Morality, Religion and Atheism

[IVC]

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.

Where does your "morality" come from? You just picked a set of rules that work for you? And how is that different from someone who is "immoral" (per your definition) and does what he wants anyways?

[Kokopelli]

Luke 19:10

[Garand Hunter]

Correct !

Psalm 1

[viragoman]

72grabber: if you were truly intellectually honest with yourself, you could not be an atheist. Atheism is constant internal denial of your brain and all your senses being acutely aware that our existence could not be due to chance. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be moral?

[IVC]

So, it's actually quite interesting. The few members who commented along the lines "I am an atheist, but I am a moral person" never came back to explain where their moral authority is coming from.

Looks like there is indeed this deep need to define and abide by moral principles, but that people are confused about where it comes from. It explains why so many in the "urban left" and especially younger adults rely so much on wokeism, government-forced language redefinition and feelings to try to create a moral society - when they don't understand the source, they try to make it up on the go.

[bugsy714]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

So, it's actually quite interesting. The few members who commented along the lines "I am an atheist, but I am a moral person" never came back to explain where their moral authority is coming from.

Looks like there is indeed this deep need to define and abide by moral principles, but that people are confused about where it comes from. It explains why so many in the "urban left" and especially younger adults rely so much on wokeism, government-forced language redefinition and feelings to try to create a moral society - when they don't understand the source, they try to make it up on the go.

[1911RONIN]

This doesn't get at the point. What does the supposed evolutionary origins of morality have to do with what makes any moral norm binding - that it is something we ought to do and are bad if we don't. "Murder is wrong" as a binding moral norm is not explained by evolutionary processes.

And you can't use "programmed" language because that implies a programmer. There is no guiding intelligence in an evolutionary construct.

As stated earlier, your view logically implies morality is a fiction of convenience, nothing more. There is nothing really wrong with acts like rape, murder, and cannibalism on your view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theLBC]

i believe religion is a product of evolution once the species evolves to the point where the weak and feeble minded can use tools or weapons to kill their genetic superiors.

i also believe IVC has a point when he asks "where do atheists obtain their standards of morality?" when they have lived entirely in a society that was based on christian standards of morality.
are they not simply adopting religious standards, while maybe tossing out the rules they don't like or aren't capable of following (like being faithful)?

[CVShooter]

I've been absent for a while and have enjoyed reading this thread. Some thoughtful responses. And some dumb ones too.

I'll just add that many people of Judeo-Christian persuasions forget that the original sin, as described in Genesis, wasn't disobedience. Nor was it eating a fruit. It was vanity. And above all, it was the desire to know good from evil -- to be like God/the gods.

So to those who claim to know what morality is as a universal, absolute concept and that they know what it is, I say, "Spit out that fruit!" The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is how one separates from God and finds death, not life. The sooner you can learn to accept perpetual ignorance of such things, the sooner you can quit judging others and their choices, learn to love people, learn to accept the world as it is (rather than what you think it should be) and learn to accept yourself and your humanity.

Spit out that fruit!

[kelvin232]

Morality can't exist amongst believers.

To do good when you don't believe that someone is always watching you, ready to reward or punish you based on your behavior, is the only truth of morality.

If you believe in a higher power, you have never done anything moral or selfless. You've just been trying to get the right answers on a test, proctored by whatever deity your parents taught you was in charge.

[1911RONIN]

I've been absent for a while and have enjoyed reading this thread. Some thoughtful responses. And some dumb ones too.

I'll just add that many people of Judeo-Christian persuasions forget that the original sin, as described in Genesis, wasn't disobedience. Nor was it eating a fruit. It was vanity. And above all, it was the desire to know good from evil -- to be like God/the gods.

So to those who claim to know what morality is as a universal, absolute concept and that they know what it is, I say, "Spit out that fruit!" The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is how one separates from God and finds death, not life. The sooner you can learn to accept perpetual ignorance of such things, the sooner you can quit judging others and their choices, learn to love people, learn to accept the world as it is (rather than what you think it should be) and learn to accept yourself and your humanity.

Spit out that fruit!

This is heresy. It was a disobedience. And the Law which represents moral knowledge is good, it just can't save you. Read the apostle Paul on this.

And the new testament is full of very specific prohibitions and accounts of sinful dispositions. Are you superior to the apostle Paul? Where does your theology come from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Morality can't exist amongst believers.

To do good when you don't believe that someone is always watching you, ready to reward or punish you based on your behavior, is the only truth of morality.

If you believe in a higher power, you have never done anything moral or selfless. You've just been trying to get the right answers on a test, proctored by whatever deity your parents taught you was in charge.

This is a very reductivist view of Religion in general and Christianity in particular. Reading th Gospels might help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bugsy714]

This doesn't get at the point. What does the supposed evolutionary origins of morality have to do with what makes any moral norm binding - that it is something we ought to do and are bad if we don't. "Murder is wrong" as a binding moral norm is not explained by evolutionary processes.

And you can't use "programmed" language because that implies a programmer. There is no guiding intelligence in an evolutionary construct.

As stated earlier, your view logically implies morality is a fiction of convenience, nothing more. There is nothing really wrong with acts like rape, murder, and cannibalism on your view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well in this case nature would be the programmer selecting the organisms that will make it to the next breeding cycle and along with them the behaviors that created that success

I post to you that there is no such thing as a binding moral norm, just the moral norms that the society that you live in has established within us

There are plenty of societies in which rape and murder and even cannibalism or norms. So what makes your norm different from their norm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Well in this case nature would be the programmer selecting the organisms that will make it to the next breeding cycle and along with them the behaviors that created that success

I post to you that there is no such thing as a binding moral norm, just the moral norms that the society that you live in has established within us

There are plenty of societies in which rape and murder and even cannibalism or norms. So what makes your norm different from their norm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nature is a collection of physical objects and laws. It can't program anything. You need a more accurate description. Programming is the product of minds.

Name the society that, at present, condones the things you suggest. Even if you could, my norms differing from their norms has no bearing on the existence of an objective moral norm.

Do you believe we have improved morally as a culture and nation from some past moral views? You can't say yes without an objective scale on which to improve.

Bindingness is an intrinsic property of a norm. If your norms aren't binding, then they aren't norms, are they? It's like saying you ought not to murder but if you murder that's okay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1911RONIN]

Morality, Religion and Atheism

For the relativists

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels1.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk