Morality, Religion and Atheism

[IVC]

All I'm asking is to be able to use the same moral relativism that was used to opt out of the "old yardstick" in order to create the "new yardstick," to opt out of the "new yardstick" myself. If your yardstick is supposedly evolving and arbitrary, I can pick the "old yardstick" if I want to, without being persecuted through being called various names, no?

And, it's just a *part* of society that is using the "new yardstick." They don't represent everyone, they don't speak for everyone, their beliefs/religion are just that - personal views. Correct?

[IVC]

It is my view that religious beliefs are being phased out as the need for magical explanations are put to pasture by technical explanations and understanding

That's a complete misunderstanding of the discussion we are having.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they address different aspects of human existence. When talking about morality, science and technology have absolutely nothing to do with either.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Does the morality exist outside religion? Can it exist even in principle without a higher power as the source of authority?

.

No
No


Lot of good arguments were posted already supporting my answers above.

Can't determine right from wrong if there's no set standard.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Which brings me to the main question. Can an atheist be a moral person? Not whether an atheist can act in a way that we would consider moral, but can an atheist even define the concept of morality. .

No
An atheist rejects absolute morality (which I define to be "a code of absolute right and wrong"), since they reject a divine lawgiver; therefore, immoral.

I know a lot of kind, even-tempered atheists, but ultimately, he's immoral since he lives by his own code of right and wrong.

I see this merely as a definition such as bachelor is a single male.

[DB>]

Yeah I agree humanity gives us many reasons to not have faith in humanity :-)

So if humanity is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.... where does that leave us?Have we really gone very far? We can wipe out life on the entire planet I suppose, if that's "progress".

There was a time when humans did not have any concept of a higher power, the species survived

Historically, when was this time - I believe that very few if any societies ever existed that were "godless", though the concepts of "god" have varied greatly. Arguably the current "american god" (no caps on both is deiiberate!) is currently such a jumbled mess, it's best described as "everyone doing what seems right to them" - quite Biblical really.

There was a time when we had a strong concept of a higher power, the species survived

Perhaps we are in a transitional period moving away from the old concepts and into A new level of understanding of the cosmos and our place in it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've fallen for the "original sin" or rather the ORIGINAL LIE - "you shall be like God". The premise that man is the highest being, capable of determining what is right or wrong, and so forth. Man is the master of his own fate. I've heard it described as the arrogance of standing in the middle of nature and screaming into that vastness that "I am god"! This as absurd an arrogance as one can imagine when you think about it.


Again I will ask you to consider that if we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, morality becomes virtually meaningless beyond a mind bending exercise. We are of no more relative value than a housecat, a tree, or a virus. We are random accidents of a mathematically incalculable series of events over which we have had no control. "Morality" would be nothing beyond how you feel today, and it can just as easily be different tomorrow... cosmically and relatively (since we are addressing relativism) it is meaningless. You or I will be "here" for a short time, and our opinions and feelings most likely will not have any real noticeable difference in the greater scheme of things.

BUT if the cosmos IS a creation of something/someone we struggle to understand, and that someone/something actually cares about us, wants to have a relationship with us, and wants us to make moral choices as a part of that relationship... now there might just be an OBJECTIVE morality/truth. one that goes far beyond you or I...

I sense you are wrestling with a great question that is gnawing within you. Perhaps a "knocking at the door"... An interesting thing about God is that I know many believers have experienced that same feeling. Just keep asking, many "skeptics" have seen "proof" that altered their lives by just asking God to reveal Himself. Questions DO get answers if asked with an open heart and mind...

I think you've already inherently realized you and "society" are NOT "god" (other than in the little "g" sense). This presents you with a challenge... anyone who seriously accepts that challenge will find it life changing.

[Grobie]

1911Ronin, again you miss the point. There is no point in me trying to further explain a point you are unwilling to see. I will summarize with this.. morality is subjective, just because society as a whole can agree on something DOES NOT mean, you (the individual) have to agree. This is why crime, murder, rape, theft, etc. still exists. I don't think very many people in today's society believes slavery was right, but in the days slavery existed here, the general consensus was that it was right (at least in the southern states) that does not mean individuals in both the north and south didn't believe it was wrong. I am no longer engaging.

[GlockN'Roll]

TL;DR...

It is axiomatic that those who don't believe in God,

arbitrarily make themselves gods.

History has established this beyond reasonable doubt...

[bugsy714]

No
An atheist rejects absolute morality (which I define to be "a code of absolute right and wrong"), since they reject a divine lawgiver; therefore, immoral.

I know a lot of kind, even-tempered atheists, but ultimately, he's immoral since he lives by his own code of right and wrong.

I see this merely as a definition such as bachelor is a single male.

[bugsy714]

TL;DR...

It is axiomatic that those who don't believe in God,

arbitrarily make themselves gods.

History has established this beyond reasonable doubt...

This is a great demonstration of the mental construct in which religious folks live

If a person does not believe in a God then how could they believe they are being God like?

What are the traits of a person who makes himself into a god?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

1911Ronin, again you miss the point. There is no point in me trying to further explain a point you are unwilling to see. I will summarize with this.. morality is subjective, just because society as a whole can agree on something DOES NOT mean, you (the individual) have to agree. This is why crime, murder, rape, theft, etc. still exists. I don't think very many people in today's society believes slavery was right, but in the days slavery existed here, the general consensus was that it was right (at least in the southern states) that does not mean individuals in both the north and south didn't believe it was wrong. I am no longer engaging.

Grobie,

You are confused. Please take an ethics course at a local college.

1. You have provided no evidence that morality is subjective. To say that peoples views differ and therefore morality is subjective is known as the is/ought fallacy.

2. You fail to distinguish between cultural relativism and subjectivism.

3. You seem to be espousing subjectivism, which renders all moral reasoning incoherent, makes people immune to criticism, and renders the individual infallible. All actions are justified on your view.

These are standard problems with your view. There is nothing new here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

...yet still be in moral because they do not believe a supernatural power set that code in the univer...

It's not believing in supernatural power. Replace "God" with "nature" if that works for you - "And the nature created universe and Earth...," or "there is only one nature..."

In the context of morality, it doesn't matter why you accept certain axiomatic value system, or even which axiomatic system you will accept. What matters is that you need an axiomatic value system, which an atheist cannot have by definition. Remember, what is "axiom" in mathematics is "God" outside mathematics, something we believe or accept without proof or questioning.

[IVC]

If a person does not believe in a God then how could they believe they are being God like?

They don't believe they are God-like, the others see them as attempting to be God-like.

It works like, e.g., "being a bad person." If a person declares he doesn't believe in good or bad, how can that person believe he's a bad person? He can't. But others can.

What are the traits of a person who makes himself into a god?

He believes he can create morality and simply declare that it is THE morality of the society. That would be one trait.

[theLBC]

It's not believing in supernatural power. Replace "God" with "nature" if that works for you - "And the nature created universe and Earth...," or "there is only one nature..."

In the context of morality, it doesn't matter why you accept certain axiomatic value system, or even which axiomatic system you will accept. What matters is that you need an axiomatic value system, which an atheist cannot have by definition. Remember, what is "axiom" in mathematics is "God" outside mathematics, something we believe or accept without proof or questioning.

seems to be that "nature" tends to mean the strong will take from the weak.
religion is the opposite, is it not?

[viragoman]

Atheists are not moral, because they are not honest. No truly honest person can be an atheist.

[72Grabber]

Atheists are not moral, because they are not honest. No truly honest person can be an atheist.

That's not true. And that's my honest Atheist opinion. Not believing in gods has nothing to do with morality in the first place.