Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The atheists monopoly of true morality....

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
But I do find that the atheist have a lot of logic behind their arguments and religious people come off sounding upset or even mad when arguing their points. From my point of view I find organized religion to be false. "Holy Books" written by a bye gone era that has lost its meaning. In my mind, I trust myself to find what is true. I don't need someone giving me advice from a church pew and then fleecing me for money while I'm being hypnotized. I consider myself divorced from the Christian Church and all of its various forms because I find the world much more interesting. I don't want to live my life comparing how I am doing to what happened centuries ago. I want to live in the now with no guilt or regret. People always ask me, "Don't you believe in God?" Its just funny to me. I don't know if he/she/it is there and honestly it doesn't matter. I'm here now and when I die I'll find out. I'll just be a good person and have fun. Screw all this heavy thinking about things you can't prove or disprove. Its a waste of time. Enjoy your family and friends while you can. Now, excuse me, while I go outside and smoke a cig while looking at the stars.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



So explain why they "know" it's the right thing to do?

We don't "know"... we "feel". It's called empathy... and the feeling of empathy leads straight to the golden rule. We feel empathy when we see another living being harmed or taken advantage of, because we can put ourselves in their shoes and understand the suffering they might be feeling. Through this empathy we can develop a sense of morality and learn to treat others in a way we would like to be treated.

On the other hand... how can I "know" the book of Christianity and its rules are correct? Answer: I can't, and all evidence indicates it's simply a man made religious text made from a concoction of older myths and tales.
Let's say we have a bag of M&M's, We alternate eating them until there is 1 left. We both had the same amount. With the last one, you would be happy if I ate the last one. I eat the last one, but I feel guilty. If I had empathy, I shouldn't feel guilt, because you were happy for me to eat the last one. Thus, putting myself in your shoes I should feel happy. But I feel greedy because I ate 1 more than you. These emotions mean nothing pertaining to morality. With empathy being a "feeling" we could have regardless of it pertaining to morality, let's us know empathy is not the basis of morality.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




As an atheist; Do you think it's ok to lie? If not, why? Do you think it's ok to kill? If not, why? Steal? Cheat?





As an atheist; Do you think it's ok to lie? If not, why?

Christians actually believe morals are written on mans heart. We still has free will.
That's why man feels guilt.

When I was a kid I lied on my brother, and he got a whippin'.


Are you telling us that you have never lied before? Atheists will only lie for the same reasons you do.

That is what Christians believe, but it does it make it true without doubt?

As a Christian, do you believe the whipping falls in line with the Christian view of morality? Do you think the person who inflicted the punishment should burn in hell for their crime. (IF you believe it was a crime.)?
Do you have proof of this, reflected in your scripture?
I dare say, that the whipping was the moral thing to do. After all, if ripping babies out of their mothers was moral in the OT (Hosea 13:16) (and you can't cherry pick your bible passages as moral or not, if you are a Christian, that means you have to take the whole Bible as your god's word, don't forget.), then why can't child whipping also be moral?

Because society tells you it is wrong, and if you want to live to old age, you better do what is good in society?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by randyvs
 

A Human Beings Biological Imperative to breed...which is a construct of our Animal Instinctive Drive to have SEX with anyone that is attractive to us...thus Multiple Partners...Forget Monogamy...and these go against many Religious Doctrines are only considered IMMORAL if it is a Human Being doing it as apposed to an Animal.

Morality is a thing of Social and Religious Indoctrination and has nothing to do with a persons real reasoning behind what they are Genetically disposed to do. Split Infinity

I totally agree. With no moral compass, man would give in to animal desires.

From an evolution standpoint it doesn't make sense for an animal to only have SEX with who is attractive to that animal. The animals should be having SEX with any of the opposite SEX.
In the Homo Sapien, there seems to be a need to have SEX with any and everything.

Also from an evolution standpoint, having our big brains make choices such as Monogamy, seems to point to an advantage for Monogamy.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

That Big Brain of ours also allows us to pick and choose what we believe to be Moral or Not. Morality is RELATIVE. For some people just about anything that is written in some Religious Text must be adhered to as they fear the possible penalties and desire the rewards.

Now I wonder how that group would believe if it was possible to prove that GOD is nothing like what they have been taught it was. How fast would they hold to their Moral Concepts? Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by smilesmcgee
Are you telling us that you have never lied before?
I actually admitted to lying in the post that you quoted.

Atheists will only lie for the same reasons you do.
I agree

That is what Christians believe, but it does it make it true without doubt?
It doesn't make it true, but morality can only be brought on objectively. So an Atheist saying they have a monopoly on Morality is laughable, because that is only subjective morality, and that can change with the whim of the people.

As a Christian, do you believe the whipping falls in line with the Christian view of morality? Do you think the person who inflicted the punishment should burn in hell for their crime. (IF you believe it was a crime.)?
Whipping is not a sin. It may be a crime, depending on the government.

Do you have proof of this, reflected in your scripture?
I believe so....You see what I did there?

I dare say, that the whipping was the moral thing to do. After all, if ripping babies out of their mothers was moral in the OT (Hosea 13:16) (and you can't cherry pick your bible passages as moral or not, if you are a Christian, that means you have to take the whole Bible as your god's word, don't forget.), then why can't child whipping also be moral?
As I've said, a whipping is moral.

As for Hosea 13:16, let's tak a look;
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

This is a warning from God. Samaria's own sins will cause them to fall by the sword.


Because society tells you it is wrong, and if you want to live to old age, you better do what is good in society?
I'm not sure what you're asking.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by addygrace
 

That Big Brain of ours also allows us to pick and choose what we believe to be Moral or Not. Morality is RELATIVE. For some people just about anything that is written in some Religious Text must be adhered to as they fear the possible penalties and desire the rewards.
To an atheist morality has to be relative. To a Christian, the Bible is a moral compass.


Now I wonder how that group would believe if it was possible to prove that GOD is nothing like what they have been taught it was. How fast would they hold to their Moral Concepts? Split Infinity
Proof negates belief, I think.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

Are you sure that it is not a WARNING BY MAN? I have noticed that much of Religious Text seems to take stands that would not seem GODLY in nature. I can only conclude that these Texts were written by Man.

Besides...only a HUMAN could have such EGO to state...Man was created in GODS image. WHY would GOD have SEX? Why would any GOD want to be constrained to such a limited Physical Construct? And why would a GOD exist first as a PRIMATE?

I tell you why...because A MAN WROTE THESE THINGS. I am always amazed at how Humans always place themselves as the center of things. In our VAST UNIVERSE or perhaps MULTIVERSE there is a 100% Probability that there is other intelligent Life. So why out of all those possible RACES would a GOD chose Human Beings as His SHELL OF CHOICE? LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 

So one would think. But in my experiences...even PROOF POSITIVE is not enough to sway the Brainwashed.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The premise may be flawed. Christians can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they say they're sorry later. That's not what many will say, but, from what I've seen, most of them live their lives like that. It pretty much means that their base morality is defined by themselves, and they are motivated internally rather than externally.

On top of that, to say that religious people only do good things because they are religiously compelled to and that atheists never do good things for selfish reasons...it grossly oversimplifies human nature.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


This is the point i believe many have made, the bible itself espouses things
which are simply put immoral, it condones slavery, murder in the name
of morality which is simply contradictory, theft in the name of god, it literally
tells you not to do things then that you may do them, it tells you thou shalt
not kill then goes on to tell you that its ok to beat your slaves, and its even
ok if they die, so long as they suffer for a minimum of 3 days prior to
dieing...... that is not moral, that is completely immoral yet it is the moral
stance the bible takes on slavery.

Personally for me that's simply enough to eliminate it as a moral standard,
if it is not moral then it cannot be called moral, its a logical fallacy, as i pointed
out before, if god were to speak through a prophet and tell the world
that murder is now moral, do you honestly believe that it would then be
moral to murder? my answer i no, but you would have to run into a major
road block to say no, disobeying what you claim to be the basis for morality.

hence why a non religious morality can be more moral than one that requires
adherence to standards that can and do change, IE we do not use human
sacrifice in most of the worlds religion because it was found to be immoral
by many, yet you do not see the conflict there, if god espoused and even
condoned human sacrifice then his very idea of morality changed which
means his idea of morality also changes..... the essence of your argument
is that christians are moral because they follow gods moral law which
can and does change. for if your god speaks to all of humanity as is
claimed by most religions then he could very well change morality with
a few words. morality cannot be seen in that light as it then is abused
by those who claim god speaks to them and they speak for god, IE catholics.......



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


I'm not an atheist, more of a pantheist (gods are all over and in us lays a divine bit) - but I don't rape, murder, torture etc, mostly because it's time consuming and messy. I have other stuff I'd rather do. Oh yeah, and I actually think and consider consequences before I act, even when, once during the destructive nature of a divorce after 27 years of marriage, I was VERY drunk, had about a quart of Jaeger and taken 3 Xanax and had a Colt .357 Magnum pointed directly at my husband's head. I had the opportunity, and he admitted later that he was rather surprised I didn't, as he himself admitted he probably deserved it, but as he said, "Your logical thinking and cost-benefit analysis took over on one level and the fact that you morally abhor anyone cutting someone else's story short on another was obviously taking over and you simply put it down and drove away." He really did all the bad in the ending of our relationship but we got past that. WE are civil to one another because civility pays off better than the other nasty crap. Cost-benefit + morality = a justified life-stance.
edit on 11/16/12 by Havoth because: misspelled word



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


I think that statement was well-written and I do agree, sir. I do believe it is the first atheist statement I've heard that really captures what it means.

The one problem I find in my life is that growing up religious, I didn't have access to a lifestyle where I had the freedom to discover truth.
edit on 16-11-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Except every athiest would have his own morality which merans atheism has no moral code at all.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
To put all religious people in one lump and atheist people in one lump will be wrong, and it will biased the judgement for that matter.

Morality will be a social value that tight with culture, that mean it only apply in one certain time in one certain area. This will make what a good moral value is cant be determined, plus generalisation of two side will make the conclution even far from true.

In other way, why people do something good. For example helping someone. What is the real motivation. The motivation will make the difference for people who do the same good deed. Some might just for famous, some for money, etc etc. Even without all of that, some can say it is for themself, either to not to make them feel bad or to make the feel good. These two motives will paint two different character between two people.

Now if someone does a good thing, what the best motivation then, since doing a good thing (according to a moral value that not universal) wont determined of what kind of good or bad person someone is.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


Why be moral though if this life is all there is. Who are you trying to please? As you have no creator to please but yourself.
edit on 16-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
A thought ocurred to me today....

Poeple that follow any religion need their religion to tell them how to behave, how to treat others, and what to believe/think.... they are forced into doing good things by their religious doctrine... blackmailed if you will.... or they will never gain access to the "next level"...

Atheists however, have no doctrine.. no guidelines... we are just good people because we know it is the right thing to do.... we don't need to be blackmailed into doing good..... common sense and reason dictate that it is the best thing to do for all parties....

I therefore propose that atheists pratice true morality... not morality born out of threats and promises....

Discuss..

PA.
edit on 15-11-2012 by PerfectAnomoly because: Spelling..
i wonder why the atheists are more irrational than religious and religious are more immoral than atheists.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


You answered your own question.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
There are way too many over-generalizations here. Lumping all atheists or all religious people into an A or B categories of morality is far from realistic.
I would say that morality is quite innate to the human mind, both biologically and spiritually. Most of us just plain KNOW when we are doing something wrong, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof, though it can be said that these moral values are subject to flux when we are in dire situations or have been programmed otherwise (learned psychopathy).
Religions often codified this innate morality into law (often for political ends) and later philosophers used reason to demonstrate the virtues of morality. Thing is, it's always been around, in secular form or otherwise. Looking back on history, it's clear that religions have given these moral codes a context for existence (whether the ontological basis for that context is valid or not). This "official" morality has shaped the Western mind since the time of the pre-Socratics. Could we have maintained this morality in a strictly secular society? I would say yes, but making it an ingrained part of everyday existence probably did a lot for it's promulgation.
I think the problem with religious morality is that over time, the moral dictates become entrenched in the dogmatic paradigms of the religion, become rigid and inflexible, and are detached from their true value, as one would establish through reason. Like others have noted, this leads to being moral out of fear, this is a logical fallacy.
Atheism on the other hand can lead to an unacceptable moral relativism, where no value is absolute, and one can use any number of justifications for his actions, apart from what he truly FEELS is right or wrong. Also, where the religious are often compelled by fear, atheists are quite often compelled by a strange kind of egotism which makes them feel superior because they didn't need a religion to be a good person.
This leaves us basically no closer to an answer. People in general are mostly good, some are not. This is the case whether religious, spiritual, or atheist. The only difference is in their external justifications, but deep down, we are all basically moral.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 7Visionz
 


Originally posted by 7Visionz

There are way too many over-generalizations here. Lumping all atheists or all religious people into an A or B categories of morality is far from realistic.
Agree.

I had to skip a few pages, due to the repetitious back & forth categorizing of 'the other' group..





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join