Atheistic Morality

[Kahalachan]

You atheists can be moral. More power to you if you don't need a cosmic spy ready to give you a divine spanking.

 

[selfinflikted]

Honestly I greatly prefer when an atheist calls me a superstious idiot to when they make some claims along the likes of "you only believe in your religion, but I'm okay with that because I understand you have some 'need' to believe those things." At least when I'm called an idiot I'm being approached as a potential equal; you only criticize idiots when they can become smarter. When I'm told it's okay that "I need religion" it's just a way to avoid dealing with what I believe. There is also the issue that it creates an underlying superiority behind the statement. I am superior, because I am independent. I know that you don't mean it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that the implication is there.

So you don't agree that your religion is filling a need in your life? What's the point of it then? And, you're right, I meant absolutely no disrespect, and I apologise that it came out that way. I just think I don't have that particular need in my life, no underlying superiority complex either - that would be mighty presumptuous of me.

 

[EndersConscience]

I think Moonless' point is that he beleives in his religion for the religion itself - he lives to "eat", he doesn't "eat" to live. Which is fine, except for the fact that in this case, I don't think one must live solely to "eat". We can live for life itself.

 

[Jeff123]

I am rather concerned by the sheer number of Christians on these forums who seem to believe that a belief in Christ and the bible is necessary to lead a life grounded in morality. My proudly liberal, atheistic view is that there can be good, evil, right, and wrong without a religion, so to speak. So, here's my question - To you, how important is the Story of Jesus Christ? Would you more willingly endorse a purely secular individual whose ethical beliefs align with the love, kindness, charity etc. aspect of Christ's teachings --- or a "believer" in Christ, a devoted follower who nevertheless kills, lies, and tortures (Support our troops flags, anyone?)? Honestly, does one have to accept a God and Jesus Christ to be a "saintly" individual?

So in your world there are only two kinds of people; godless saints and evil Chrisitians? Nice.

 

[JGG]

So in your world there are only two kinds of people; godless saints and evil Chrisitians? Nice.

I'm pretty sure he was essentially saying "given that there is a `godless saint,' and an `evil Christian'..." Not that that everyone can be divided up into one or the other. But your implicit attitude revealed by the misinterpretation is noted.


While I'm at it, Kantian Ethics suggests that if you require a reward, or fear punishment to do good then you are immoral as the good is always shadowed by greed. However, if you do good simply because you are compelled to do good, with no thought of reward or punishment then you are truly moral.

But hey, I'm betting God transcends philosophic logic, right?

 

[armyman_83]

So, here's my question - To you, how important is the Story of Jesus Christ? Would you more willingly endorse a purely secular individual whose ethical beliefs align with the love, kindness, charity etc. aspect of Christ's teachings --- or a "believer" in Christ, a devoted follower who nevertheless kills, lies, and tortures (Support our troops flags, anyone?)? Honestly, does one have to accept a God and Jesus Christ to be a "saintly" individual?

The story of Jesus the Christ is super dooper important (life/soul saving important), I doubt I would have to tell you why.

Q:Would you more willingly endorse a purely secular individual whose ethical beliefs align with the love, kindness, charity etc. aspect of Christ's teachings --- or a "believer" in Christ, a devoted follower who nevertheless kills, lies, and tortures (Support our troops flags, anyone?)?

A: Well would a true follower of Christ murder (I am guessing you mean murder by kill, unless you see no difference?), lie and torture...?

I would guess not. But should one who truely believes in Christ do such things and repent then of course I would "endorse" him.

(Support our Troops flags???...I am not sure I see why this underhanded remark had to be used? Perhaps you find people who promote the well being of their nation's soldiers along the same lines of murderes, liars, etc...?)

Q:Honestly, does one have to accept a God and Jesus Christ to be a "saintly" individual?

A:While one can be good without God, they cannot be Godly.

 

[EndersConscience]

The story of Jesus the Christ is super dooper important (life/soul saving important), I doubt I would have to tell you why.

Q:Would you more willingly endorse a purely secular individual whose ethical beliefs align with the love, kindness, charity etc. aspect of Christ's teachings --- or a "believer" in Christ, a devoted follower who nevertheless kills, lies, and tortures (Support our troops flags, anyone?)?

A: Well would a true follower of Christ murder (I am guessing you mean murder by kill, unless you see no difference?), lie and torture...?

I would guess not. But should one who truely believes in Christ do such things and repent then of course I would "endorse" him.

(Support our Troops flags???...I am not sure I see why this underhanded remark had to be used? Perhaps you find people who promote the well being of their nation's soldiers along the same lines of murderes, liars, etc...?)

Q:Honestly, does one have to accept a God and Jesus Christ to be a "saintly" individual?

A:While one can be good without God, they cannot be Godly.

1.) Really, you do have to tell me why it's super dooper important...
2.) I do find people who profess to be followers of Christ and then "support our troops" to be a tad bit hypocritical, yes, so I'm sorry if the remark appeared underhanded. It was supposed to smack you in the face.
3.) Godly? As in, all-powerful? As in, all-knowing? As in, what?

 

[MoonlessNight]

So you don't agree that your religion is filling a need in your life? What's the point of it then? And, you're right, I meant absolutely no disrespect, and I apologise that it came out that way. I just think I don't have that particular need in my life, no underlying superiority complex either - that would be mighty presumptuous of me.

There is no "point" in that it doesn't necessarily benefit me in any way. I just believe that it is correct, is all.

Granted my belief in religion does lead me to do things which I believe are good for me or for others (like going to church). However I don't know that my general belief in Catholicism benefits me, at least not in a "secular" way.

 

[armyman_83]

1.) Really, you do have to tell me why it's super dooper important...
2.) I do find people who profess to be followers of Christ and then "support our troops" to be a tad bit hypocritical, yes, so I'm sorry if the remark appeared underhanded. It was supposed to smack you in the face.
3.) Godly? As in, all-powerful? As in, all-knowing? As in, what?

The Prophecy of the Christ has been fulfilled, I am saved (or have eternal life) through Christ. (“I am the way the truth and the life...”) Eternal life is important, at least to myself.

While you perceive those to support their fellow men-at-arms, as hypocritical, I would say you err. Christianity and cowardice are not synonyms.

I mean godly (or one might use pious): Sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular. One can be good, but not necessarily godly. One might be good, but that doesn’t grant them eternal life.

The difference between those who are good, and those who are Godly—is God. Godly people do “good”, but “good” people aren’t always Godly.

 

[EndersConscience]

The Prophecy of the Christ has been fulfilled, I am saved (or have eternal life) through Christ. (“I am the way the truth and the life...”) Eternal life is important, at least to myself.

While you perceive those to support their fellow men-at-arms, as hypocritical, I would say you err. Christianity and cowardice are not synonyms.

I mean godly (or one might use pious): Sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular. One can be good, but not necessarily godly. One might be good, but that doesn’t grant them eternal life.

The difference between those who are good, and those who are Godly—is God. Godly people do “good”, but “good” people aren’t always Godly.

1.) Good retort, at least in the sense that I can't really respond without accepting your premise: A belief in an eternal life. Moving on...

2.) Christianity and an attempt to save lives, and by extension souls, are supposed to be synonyms. Calling someone who doesn't support our troops and their mission of ending lives a coward is rather ridiculous if you're also attempting to maintain a moral high ground.

3.) By your own defenitions, the difference between a good person and a Godly person is solely a belief in God...Why is he necessary? Can't we skip that particular step? Why does God need to be told he's the man in order to accept a "good" individual?

 

[armyman_83]

1.) Good retort, at least in the sense that I can't really respond without accepting your premise: A belief in an eternal life. Moving on...

2.) Christianity and an attempt to save lives, and by extension souls, are supposed to be synonyms. Calling someone who doesn't support our troops and their mission of ending lives a coward is rather ridiculous if you're also attempting to maintain a moral high ground.

3.) By your own defenitions, the difference between a good person and a Godly person is solely a belief in God...Why is he necessary? Can't we skip that particular step? Why does God need to be told he's the man in order to accept a "good" individual?

1)Thank you.

2)I didn’t call anyone a coward; I merely said that Christianity can function with war. Indeed, I merely tried to refute the claim that those who believed in supporting our “war” and those who believed in God (and the Christ) are not hypocrites. What I was trying to say was: A Christian should not be a pacifist.


3)Well God is no small thing to remove from any equation. God (Yahweh) is the creator of the universe, your creator and mine. The “good” person’s creator and the bad person’s creator, he created every thing. This is no small step to skip. If one does not acknowledge some “greater power”, then how could this person even be “good” to begin with?

To me the definition of good is most likely different from your definition. A good person would be pretty much a “Christian” without God. They would do what Christians do. But to you a good person may or may not curse, commit fornication (even just pre-marital sex), etc. If you believe that the above is acceptable then I would say that that person is not “good” in the sense of the word. Or at least they would not be “saintly”, sure they are a “good” guy but if we are comparing “good” to “saintly” then that person would not be good.

Perhaps we should define “good” and “saintly”.

 

[EndersConscience]

1)Thank you.

2)I didn’t call anyone a coward; I merely said that Christianity can function with war. Indeed, I merely tried to refute the claim that those who believed in supporting our “war” and those who believed in God (and the Christ) are not hypocrites. What I was trying to say was: A Christian should not be a pacifist.


3)Well God is no small thing to remove from any equation. God (Yahweh) is the creator of the universe, your creator and mine. The “good” person’s creator and the bad person’s creator, he created every thing. This is no small step to skip. If one does not acknowledge some “greater power”, then how could this person even be “good” to begin with?

To me the definition of good is most likely different from your definition. A good person would be pretty much a “Christian” without God. They would do what Christians do. But to you a good person may or may not curse, commit fornication (even just pre-marital sex), etc. If you believe that the above is acceptable then I would say that that person is not “good” in the sense of the word. Or at least they would not be “saintly”, sure they are a “good” guy but if we are comparing “good” to “saintly” then that person would not be good.

Perhaps we should define “good” and “saintly”.

2.) See, here's where we come to my argument: I agree that a "good" person (get to that def. in a sec) should not be a complete pacifist; that there are moral dilemmas that are not so simple as Thou Shall Not Kill - but Christians are bound by that Commandment. Oh, and it might seem like I'm going in circles in terms of war and ethical right and wrongs here, but I want to steer more towards the general issue and less towards the here and now (Not Iraq, Definitely WW2).

3.) That person can be "good" in the same way that we know that Ghandi was "good". My argument is that if this greater power is as great as it is, as purely good as it should be, the acknowledgement of God by the "good", moral, kind, loving, etc. person should not even be necessary - in fact, superfluous. I'm not going to disrespect your belief by saying that you only have religion because you need a narrative to guide your ethical sense, but can't you see how IF a "good" person can be "good" without a belief in God, THEN the God narrative is unnecessary? And keep that question in mind, I realize that you're not exactly accepting the IF statement, but that's a discussion that I've tryed to address earlier in the paragraph.

4.) Ok, defenition time. Now, Christians argue over moral issues; they're not a united body on most things. They do agree, however, that love, kindness, character etc. are all important towards leading good lives as Christians - so, for the time being, can the definition of "good" person extend towards those who display Christ-like qualities without getting into specifics (cursing, premarital sex)? Also, "saintly" as used before was unnecessary, it was me trying to score points in the "good" person discussion by getting someone to say that a "saintly" person who didn't beleive in Christ wouldn't be a saintly person by God's definition.

And also, I didn't realize you were a veteran. No disrespect was ever intended towards the depth of your service. If I could apologize over my Support our Troops smack you in the face line earlier without sounding like a condescending liberal , I would - but given that I'm a condescending liberal anyway, I'm sorry.

 

[armyman_83]

2.) See, here's where we come to my argument: I agree that a "good" person (get to that def. in a sec) should not be a complete pacifist; that there are moral dilemmas that are not so simple as Thou Shall Not Kill - but Christians are bound by that Commandment. Oh, and it might seem like I'm going in circles in terms of war and ethical right and wrongs here, but I want to steer more towards the general issue and less towards the here and now (Not Iraq, Definitely WW2).

3.) That person can be "good" in the same way that we know that Ghandi was "good". My argument is that if this greater power is as great as it is, as purely good as it should be, the acknowledgement of God by the "good", moral, kind, loving, etc. person should not even be necessary - in fact, superfluous. I'm not going to disrespect your belief by saying that you only have religion because you need a narrative to guide your ethical sense, but can't you see how IF a "good" person can be "good" without a belief in God, THEN the God narrative is unnecessary? And keep that question in mind, I realize that you're not exactly accepting the IF statement, but that's a discussion that I've tryed to address earlier in the paragraph.

4.) Ok, defenition time. Now, Christians argue over moral issues; they're not a united body on most things. They do agree, however, that love, kindness, character etc. are all important towards leading good lives as Christians - so, for the time being, can the definition of "good" person extend towards those who display Christ-like qualities without getting into specifics (cursing, premarital sex)? Also, "saintly" as used before was unnecessary, it was me trying to score points in the "good" person discussion by getting someone to say that a "saintly" person who didn't beleive in Christ wouldn't be a saintly person by God's definition.

And also, I didn't realize you were a veteran. No disrespect was ever intended towards the depth of your service. If I could apologize over my Support our Troops smack you in the face line earlier without sounding like a condescending liberal , I would - but given that I'm a condescending liberal anyway, I'm sorry.

2. The whole question of war and the Christian faith is indeed a whole other debate.

3. One must remember that Gandhi was religious (though he was a heathen). Gandhi had a passion for doing good because he saw “God” in His “creation”. So Gandhi as an example of someone who is good without being “godly” (or religious) doesn’t really work. Try to think of people who are good, who are not religious at all. It is rather hard.

Do you mean that there is a difference between godly (as in Christian) and religious (any other faith.)? I know this is another one of those “please clarify questions”, sorry.

While God is indeed good, and merciful that does not mean that he needs to be ignored. We should remember the LORD our God always. Even if you look at Christ from a non-Christian source of mind you see that above the “Golden rule” he placed another commandment (the greatest of all). “Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”

So we see, that Christ at least says, while one should love everyone and be “good” they still fail to love their creator (who is the LORD). So according to Christ, at least, they who do not love God do not follow the greatest of all commandments. A good person should at least love God. If they love every one or everything but God what does that show? It shows that, if they have heard of God, they do not love the very one that has given them the ability to love and do “good”. Thus I would dare to say that, while they might be considered good from our perspective, they are not “good” (since they fail to follow the greatest commandment).

This is really a case by case thing. And it is hard to judge with one stroke completely. This is a Christian’s perspective at least of a broad perspective on the issue. You as a non-Christian may believe that I am ignoring the fact that if God could be “out of the picture” then they could be “good”. But God cannot, in any way, be put “out of the picture”, thus one cannot be completely “good” without being Godly.

If you compared a list of people who were “good” but did not have any religious belief, I assure you the list would be small- if almost non-existent. While there are many people who may be thought of as “good” who were godly/religious.

4. Cool, Oh and I am not yet in the army (though I will be after college!) but I know you’re just a good liberal—oops now how do I mean “good” there? Jk!

 

[EndersConscience]

2. The whole question of war and the Christian faith is indeed a whole other debate.

3. One must remember that Gandhi was religious (though he was a heathen). Gandhi had a passion for doing good because he saw “God” in His “creation”. So Gandhi as an example of someone who is good without being “godly” (or religious) doesn’t really work. Try to think of people who are good, who are not religious at all. It is rather hard.

Do you mean that there is a difference between godly (as in Christian) and religious (any other faith.)? I know this is another one of those “please clarify questions”, sorry.

While God is indeed good, and merciful that does not mean that he needs to be ignored. We should remember the LORD our God always. Even if you look at Christ from a non-Christian source of mind you see that above the “Golden rule” he placed another commandment (the greatest of all). “Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”

So we see, that Christ at least says, while one should love everyone and be “good” they still fail to love their creator (who is the LORD). So according to Christ, at least, they who do not love God do not follow the greatest of all commandments. A good person should at least love God. If they love every one or everything but God what does that show? It shows that, if they have heard of God, they do not love the very one that has given them the ability to love and do “good”. Thus I would dare to say that, while they might be considered good from our perspective, they are not “good” (since they fail to follow the greatest commandment).

This is really a case by case thing. And it is hard to judge with one stroke completely. This is a Christian’s perspective at least of a broad perspective on the issue. You as a non-Christian may believe that I am ignoring the fact that if God could be “out of the picture” then they could be “good”. But God cannot, in any way, be put “out of the picture”, thus one cannot be completely “good” without being Godly.

If you compared a list of people who were “good” but did not have any religious belief, I assure you the list would be small- if almost non-existent. While there are many people who may be thought of as “good” who were godly/religious.

4. Cool, Oh and I am not yet in the army (though I will be after college!) but I know you’re just a good liberal—oops now how do I mean “good” there? Jk!

1.) You have a point, it is rather hard. That could be because it's late here, and I can't focus. Or it could be because America has always been a Protestant nation, and as such, all of its heroes, all the moral people that have developed this land of the free were Christians. (Meaning, of course the Christians have a monopoly on all the "good" guys...they were raised in a Protestant society, a society that said Christianity was the moral pathway). Is it really so hard to imagine the possibility of that "good" leader? Then again, it's late and I could be pulling all of this out of a hat....

2.) Hmmm. Well, I certainly think there's less of a difference between religions than the Christian population at large does, but of course there's a difference - If any religion is right, then all of the others are wrong (Agnostic's dilemma). However, in this debate, I had been using the terms synonymously.

3.) Yeah, that first commandment is pretty important to Christians : ) It's the ace in the whole for your argument, and I can't combat it without saying that it's morally correct to disobey it. I can argue to Christians that there are situations in which the other commandments should be broken, but that's just dodging the debate. This entire thread is about arguing to Christians that they should break that first commandment, so I'm gonna stop equivocating and suggest that, Yeah, Christians might want to stop worshiping Christ. I might not get anywhere, but oh well.

4.) Pulling off no religious belief is pretty hard...Some say scientists take care of it by pulling that mysterious shroud off of our eyes, the shroud of WHY? Why are we here? Why must we be self-aware? I think that any philosopher, defined here as anyone who considers the nature of reality, of life, of death, etc., would eventually have to believe in something. To truly have faith in the unknowable is difficult beyond measure, but to truly believe that we were all some cosmic accident is by no means an easy task either. Maybe the reason moral leaders are religious (any religion) is that they went nuts justifying morals without the divine....For if there is no great arbiter, no God in the sky, who cares about morals, who cares about anything? It's hard finding the niche. I'm not entirely sure if I'm in it or not, but reconciling Ethics with a lack of belief in any god is most certainly a narrow street.

I dunno about "good", but you better believe I'm a good liberal ; )

 

[Mayflower1]

Can an athiest live the same life as a christian? I am thinking about 80% of the time. Christians go to church, evangelize, work hard to grow closer to God. I think in a way, that brings out the good in people because we are reaching out to brethren and everything. At the same time, athiests reach out to others in there ways and they can be really kind while on earth. The only difference is their sins are not covered...

 

[Questor]

As a member of the medical profession, I can tell you that I am too busy tending to "God's children" to stop and think about all these views.

Actions are just a better form of prayers.

 

[armyman_83]

1.) You have a point, it is rather hard. That could be because it's late here, and I can't focus. Or it could be because America has always been a Protestant nation, and as such, all of its heroes, all the moral people that have developed this land of the free were Christians. (Meaning, of course the Christians have a monopoly on all the "good" guys...they were raised in a Protestant society, a society that said Christianity was the moral pathway). Is it really so hard to imagine the possibility of that "good" leader? Then again, it's late and I could be pulling all of this out of a hat....

2.) Hmmm. Well, I certainly think there's less of a difference between religions than the Christian population at large does, but of course there's a difference - If any religion is right, then all of the others are wrong (Agnostic's dilemma). However, in this debate, I had been using the terms synonymously.

3.) Yeah, that first commandment is pretty important to Christians : ) It's the ace in the whole for your argument, and I can't combat it without saying that it's morally correct to disobey it. I can argue to Christians that there are situations in which the other commandments should be broken, but that's just dodging the debate. This entire thread is about arguing to Christians that they should break that first commandment, so I'm gonna stop equivocating and suggest that, Yeah, Christians might want to stop worshiping Christ. I might not get anywhere, but oh well.

4.) Pulling off no religious belief is pretty hard...Some say scientists take care of it by pulling that mysterious shroud off of our eyes, the shroud of WHY? Why are we here? Why must we be self-aware? I think that any philosopher, defined here as anyone who considers the nature of reality, of life, of death, etc., would eventually have to believe in something. To truly have faith in the unknowable is difficult beyond measure, but to truly believe that we were all some cosmic accident is by no means an easy task either. Maybe the reason moral leaders are religious (any religion) is that they went nuts justifying morals without the divine....For if there is no great arbiter, no God in the sky, who cares about morals, who cares about anything? It's hard finding the niche. I'm not entirely sure if I'm in it or not, but reconciling Ethics with a lack of belief in any god is most certainly a narrow street.

I dunno about "good", but you better believe I'm a good liberal ; )

Well I guess your question has been answered, kind of, from a Christian's perspective. If I didn't believe in any god, then I would totally do what ever I wanted. But I know there is a god (who is Yahweh) and trust in him.

But in short, one cannot be completly good, with out the Divine. But I am sure others will argue some more .

 

[TooCurious]

If I didn't believe in any god, then I would totally do what ever I wanted.

I've never been able to understand religious folks who say this. I don't believe in any gods, but I don't "do whatever I want." I have a set of moral and ethical understandings, and I do my best to live in accordance with them, simply because I believe that it is right to do so. How do I differ in this regard from a believer who claims that the only control over or guide to his behavior is the belief in a divine being, and what can be concluded from this difference?

 

[JustJack!]

If I didn't believe in any god, then I would totally do what ever I wanted.

I'm a Deist, and I too do whatever I want. Except I don't get my jollies from raping and murdering people, or stealing their cars or burning their house down.

 

[armyman_83]

I'm a Deist, and I too do whatever I want. Except I don't get my jollies from raping and murdering people, or stealing their cars or burning their house down.

Well that is not what you want to do. But had I no belief in God, or any god, I would do what ever I wanted even murder, rape, etc. Because if there is no divine law or justice, why care? If it feels good do it right?