It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On the basis of Morality.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember, if there is no god then we are simply animals just like monkeys and foxes and horses and all that.

Just like animals ?

Funny, but it seems that you despise (and it looks like you are ashamed of) those before you, our predecessors and those who do not know better.

I have nothing but a deepest respect for our fellow animals ...

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Since there is no god humans are a species

And if there IS God what are we then then a species ?

Oh, my, aren't believers in God ("supernatural") feel lil' bit special today

Originally posted by tinfoilman
Remember, if there is no god there is no supernatural realm.

False. Nobody knows what is and if there is anything beyond this realm. If it is, God is not necessary even then, only to those who seek for supreme father-like authority

Originally posted by tinfoilman
But it's a good thing I believe in super natural realms and don't believe that those behaviors are natural so I can say they're wrong.

Of course it's good.

Because every time you use God as a cover when you judge somebody by saying "God hates it" makes it look (to you) like you are really not judging but merely agreeing with God. Fascinating.

To the rest of us it looks, well, just plain silly

So which one is it that you agree with me on? That pedophiles are completely natural or that super natural realms exist?

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by tinfoilman

Huh, it looks like you got me ... My logic and reason are falling apart now ... I'm loosing it ... feels like I'm gonna shut down ...

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, click.


Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!

Ooooops, wrong God, oh, well

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:11 AM

morality (concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct)

Well it sounds to me like its a matter of perspective.

Ive never understood the morality argument, and how some feel they are more moral than others. What one culture may find moral another might curse as evil.

imo people waste their time distinguishing between the two actions. In the end its really irrelevant.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by phi1618

That's interesting. How does the process of survival of the fittest have "a perspective"?

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:30 AM
Well if you look back in history, morality is perspective.

During WW2 Nazis killed jews and unwanted folk, they believed they where the source of the problems in their country. For them it was matter of their survival and that of their way of life. Their perspective was that the cause of their problems where these people.

Their perspective was that these people where unwanted. They killed them, or worse.

Morality in the conventional sense was thrown out the window.

If the Nazis had won the war, the Holocaust would not be viewed as an atrocity like it is today.

Their Perspective on morals would have been different, as i t would have been shaped by different forces.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by phi1618]

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Republican08
reply to post by mikerussellus

The question was.

What can 'you' do as a religious person, that I cannot do morally.

Not what can I do, and you cannot.

Hmmff! Go to heaven? Go to hell? Misread the initial question.
Have to give this one more thought.

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Nice humour!

Made me laugh. Maybe today isn't all bad.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 01:51 AM
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...that's Jesus.

"Survival of the fittest"... is the apparent moral code of nature...and, when employed by humans, the apparent antithesis of the "Christian" code stated above.

Moral sensibilities of individuals fall somewhere between these two extremes.

The moral code of a theist, in most cases, is strictly defined by a "holy book" or a "divine revelation" about reality, long institutionalized. This code is generally solid and unchanging throughout the generations. (Interpretations and derivations by various institutions or individuals notwithstanding.)

The moral code of an atheist, in most cases, is loosely defined by the individual atheist's accumulated knowledge about reality. This code is generally subject to fluctuations and change throughout the individual's life.

The theist, in most cases, expects to face a divine judge after death to answer for his moral decisions in life.

The atheist may believe a wide variety of things about death, but most of these beliefs do not involve answering to a divine judge.

In the absence of an ultimate moral authority (or a divine judge), morality is meaningless. It is merely an empty social convention, an illusion with no justifiable foundation.

The presence of a divine judge denotes an ultimate morality, thus an ultimate truth. It suggests meaning and order in reality, karma, and a justifiable reason to maintain a moral code in every day decision making.

The initial question is loaded. Before it can be answered we must answer the following questions:

1. What is morality?
2. What is the true moral authority?

The greatest philosophers in history haven't even settled these two issues yet.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:54 AM
To put it another way,

The theist trusts a foundation of written

"revelation", as opposed to his own

understanding of moral truth.

The atheist hammers out his own understanding of

moral truth based on whatever he wants, usually

social convention.


The theist's morals are based in faith.

The atheist's morals are based in self-


This begs the question: "Which has more value,

faith or self-righteousness?"

Faith has more value only if the object of that

faith (i.e. scriptural revelation) is of true

divine authority.

If the object of faith is worthless, then either

self-righteousness has more value or the two

foundations are of equal worthlessness.

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by TornMind
I think morality is over rated. The christians can keep their claim to it; I feel the average christian is no different than a murderer on death row. The only difference is the average christian cowers into false cover of 'morality', and the murderer knows what they did, and where there going.

I think you are a very twisted individual.Man is carnal by nature!!!!!
Evolution wouldn't improve morality at all,ever!! Only by God's
grace can man put aside his carnal nature.
I don't hide behind a false cover of morality,I know what kind of
a person I used to be.I thank God everyday that my sins were nailed
to the cross,I'm a new person now.I am a sinner saved by grace and

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:05 PM
reply to post by Republican08

I've heard Hitchens ask this question in more than one of his debates, and I always thought there was a fundamental problem with the question itself. I am a tentative atheist, a naturalistic pantheist to be precise. However, I believe the holographic model as developed by David Bohm is the best explanation for the nature of the universe. In the holographic model, there is an underlying implicate order of which we and all other apparently "physical" things are enfoldments. In essence, everything (and I mean that very literally) is One.

I think this holographic model gives a very objective, fundamental basis for the concept of morality. Morality is not simply a consensus we reach together as a society, but is the product of the fact that we are all connected to one another (and to all else) fundamentally. This gives new and vigorous meaning to the adage, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," for when we actually do anything, we are doing it to ourselves as well as to others.

In this way, I believe it is perfectly logical to be both atheist and a moral absolutist. Now, this does not mean that specific moral teachings of certain religions (i.e. on sexuality, food prohibitions, etc) are morally absolute. It simply means that there is a general moral absolute of care for one another and the Earth stemming from our literal Oneness with all else.


[edit on 22-8-2009 by pdpayne0418]

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Republican08
So I pose the inevitable question proposed by Hitchens

"What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"

I feel the silent answer from many religious people would be "the ability to believe in my god".
Though such a thing has nothing to do with morality, it's plain that many Christians believe it does, as they believe it's worthy of eternal suffering.

Edit to add:
This is compounded by the belief that all atheists actually deep down know God exists, and because we know, we're 'evil' for deceiving ourselves and others to think otherwise.
Crazy, yes...
But it is a fairly common belief so I thought I'd toss it out there.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by infolurker

I can forgive, love, and be happy without causing others pain, shame, or anger.

I wish you and everyone peace, prosperity, love, health, long life, and happiness. I am truly happy with my life. I Love and am loved.

Can you truly do / say the same?

If this question is posed to all atheists/nonbelievers, my answer is yes - except for the "truly happy with my life" part. But either way, that has nothing to do with morality. It has more to do with me not being content until I accomplish my goals.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in