "killing a baby" is likely someone who understand the underlying immorality (per Judeo-Christian teachings). A moral relativist would simply say "I condone killing babies" and be done with it. His world, his personal restraints and values.

We will likely see the issue of abortion resolved through recognition that the baby is a human being from the moment it is created, with its own DNA and a separate body, but where there is a conflict with mother, another human being, who doesn't want to support it. As a moral issue it might be abhorrent to me, but as a legal issue of competing individual human rights, that of the baby and that of the mother, it might allow for some cold calculations. Akin to having two people on a sinking ship and being able to save only one.

[1911RONIN]

[theLBC]

no longer a valid point, since democrats now support abortion up to and even after birth.

[bugsy714]

This is actually the ONLY relevant question in abortion debate (and I would prefer if this thread didn't get into it, it's a quite different topic).

In fact, anyone trying to avoid calling it "baby" or pretending it's part of someone else's body (we are not amoebas to spawn) in order to avoid the phrase "killing a baby" is likely someone who understand the underlying immorality (per Judeo-Christian teachings). A moral relativist would simply say "I condone killing babies" and be done with it. His world, his personal restraints and values.

We will likely see the issue of abortion resolved through recognition that the baby is a human being from the moment it is created, with its own DNA and a separate body, but where there is a conflict with mother, another human being, who doesn't want to support it. As a moral issue it might be abhorrent to me, but as a legal issue of competing individual human rights, that of the baby and that of the mother, it might allow for some cold calculations. Akin to having two people on a sinking ship and being able to save only one.

[DavidJosephson]

After reading this whole thread there is not much I can add to the conversation. one thing I will say is that if morals are subjective in nature and there is no objective morality nothing can either be right or wrong. One's beliefs do not make something right or wrong nor does the collective value of ideas make something right or wrong. a state, nation, or collective of people can always change what is either right or wrong. the killing of babies in the womb can now be considered justifiable, the raping of individuals can be seen as ok, the killing of human beings can be seen as fine because the collective believes they should be eradicated from the earth. we see this today around the world. if the collective does not have a standard of what is right ( this comes from God) then what is morally right can not be seen as wrong, and what is morally wrong can now be seen as what is right. this is all because the collective chose that what is wrong is now right. When Christ comes again, the world will not be filled with moral people but all morality will be lost.

Romans 3:10-12

No one is rightousness, no not one
no one understands
no one seeks for God
all have turned aside:together they have become worthless
no one does good
not even one

[1911RONIN]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
First of all, I assumed when I said "society" it was a given that it was meant as a collection of individuals in a community albeit neighborhood, state, country, etc. considering that is exactly what it's definition is.

From your comments, I gather you believe morals are something that is immovable, unchangeable, and the same across the board.
Morality whether good or bad are inherently up to the individual to determine. But when you have several individuals, i.e. a nation (an example of a society) of people whom, lets say for arguments sake, agree that rape and murder is immoral. Then the consensus in this society is that rape and murder is immoral. Although, you and I are a part of this society we don't necessarily have to agree with the consensus. Let's say I believe murder is moral and rape is bad. You believe murder is bad and rape is good. I believe you have bad morals and you believe I have bad morals. We each believe that our own morals are good. We disagree. Since the consensus is that both are bad, then our society as a whole believe we have bad morals. That doesn't mean we have to agree. It's the consensus that we as a society of individuals have agreed upon. The whole point of this soliloquy is that we as individuals have our own sets of morals that might not always completely align with the society we are members of. I hate to break it to you, but there are already many members in our society who believe gun owners are immoral. It doesn't necessarily make us immoral in society, just in their eyes. Just as many in our society believe homosexuality is immoral. Or that people who don't believe in god are immoral.. You and I can go on and on, but this whole debate has become a moot point. I will reiterate good and bad are subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. Morality is subjective to the individual and to society as a whole. The influence of religion on morality is irrelevant as evidenced by our community here on CG. Many of us are religious and may believe in a different god than others. Many are athiest and do not believe in the existence of god. And many of us are agnostic whom questions the existence of god. Although there are many points of morality we agree on, there are also plenty we may not agree on.

[theLBC]

taking something from somebody else is wrong, unless given permission.
people aren't born knowing this very basic rule (just watch some kids for a little while). sharing and even the basic concepts of possession and ownership is taught.

no matter what you claim as the source of your morality might be, the answer is always how and where you were raised.