Atheists as is known lack a belief in a supernatural and thus reject claims of divine morality..... Thus an atheistic society is forced to decide the tenets of its morality and script them as per the needs of its constituents bearing in mind that all its investors are served (Majorities and minorities), Thwarting none. This implies that these laws are not ambiguous and are subject to relativity and change and thus can be modified and improved over time evolving as the society evolves.
However Theistic Law by theistic standards aren't man made but divine which implies that it was passed down by an all knowing God and thus implies that its tenets are not subject to change or modification and the theists hold no share nor invest any thought in its creation and thus are only bound to it, subject to it and not part of it.
This leads me to ask ; CAN A THEIST REALLY BE MORAL.
1. A Theist has never thought of morality, but has had it handed to him. Can he really be moral without understanding the worth of morality he has not earned himself.
2. The All knowing God of the theist assumed the their incapable of being moral and so made an unalterable law. He presumed that his subjects would not evolve (Not even in thought).
3. If God exists then so does the devil. The devil is master of trickery. How would the theist know if their holy scripture was a gift from god or the devil? The bible is gruesome and in places a lot of immorality is preached in the guise of morality. What evidence do they have that the book was from God and not the Devil. If the book claims and so do the prophets, the book could be lying and the prophets deceived.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Morality" can and should be intrinsic. How do you earn morality and what does the word "moral" mean? As for "If God exists then so does the devil", that statement is a red herring.
1. BS - "Morality can and should be intrinsic."
What is your basis for this argument? Why does morality need to be intrinsic? What do you mean by intrinsic?
2. BS - "If God exists then so does the devil", that statement is a red herring. why is that a red herring? what is brought into the picture over and over is your lack of proof. You have no proof that God exists or if he does he sent you the book.
No, it isn't. It's a valid statement. No one "earns" morality. Morality is a by-product of society. Thus it is modified by the society that constructs it. Morality doesn't come from a god. It comes from a collective of people that commonly decide what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. An individual decides morality based upon the society that the individual lives in. A person's morality is developed by their environment. There is no innate inherited moral code. As a rule atheist a more inline with what is acceptable moral behavior than theist. Although atheists suffer the same urges as any demographic. Which is to say that just because you are an atheist doesn't mean that you are moral, just as theists are not immoral just because they are theist.
Yes, My morality comes from me, and your morality comes from you.
Can theists be moral? Sure. Next question...and what does any of this have to do with atheism???
@MCD
"..what does any of this have to do with atheism???"
Atheism is fundamentally a moral stance. It would be so much easier to pretend to be a xtian, but my conscience won't allow it.
"Atheism is fundamentally a moral stance" -Algebe
You have given me food for thought. I must think about it. Thank you. I am curious what makes you think that.
Order:
Atheism isn't the default setting for most societies. The path of least resistance is to go along with the prevailing organized superstition wherever you live, even if you don't believe in it. It takes a lot of moral backbone to step out of the lemming flow and go your own way as an atheist. I'm sure that there are lots of closet atheists/moral cowards in church pews and pulpits right now (Sunday morning here).
I think a theist can be moral if they are willing to question the morality of religion.
@beep
"if they are willing to question the morality of religion"
I think a theist can be moral if they do that and it leads them to atheism. If you take away all the immorality of religion, there isn't much left. The Golden Rule perhaps, and maybe a couple of Commandments.
Morality comes from society and has never come from religion....PERIOD. I am SO tired of explaining this over and over!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe in a way in objective morality not subjective, subjective is my own thoughts and actions while objective is from the outside a god if you will,since if just can`t be that what is good for me but not right for you is anything to built a foundation on.i feel that morality has evolved into subjectivism while the 10 commandments of the torah the jewish testament is objective since it comes from a Yahweh a god.A monotheistic god meaning one god and that is Yahweh if you look at the bible and you see the prophecy fulfilled in the new testament from the old and the archeological findings the bible is reliable.if you consider the beatitudes in the new testament matthew chapter five the blessings supposedly from jesus own lips and you read the whole 27 books of the new testament with jesus healing people his parables(Short stories) the devil is an adversary he means harm and in justice the Christian wins at the end on the final day of judgement.So know the bible especially the new testament is not the devil tricking people, God is in control of all things.
@agnostic enlightener
I've made two long posts on the "Difference In Approach" thread: 12/15/2016 14:02 and 11/23/2016 01:02 which explain why no god can be the standard of morality, why morality has some degree of objectivity outside of a god.
I think it's a case of theists not understanding where their morality really comes from even as they draw their morality from the same well as do atheists. Hence, if their religion doesn't interfere, or if they cherry-pick the good stuff in keeping with their innate goodness, then they can be as moral as atheists. Somewhere I read about a study that concluded that atheists and moderately religious were about equal in morality whereas the more deeply religious lagged.
OK AE...lets get to it....
1/ "if you look at the bible and you see the prophecy fulfilled in the new testament from the old "
Please provide 2 examples...any 2...your choice......
2/ "the archeological findings the bible is reliable."
Please provide one example....any one....again your choice...see if you can find a good one..
3/ "God is in control of all things"
Please provide evidence...any evidence....anything at all..
4/ "the 10 commandments of the torah the jewish testament is objective since it comes from a Yahweh a god.A monotheistic god meaning one god and that is Yahweh"
Please explain which version of the 10 commandments you are referring to.....
Please explain which version of the creation you espouse.....
If there is only one god,,,please explain El...Elohim....Ashera
well there are several #1 is micah in the Hebrew bible chapter 5 verse 2 and so on, Also Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14 and chapter 9. as for the archeological findings that I believe is in the book of matthew where the steps leading to the bath were found that healed people.romans chapter 8 verse 28 says that god works out all things for his good.As for the ten commands again the Hebrew old testament chapter 20 read the entire thing. the creation of genesis is what I espouse.
Oh dear ,oh dear…… you really aren’t much of an agnostic…are you…?
Very well…….
#1 Micah 5:2….
This is Matthew MISQUOTING Micah…. To supposedly identify the birth town for the alleged messiah..
Matthews version…. 2:6…..
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
But what is this ??
Matthew has omitted something…..left out something….changed the wording…….he has removed the word “Ephratah”…….only the one word….it surely can’t make a difference…..BUT it does….Micah’s original verse refers to Bethlehem Ephrata…..a sub division of the clan of Bethlehem…….Matthews subtle subterfuge changes the meaning of Micahs verse from a person/tribe to a place….
This is not prophecy …this is fabrication.
#2 Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Pretty powerful stuff…..a virgin giving birth…..impressive….
BUT…if we look a little closer…we find that Matthew was quoting NOT from the original Hebrew texts but from a greek translation known as the septuagint…. (made for Jewish peoples across the region who no longer spoke Hebrew but Greek…the “lingua franca” of the old world.)
This worthy exercise however included an error ..a mistranslation…the Hebrew word used in the original Isaiah verse is alma and translates as “young woman”…..NOT virgin…….
Do not take my word for it…check the original verse on this…..
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938
So you see…once again Matthew is proven to be a fallacious construct……
#3 I’m afraid I have no idea what chapter 9 means….if you would like to say which book I have no objection to checking into that also….I await your input…
Now ..as to you archaeological point….
#4 “as for the archaeological findings that I believe is in the book of Matthew where the steps leading to the bath were found that healed people.”
You are getting a little vague ,again….. I think you are referring to the “healing pool” mentioned in John 5:2-9
And yes you are correct the archaeology does prove the existence of such pools…..it proved it around 100 years ago…when the site of the pool was uncovered…..
I think what you are becoming confused over is the fact that the description of the pool as given in John has been confirmed with the recent excavation of some steps….. this however only proves that the pools existed and that who ever wrote the gospel of john had seen the building…it does nothing to bolster assertions that healing was undertaken within its portals.
Quite why it should be so significant that a citizen of or visitor to 1st century Jerusalem should be aware of the cities attractions .
After all….it is not so surprising that J.K. Rowling knows of the existence of Kings Cross Railway Station…..it does not mean platform 9 ¾ exits.
#5 “romans chapter 8 verse 28 says that god works out all things for his good”
No..it doesn’t…..
what it actually says is….” And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”
You’re interpretation of Paul/Saul’s supposed letter is some what loose…..when we compare what you say it says to the reality of what it does say……a large gap appears.
#6 “As for the ten commands again the Hebrew old testament chapter 20”
Again I have to ask…chapter 20 of which book…??
You are aware ,I suppose that there are 2 versions……?
Exodus 20:1-17
And Deuteronomy 5:6-21
I just wondered which version you felt was sovereign.
#7 ” the creation of genesis is what I espouse.”
Splendid…….
Which version….??
Genesis 1:1 – 2:3
Or
Genesis 2:4 – 3:24
Again ..do not take my word for it….
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
Of course in the grand scheme of things…the differences would seem to be of little import…except that the differing versions seem to reflect two differing traditions….. two differing sources …..perhaps even two differing deities…..??
exodus chapter 20 these commandments.mary was a young lady and a virgin she was both.please explain two different traditions two different sources. two different deities. it is one bible old and new testament writers 66 books. one god not two.
OK…
“exodus chapter 20 these commandments”
So you disregard the Deuteronomy 5:6-21 version ….. I wonder why …..it being the fuller listing. I wonder ,would you mind telling me why you choose Exodus over Deuteronomy.
“mary was a young lady and a virgin she was both”
No…the Hebrew word alma translates as young woman …not young lady…no more than it translates as virgin….did you look up the reference I gave to the original Hebrew versions…..
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15938
Now I see you ignore the original text …and hold to the conceit that Mary was a virgin……can I ask why you think so……after being confronted with reasons for the error and corroborative evidence to the contrary.
Do you have any other valid reason to believe this.?
Would you consider yourself to be the subject of brainwashing /conditioning ?
“please explain two different traditions two different sources. two different deities.”
Ok…its quite complicated , but try this…..
“The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity.[1] It is made up of two stories, roughly equivalent to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. In the first (Genesis 1:1–2:3) Elohim, the Hebrew generic plural word for God, creates the heavens and the earth in six days, starting with light on the first day and ending with mankind on the sixth, then rests on, blesses and sanctifies the seventh. In the second story.
(Genesis 2:4–2:24), God, now referred to by the personal name Yahweh, creates Adam, the first man, from dust and places him in theGarden of Eden, where he is given dominion over the animals. Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam's rib as a companion.”
This from the Wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
from the 2nd paragraph…
“Borrowing themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to Israel's belief in one God, the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today. The two sources can be identified in the creation narrative: Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–2:24 is Jahwistic. “
I think anyone who thinks that morality comes from somewhere else is just lazy. They are lazy because they do not want to have to think about which actions they should take. They also do not seem, imo, to want to be saddled with the responsibility for their own actions. It's a cheap and cheesy way out of accountability.
no I see it as an outside objective morality that isn`t subjective, It`s giving credit where credit is due. God as the theist say has brought morality to humanity it isn`t as you state that it is a form of laziness, or irresponsible for one`s own actions it is adhering to a superior being. if for say some one rapes your sister or wife or daughter morality holds that they should face punishment from the law not from us.it helps to bring in our irrational animal instincts, which would get us into trouble to.so no morality comes from the outside.
WTF? How bout someone rapes me? They should absolutely face punishment from law. Law absolutely should hold a rapist accountable for those actions. Rape is rape. It is immoral. The immortality of it comes from me, you asshole. My body, my rules. That does NOT come from some imaginary sky-daddy. It comes from me...a human. Who considers it fucking immorral for you to touch me body without my permission.
"if for say some one rapes your sister or wife or daughter morality holds that they should face punishment from the law not from us."
First of all, my wife and daughter are not my property, so I wouldn't be the injured party, though I'd be beyond rage if such pain was inflicted on my loved ones.
Second, the rule of law evolved as an alternative to blood feuds, which led to chaotic chain reactions of murder and revenge. Under the rule of law, we surrender our right to vengeance, which is carried out on our behalf by the community after due process. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. And it has absolutely nothing to do with god. Laws are the result of centuries of thought by people, all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.
The laws of civilized countries should guarantee everyone's ownership of their own bodies, together with their negative rights (the rights NOT to be killed, harmed, enslaved, falsely imprisoned, etc.) That's morality. And you won't find it in the Bible or the Quran. The Abrahamic religions all condone slavery, rape, murder, torture...
False assertion in false logic.
Next.
Obviously John rejects science but conveniently interjects it when it suits him. When his science reference it exposed as rubbish he states that he won't refer to it anymore. A personal double standard by John Breezy.