I am an atheist. As such, many people claim i have no morals because i don't believe in god. Here are my "morals" then. Please inform me; how are the following statement immoral?
1. Don't kill people, unless it's self defense, or for the protection of others (I.E if your mother is cowering in a corner about to get raped, go ahead and shoot him.)
2. Do not under any circumstances rape another human being or sexually molest them in any way.
3. Be kind to other people. Try not to take out anger or frustration on them, because how would that make you feel? Not good. Philosophy: I know when i get a compliment or nice gesture it makes me feel good. I should do the same to others so that they can feel good too. This goes for charitable acts, helping people, ect.
4. Try to see everything from both sides before you form an opinion on it.
5. Do not do anything you are not educated in, are not mature enough, or responsible enough to do. I.e, yes i have had pre-marital sex with my boyfriend. We talked about it, felt comfortable with it, learned the fine mechanics, discussed what might happen and how we would deal with it, and even set aside money as an emergency fund for such consequences. We use two forms of protection every time, it is always consensual, and plays no real importance in our relationship. (If we could not have sex it would not change our relationship at all.)
6. Know when you are beat and acknowledge it. If someone beat you out for a promotion, congratulate them, don't be jealous if they beat you fair and square.
7. Racism, sexism, profoundly outspoken judgmental religion, and other forms if ignorance and bigotry should be avoided. It shows you to be stupid as well as hateful.
So on and so-forth. Other than number 5, these pretty much mirror "real" morals. How exactly are mine fake?
My Immoral Morals
Moderator: Moderators
-
Persephone
- Student
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:41 pm
- Location: USA
-
Faith Leads to Knowledge
- Apprentice
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:15 am
Post #2
Hi,
if a Christian tells you don't have morals because you don't believe in God, ask them to go search themselves.
if a Christian tells you don't have morals because you don't believe in God, ask them to go search themselves.
-
Defender of Truth
- Scholar
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
- Location: United States
Post #3
I believe when Christians say that you have no morals, they mean that since God is the standard of morality, and you don't believe in God, according to you there are no morals.
The question for debate is whether or not their first premise is true. Is God the standard of morality?
If there is a subjective standard of morality then there is no such thing as right/wrong.
This means that in order for there to be true right/wrong there must be an objective standard of morality. What you must do is give Christians (I am one, so you may give it to me) something that could be an objective standard of morality other than God.
The question for debate is whether or not their first premise is true. Is God the standard of morality?
If there is a subjective standard of morality then there is no such thing as right/wrong.
This means that in order for there to be true right/wrong there must be an objective standard of morality. What you must do is give Christians (I am one, so you may give it to me) something that could be an objective standard of morality other than God.
-
Feathered Serpent
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:13 am
- Location: UK
Post #4
I believe morality can never truly be black and white, (apart from issues such as rape and child abuse, which are utterly wrong in every respect) and as for an objective standard of morality, I am not sure where such objectivity could come from.
However, I do not believe the Biblical God would be an appropriate being to obtain this objectivity from, as the Bible shows he is anything but objective, and quite prone to changing his mind. One moment advocating a policy of "love thy neighbour", showing us how we should love all humans the same, irrespective of colour, sex, etc, as a God of Peace- Romans 15:33, and yet several books earlier he declared himself to be a God of War- Exodus 15:3, advocating conquest over all peoples that were in the way of the Hebrews' expansion into Canaan. Any deity that is self-defining, who can be both child-murderer and liberator of slaves, can not really be trusted as a source of morality, as one may simply cherry-pick which bits of his word to obey and take as fact, or ignore as metaphor or allegory.
I personally believe that the idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is really the best moral ethic to adhere to, both because it works from a secular viewpoint and also that it appears not only in Luke, but also in many other religions, examples of which being Hinduism and Jainism- both of which pre-date the Bible by many centuries.
However, I do not believe the Biblical God would be an appropriate being to obtain this objectivity from, as the Bible shows he is anything but objective, and quite prone to changing his mind. One moment advocating a policy of "love thy neighbour", showing us how we should love all humans the same, irrespective of colour, sex, etc, as a God of Peace- Romans 15:33, and yet several books earlier he declared himself to be a God of War- Exodus 15:3, advocating conquest over all peoples that were in the way of the Hebrews' expansion into Canaan. Any deity that is self-defining, who can be both child-murderer and liberator of slaves, can not really be trusted as a source of morality, as one may simply cherry-pick which bits of his word to obey and take as fact, or ignore as metaphor or allegory.
I personally believe that the idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is really the best moral ethic to adhere to, both because it works from a secular viewpoint and also that it appears not only in Luke, but also in many other religions, examples of which being Hinduism and Jainism- both of which pre-date the Bible by many centuries.
Post #5
I don't think you explained this well enough.Defender of Truth wrote:If there is a subjective standard of morality then there is no such thing as right/wrong.
Just because morality is subjective, why does that mean people can't dictate what is moral within their society?
These societal morals are what define people's subjective morality when they live within it.
And if they don't want to abide by those, they are often ostracized or shunned.
There isn't any NEED for an objective morality.
-
puddleglum
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #6
"When Gentile, who do not have the law,by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even tho they do not have the law. They show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts." Romans 2:14,15 ESV
God has created us with an inborn knowledge of right and wrong. Unfortunately that knowledge is imperfect because of the whole human race has fallen into sin. Furthermore it can be further distorted if we are subjected to false teaching or if we choose to do wrong rather than right. We need God's revelation of truth thru the Bible because it will correct any errors in our beliefs and it reveals how we can be forgiven for our past failures to live up to what we do know is right.
God has created us with an inborn knowledge of right and wrong. Unfortunately that knowledge is imperfect because of the whole human race has fallen into sin. Furthermore it can be further distorted if we are subjected to false teaching or if we choose to do wrong rather than right. We need God's revelation of truth thru the Bible because it will correct any errors in our beliefs and it reveals how we can be forgiven for our past failures to live up to what we do know is right.
Post #7
Can you prove at all that we even have this inborn knowledge of right and wrong? Then can you prove its from god? Then can you prove its from the christian god?Samwise wrote:"When Gentile, who do not have the law,by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even tho they do not have the law. They show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts." Romans 2:14,15 ESV
God has created us with an inborn knowledge of right and wrong. Unfortunately that knowledge is imperfect because of the whole human race has fallen into sin. Furthermore it can be further distorted if we are subjected to false teaching or if we choose to do wrong rather than right. We need God's revelation of truth thru the Bible because it will correct any errors in our beliefs and it reveals how we can be forgiven for our past failures to live up to what we do know is right.
Post #8
Secular morality is simply conforming to current societal whim. The most moral man would be the man who conforms most totally to current societal norm.
"...society decides what is moral and what isn’t. What is good and what is evil. And this is very dangerous because what that means is that the moral man, is the man who most conforms to his current societal norm. It means that one should not, indeed cannot, call a man such as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis evil. Or bad. Sure they didn’t abide by our societal norm, but they did by theirs. They created theirs and made it manifest. If they had won, it would have become the world’s morality. And it would be the standard for good. But to the critical thinker, there is no moral difference between what Hitler did with the Jews, and what Lincoln did with the slaves. To deny this while holding to the pretense that society can say what is moral and what is not is utter delusion."--Stephen J. Ardent
http://socyberty.com/religion/the-benef ... -thinking/
For the atheist then I would conclude that the moral man is the one most like a lemming.
"...society decides what is moral and what isn’t. What is good and what is evil. And this is very dangerous because what that means is that the moral man, is the man who most conforms to his current societal norm. It means that one should not, indeed cannot, call a man such as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis evil. Or bad. Sure they didn’t abide by our societal norm, but they did by theirs. They created theirs and made it manifest. If they had won, it would have become the world’s morality. And it would be the standard for good. But to the critical thinker, there is no moral difference between what Hitler did with the Jews, and what Lincoln did with the slaves. To deny this while holding to the pretense that society can say what is moral and what is not is utter delusion."--Stephen J. Ardent
http://socyberty.com/religion/the-benef ... -thinking/
For the atheist then I would conclude that the moral man is the one most like a lemming.
-
TheOneAndOnly
- Apprentice
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:52 am
- Location: SE Minnesota
Post #9
Really? And you are implying that the ultimate moral authority in my life should be God?glassart wrote:Secular morality is simply conforming to current societal whim. The most moral man would be the man who conforms most totally to current societal norm.
"...society decides what is moral and what isn’t. What is good and what is evil. And this is very dangerous because what that means is that the moral man, is the man who most conforms to his current societal norm. It means that one should not, indeed cannot, call a man such as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis evil. Or bad. Sure they didn’t abide by our societal norm, but they did by theirs. They created theirs and made it manifest. If they had won, it would have become the world’s morality. And it would be the standard for good. But to the critical thinker, there is no moral difference between what Hitler did with the Jews, and what Lincoln did with the slaves. To deny this while holding to the pretense that society can say what is moral and what is not is utter delusion."--Stephen J. Ardent
http://socyberty.com/religion/the-benef ... -thinking/
For the atheist then I would conclude that the moral man is the one most like a lemming.
And in arguing dichotomous thinking, we are to conclude that everything in our lives are black and white, with no gray areas? Am I correct on this?
Is it wrong to lie? If so, is it always wrong to lie? Are there any situations you can think of where it would be right to lie?
Is it wrong to take another humans life? If so, is it always wrong to take another humans life? Are there any situations you think of where it would be right to take another humans life?
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
-Anonomous
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg
-Anonomous
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-Steven Weinberg
-
theAtheistofnoIllusions
- Student
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:41 pm
Post #10
1. Don't kill people (unless in defense).
Why?
2. Do not rape.
Why?
3. Be kind to others. (Treat others as you would have them treat you.)
Why?
4. Being well-informed before making judgements.
Why?
5. Don't be rash. (i know I'm paraphrasing, deal with it.)
Why?
6. Concede gracefully.
Why?
7. No intolerance ("undeserved" intolerance).
Why?
I did not say that your morals were fake. I said that they have no meaning. What do you base these morals on? Why do you follow them? Would you follow them even if it cost you something dear to you? Why or why not?
Why?
2. Do not rape.
Why?
3. Be kind to others. (Treat others as you would have them treat you.)
Why?
4. Being well-informed before making judgements.
Why?
5. Don't be rash. (i know I'm paraphrasing, deal with it.)
Why?
6. Concede gracefully.
Why?
7. No intolerance ("undeserved" intolerance).
Why?
I did not say that your morals were fake. I said that they have no meaning. What do you base these morals on? Why do you follow them? Would you follow them even if it cost you something dear to you? Why or why not?
