The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Religion & Philosophy:
Atheism

Atheism and Morality

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
jmo On April 29, 2021
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 02:58:16
Is it possible to be an Atheist without believing in moral relativism?
Oisin On January 27, 2012




Glasgow, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 03:01:46
@jmo Said

Is it possible to be an Atheist without believing in moral relativism?



no.
Willi On August 21, 2018




northinmind,
#3New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 03:33:10
@jmo Said

Is it possible to be an Atheist without believing in moral relativism?



moral relativism...
is that when you are moral to relatives?
alk1975 On August 11, 2016




Jackson, Missouri
#4New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 03:55:35
Certainly. I believe in an objective morality, and I am an atheist.
Perhaps this link will help
https://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#5New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 13:55:22
@alk1975 Said

Certainly. I believe in an objective morality, and I am an atheist.
Perhaps this link will help
https://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/


I agree with your statement, but with almost nothing in the article in which the issue is lost in its complexity. Things are much simpler than that, which is part of the problem.

Objective morality is an adherence to a universal, immutable code of conduct that governs only our interactions with each other. All else is subjective virtue, which churches and states are continually trying to pass off as morality--e.g. going to church on Sunday.

There is no such thing as subjective morality. If there were, genocide would be moral or immoral depending on the majority opinion. That college professors argue for such absurdity shows the irrational lengths people will go to to justify their aberrant desires to have hegemony over others.

As to the question at hand, looking at the reasoned definition of morality rather than the God-given (read humanly "revealed" ) one, it should make no difference what your belief about the existence of God is. You should still adhere to the simple, objective moral code following the principle of enlightened self-interest. IOW, you promote yourself by promoting good order via your own moral example.

Just about every religion came up with a form of the Golden Rule, and then promptly swamped it with "divine revelations" governing all kinds of absurd, amoral/immoral behaviors such as execution for gathering sticks on the sabbath, or the sins of someone being passed on through 4(?) generations. AND THIS STUFF IS STILL IN THE BIBLE!

There's only one moral code, the Golden Rule stated here as: Honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property to be free from violation through force or fraud.

It makes as much sense for an atheist to adhere to that principle as it does for a religious fanatic, maybe even more--because it's REASONable. And there are only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, atheism and deism.

BTW, there is only one anti-morality, when you remove the equality and universality from the Golden Rule creating a moral double standard (aka subjective morality).

Morality is just that simple.
Electric_Banana On February 05, 2024




, New Zealand
#6New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 14:01:38
Most Legal-Minded atheists.
Electric_Banana On February 05, 2024




, New Zealand
#7New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 14:06:23
@ThePainefulTruth Said

I agree with your statement, but with almost nothing in the article in which the issue is lost in its complexity. Things are much simpler than that, which is part of the problem.

Objective morality is an adherence to a universal, immutable code of conduct that governs only our interactions with each other. All else is subjective virtue, which churches and states are continually trying to pass off as morality--e.g. going to church on Sunday.

There is no such thing as subjective morality. If there were, genocide would be moral or immoral depending on the majority opinion. That college professors argue for such absurdity shows the irrational lengths people will go to to justify their aberrant desires to have hegemony over others.

As to the question at hand, looking at the reasoned definition of morality rather than the God-given (read humanly "revealed" ) one, it should make no difference what your belief about the existence of God is. You should still adhere to the simple, objective moral code following the principle of enlightened self-interest. IOW, you promote yourself by promoting good order via your own moral example.

Just about every religion came up with a form of the Golden Rule, and then promptly swamped it with "divine revelations" governing all kinds of absurd, amoral/immoral behaviors such as execution for gathering sticks on the sabbath, or the sins of someone being passed on through 4(?) generations. AND THIS STUFF IS STILL IN THE BIBLE!

There's only one moral code, the Golden Rule stated here as: Honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property to be free from violation through force or fraud.

It makes as much sense for an atheist to adhere to that principle as it does for a religious fanatic, maybe even more--because it's REASONable. And there are only two reasonable positions on the existence of God, atheism and deism.

BTW, there is only one anti-morality, when you remove the equality and universality from the Golden Rule creating a moral double standard (aka subjective morality).

Morality is just that simple.



I guess we could summarize this as Objective morales are much simpler, apply more to common sense and are far less petty than what people think.

Problem is laws getting established which have nothing to do with objective morality.
Reviso On November 23, 2014

Banned



Trenton, Canada
#8New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 14:17:31
But there are laws which are established (as you like) which relate to the practice of moral philosophizing for economic interests in professional organizations, trade establishments, and trusts of wealth distributions. I guess you knew that. People can oppose objective morals because THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE LAW the way it is. Oh well. A bit of immoralism.
alk1975 On August 11, 2016




Jackson, Missouri
#9New Post! Jan 19, 2012 @ 15:29:09
@Reviso Said

But there are laws which are established (as you like) which relate to the practice of moral philosophizing for economic interests in professional organizations, trade establishments, and trusts of wealth distributions. I guess you knew that. People can oppose objective morals because THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE LAW the way it is. Oh well. A bit of immoralism.



laws are merely reflections of morals, not morals themselves. Objecting to a law is essentially saying you don't believe the law upholds the moral. I would hardly call it immoral to object to a law.
Reviso On November 23, 2014

Banned



Trenton, Canada
#11New Post! Jan 20, 2012 @ 18:15:33
@alk1975 Said

laws are merely reflections of morals, not morals themselves. Objecting to a law is essentially saying you don't believe the law upholds the moral. I would hardly call it immoral to object to a law.



That is the difference of being judged on how we acted before the presence of the Law, and the knowledge for the situation in realizing and applying the law de facto from being in civil society. If the law were to be relative to itself (the topic we have here in the forum of discussion) then the situation is deservedly non-relative. If the law were to be instructed and capable for Change, on the other hand, then the situation is indeed relative for the observer of the law and the way it may be appropriated in the justice of the Land. And then the Land is absolute to concern about.

Should now go and read. Too much. Some laws, I think, can't change.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Wed Jun 13, 2012 @ 20:17
18 1701
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Tue Jan 11, 2011 @ 14:10
129 8676
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Mon Nov 08, 2010 @ 12:22
0 697
New posts   Philosophy
Sat Aug 21, 2010 @ 18:39
117 7751
New posts   Animal Rights
Wed May 26, 2010 @ 22:23
16 2736