Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JAGubert on June 26, 2011 at 10:44am

   Befor create anything, we need basic things to survive as Water, Food and shelter. Just after that we'll be able to be a group a society and create Politics, Religion, be Christians or be Atheists. We are humans and Moral is another creation of us. 

   Because I got just one life I will respect and love this life with all heart, and because I know that you just have one life I will respect you and love you with all heart, we are special and we just live once,because this we have to care about all life in this world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JAGubert on June 26, 2011 at 10:51am

Befor create anything, we need basic things to survive as Water, Food and shelter. Just after that we'll be able to be a group a society and create Politics, Religion, be Christians or be Atheists. We are humans and Moral is another creation of us.

Because I got just one life I will respect and love this life with all heart, and because I know that you just have one life I will respect you and love you with all heart, we are special and we just live once,because this we have to care about all life in this world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil copeland on June 26, 2011 at 12:12pm

Great topic! I have thought a good bit about this. If we extrapolate out to the worst case scenarios like violent communism i think we have to consider that we are religious animals, it served some kind of purpose in our evolution and therefore nationalism could possibly become an atheists religion and we all know where that gets people. My opiniois tthat violence does not stem from a lack of a code but having violence inflicted on them, like a disease.

I eventually adpopted wicca's basic code, if it harms nno one, do what you will.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on June 26, 2011 at 12:43pm

A better question is when did moral ideologies consistently apply in any religion ? Ive yet to see a religious book that did not contradict one or more of its moral preachings let alone the people of those religions who fail consistently in practicing consistent morals.

 

Personal morals have nothing to do with net positives or whole of society. Morals are simply a self imposed rule book we chose to follow or not for the betterment of our own mental and physical health. To try and espouse some other grand purpose is disingenuous.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve James on June 26, 2011 at 1:55pm

I think you are confusing ideology with ethical morals. Morality such as punishing adulterers or even outcasting them is a family matter and not a social one in a society yet driving on the wrong side of the road is a matter for society to deal with. The drunk driver may believe that he is correct in driving in the same way a muslim may feel that suicide bombing is the will of god but through clear thinking we can question the morals of those who are holding back the progress.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Merrique on June 26, 2011 at 2:10pm

There is such thing as morality without religion and I think most atheists know that and are good people despite their lack of religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dylan Alexander Fick on June 26, 2011 at 2:13pm

Even animals have certain baseline "morals" in that many species have shown completely altruistic behavior. Gorillas saving a toddler falling into their enclosure for example. Dolphins saving sailors. These animals were complete strangers to the humans in question and still provided aid. 

Obviously animals do not have the higher functioning (not sure if deluding yourself counts as higher functioning but it requires those parts at least) abilities to create delusions of higher powers. So why are they altruistic in these cases?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on June 26, 2011 at 2:23pm

Seriously morals require reasoning...

 

Those same gorillas the males also kill their own young so the mother is in heat for mating again for pleasure.. and the dolphins kill porpoises for sport ....

 

Yea animal morals thats a funny one

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dienekes on June 26, 2011 at 3:33pm

Morals are sociological and fluid.  What might appear to be "moral" in one context, may become "immoral" in another.  There are "default morals" that we have agreed to as a society and have been driven into us from birth, but it all comes down to things like empathy, courage, and the society that you are in.  That is why "morals" are different for every continent, country, state, county, city, faith, denomination, individual church, family and person.  No two person's moral code is the same.  And there are times when, even when 2 people's moral codes don't match, each person can see and appreciate the other person's position.

 

That is why it's so funny that xians think that morals come from god.  If they did, we would all have the same moral code.  But since no two people have the exact same moral code, that code couldn't have possibly come from a single finite source.  And that is why saying that Atheists don't have morals because we don't believe in god is a strawman argument.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dienekes on June 26, 2011 at 3:59pm

Of course the second question is "which morals?"  :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dylan Alexander Fick on June 26, 2011 at 3:51pm

And humans kill animals for sport.

Exceptions do not an argument make. Saying one amoral behavior negates morality for the entire species negates it for humans as well. The point of my post is that there is some ingrained instinctual urge to do certain "good" and "helpful" actions even in animals and claiming random amoral killing rampages will occur without a deity is ridiculous because such actions don't even require higher level thinking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on June 26, 2011 at 3:58pm

Instinct and morals are at odds with one another.

 

You cant attribute one to the other. An instinct is done without thought, reason, or value simply for survival. Morals are anti survival in many cases. Instinct would tell me to kill competition for food. Morals tell me that it would be just as harmful to myself to murder an innocent person as it would be to kill them. Hence why we dont do it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page