Morally speaking, are Atheists and Muslims immoral?

[SteveB28]

Prove it.

I'm not allowed to suggest that you may have a tone by the post you make and I wouldnt dream of suggesting what you're saying or doing here. But if this were anyone else other than you, I'd say that person had a problem with me and since I dont deal with pubescent teens. I would ask them to explain themselves or be moved to the ignore list.
I'm so glad its not you because I know you wouldnt ignore what I just said and ask me to put you on ignore for the sake of your pride.
Which is what a pubescent teen would do.

I'm betting this made perfect sense to you when you typed it, yes?

 

[Mattao]

Is that some sort of conspiration theory of yours?

You're the word builder.

Because...I wouldn´t have expected your case to be that weak.

That's what I said, when you said you made it up.
Who makes up words?
Remember that movie the wedding crashers? That blond chick totally had her own language.

It´s used world wide and at the same time uncommon?

You saying it cant happen?

What exactly are you alluding to, here?

What I said below the sentence you quoted here. You couldnt pick up on that?
Want me to let you make a word for it?

According to your line of reasoning, everybody has an ethical background. That´s the very point you have been trying to make in your previous posts.

Ohp! You did know what I was eluding to. Youre a smart man. No extra words needed.
No, according to how you see my line of reasoning.
In my line of reasoning there are categorical lines that distinguish what kind of morality goes where and who gets it.
Like the Japanese use Japanese morality, Christians use Christian morality and Atheist use whatever they can find.

Nobody can, according to your theory.

That is also incorrect and also the way you see it.
Atheist are not religious and they dont group together to organize their thoughts, so they can never give birth to a form of morality. Because morality comes from ideas that have been formed by a group of people or through a religion.

Unless something offends them, then they gather together long enough to hire an attorney and sue people.
You can separate that in quotes and ask what I meant but I'll tell you right here-> It's a joke.

According to your theory, nobody can. So, consequently, everybody is borrowing someone else´s morality.
However, if what you are trying to say is "There is no atheist morality" I´d agree. Atheism is not a moral stance and doesn´t imply a particular morality (anymore than there´s a plumber´s or dentist´s morality). Which doesn´t mean that an atheist or a plumber or a dentist can´t have moral stances.

Wrong, thats how you seen it. I said we are using a form of morality that is already in place.
That doesn't mean that said morality has to be foreign. Morality is built off of, culture and religion and I did say that an atheist can have a form of morality from their culture.

To quote myself:
"They have no beliefs of their own and can come from any culture and while they might barrow morality from whatever cultural background they come from,"

Sure, but that doesn´t mean I have borrowed them when I invent them without knowing them (particularly not when the meaning has nothing to do with the meaning they had been used in).

Still doesnt mean that you cant hear a word and associate it with something else.

 

[Mattao]

I'm betting this made perfect sense to you when you typed it, yes?

Whats it matter to you? It wasnt addressed to you.

 

[quatona]

Like the Japanese use Japanese morality, Christians use Christian morality and Atheist use whatever they can find.

Let´s ignore for a moment the false dichotomies "Christians vs. Japanese" and "Japanese vs. atheist", let´s also postpone the question how "Japanese morality" and "Christian morality" were formed before they could be "used" - and instead focus on the last part.
Let´s, for arguments sake, say your premise atheists "use whatever they can find" is correct:
How is that a problem?
And, more importantly, how would that lead to "they don´t have morals"? So far this appears to be a complete non-sequitur.

Atheist are not religious and they dont group together to organize their thoughts, so they can never give birth to a form of morality.

And yet, atheists did group together, organized their thoughts and formed secular moral systems.
Because morality comes from ideas that have been formed by a group of people or through a religion.

Unless something offends them, then they gather together long enough to hire an attorney and sue people.
You can separate that in quotes and ask what I meant but I'll tell you right here-> It's a joke.

That doesn't mean that said morality has to be foreign. Morality is built off of, culture and religion and I did say that an atheist can have a form of morality from their culture.

To quote myself:
"They have no beliefs of their own and can come from any culture and while they might barrow morality from whatever cultural background they come from,"

Cool. So an atheist´s moral convictions are based on pre-existing ideas, and so are a theist´s moral convictions.

 

[SteveB28]

Whats it matter to you? It wasnt addressed to you.

Yes, but it was addressed to a reply to me. And, unless I am mistaken, the comments posted on these forums are available to all for comment?

 

[Mattao]

And, more importantly, how would that lead to "they don´t have morals"? So far this appears to be a complete non-sequitur.

Not exactly, but really close to that.
That we have been using or recycling the same morality so long now that it's impossible to tell what could be original.
What an Atheist or even a secularist/ being many different ideals, says they put together for their own benefit is in one form or another something that's already in use and un-original.
If its an un-original form of morality, (Even though its being combined with several other forms of morality) then its still not "your" morality because you didnt come up with it.

You by yourself, do not have the ability to procreate morality.
And you can not be credited for the use of it. That comes from another source.
To take credit for using a miss mash of morality to better suit yourself still doesnt mean that you're a moral person simply because you're using moral standards and because you also did not make your own morals you can not be called morally correct for the sake of calling you so.
You're just doing what everyone else is.
And everyone else has been following a standard that has been around so long that its impossible to tell what could be the original.

Unless.

You know the original through another form that isnt necessarily morality but morality did come from it because a moral standard was needed to practice it.
Like, religion or cultural differences.
They only thing that sets morality apart are those 2 factors.
Religion and culture.
Like say, Thanking the Lord for your meal or asking him to bless it before you eat.
Thats a Christian value.
Or It's polite to hold the door for someone. You may or may not know where that one came from, but it has its origins in something and isnt something people just do.
You cant assume that just because you dont know where something came from that its instinctive and you're using your own judgment on whether or not it should be used. Because you're more than likely using it subconsciously.

And yet, atheists did group together, organized their thoughts and formed secular moral systems.
Because morality comes from ideas that have been formed by a group of people or through a religion.

Nope! Wrong again.
They didnt form any moral guidelines, they hammered out the law so it would benefit them. The only beliefs they claimed to be protecting were those already in place through the system. So even when they wanted to benefit themselves they were "borrowing" from something else.

 

[Mattao]

Yes, but it was addressed to a reply to me. And, unless I am mistaken, the comments posted on these forums are available to all for comment?

Might have been addressed to a reply to you but it was about me. Unless youre afraid to admit that?

 

[quatona]

Nope! Wrong again.
They didnt form any moral guidelines, they hammered out the law so it would benefit them. The only beliefs they claimed to be protecting were those already in place through the system. So even when they wanted to benefit themselves they were "borrowing" from something else.

I still don´t understand how you feel that makes an atheist different from anybody else. A theist holds ideas that aren´t originally his, and so does an atheist.

 

[fat wee robin]

I couldn't vote because atheist & Muslim is not comparable.

An adult atheist who rejected God is immoral by belief alone.

A Muslim is never immoral by belief alone. Perhaps wrong, but not immoral.

Something like that.

They can't be in the same category.

Posts seven and eight are both good answers.

 

[Mattao]

I still don´t understand how you feel that makes an atheist different from anybody else. A theist holds ideas that aren´t originally his, and so does an atheist.

I apologize. It is confusing and Im not helping.
I did at one point some where combine Atheist with all secularist.
But they are still separated in that religious people are just that "religious" and by default can tell you what form of morality they are using and most likely show you the origins.
Some religious people arent strict with their particular brand of religion and this is true with any religion so some religious people stray into a category that allows them to use secular and religious culture and can become confusing.
But if you dont have the knowledge of said morality to understand why you're doing what youre doing then it isnt "your" morality that guides you.

And if you're saying all you need is to understand the moral ramifications then I would say, that isn't morality at work but self preservation.
BECAUSE, You could be allowing instinct to help motivate you into doing or not doing something and if its instinctual then its not based on morality, because morality is thought out and the ramifications youre suffering are actually from instinct and not the knowledge of morality.

 

[SteveB28]

I apologize. It is confusing and Im not helping.
I did at one point some where combine Atheist with all secularist.
But they are still separated in that religious people are just that "religious" and by default can tell you what form of morality they are using and most likely show you the origins.
Some religious people arent strict with their particular brand of religion and this is true with any religion so some religious people stray into a category that allows them to use secular and religious culture and can become confusing.
But if you dont have the knowledge of said morality to understand why you're doing what youre doing then it isnt "your" morality that guides you.

And if you're saying all you need is to understand the moral ramifications then I would say, that isn't morality at work but self preservation.
BECAUSE, You could be allowing instinct to help motivate you into doing or not doing something and if its instinctual then its not based on morality, because morality is thought out and the ramifications youre suffering are actually from instinct and not the knowledge of morality.

Show me the "origins" of your morality. Specifically, not some vague statement such as "I get them from God/the Bible." Show me how your morality is original and not borrowed (or "barrowed") from somewhere else.

 

[fat wee robin]

No, I understand this belief. I just find it morally repugnant.


I'm not sure that making this clarification changes things one iota. You simply assert that all people as a consequence of not being perfect are by consequence immoral and that such somehow justifies eternal torture or eternal torment. It is masochistic.


Speak for yourself - I don't strive to be moral for that purpose.


Thus it cannot be coherently argued, from your perspective, that Christianity has anything whatsoever, in the end, to do with morality. Only obedience to authority.

Not many christians particularly in the U.S. ,which is a country of extremes, truly understand their own religion .When one says they try to be good because in order to enter eternal life one must be ,they have it wrong .You say that is not why you try to be good .Could it be because you care about people ,see the order in things ,and try to do your best to make good things happen .I was like that a a youngster ,but in the world ,
and at least much of the time we must live in the world (selfish materialist ,carnal ,lower sensate) and became poisoned ,and lost my way . Only through appealing to Jesus christ did I get the strength to get back to my health ,and to see how empty and short term is the lower world ;that it passes and all that you are left with is how you treated others and how you tried to go beyond your small ego to the eternal God .If you think that it is enough to be kind to others you ae wrong ,but if you are selfish to a large extent God will not hear your voice in crying for help .
"How can you love the God you have never seen,if you cannot love those you can?"
I Wonder who said that ?

 

[Mattao]

Show me the "origins" of your morality. Specifically, not some vague statement such as "I get them from God/the Bible." Show me how your morality is original and not borrowed (or "barrowed") from somewhere else.

I dont think this question will produce the answer I should give you, because it seems like you asked a question you can disprove the answer to.
Are there proofs of documentation that show the origins of the bible? That could cause us to veer off into another 30 page tangent.
Are there people practicing forms of morality that they can prove the origins to said morality?
Yes, of course there are.
There are plenty of religions that can show you directly where a train of thought came from that lead to a rule practiced within the morality of that particular religion. Documents and all. Doesn't have to be Christianity. Although I used Christianity because I am one, I believe I didnt say specifically that it had to be Christianity and simply used the word religion.

There are also plenty of cultural views that extend into morality that the origins can be explained and shown in a document of one kind or another.

 

[fat wee robin]

Morality is a measure of behavior, not belief.

So I dont see how religious labels are necessarily an indicator.

Not in the long term .It is a relationship with Jesus Christ whom you must seek to know . A true Relationship with JC connects you to love of a kind which is otherwise unknowable ,and eventually it connects us into God's creative plans for the long term .We are living today after 2000 years since JC gave all who were born after the chance to join in the cycle of a new life with Him ,or when the cycle ends to be left out of this .(which will be hell as your own selfish rebellion will have brought this about .

 

[quatona]

I apologize. It is confusing and Im not helping.
I did at one point some where combine Atheist with all secularist.

Fair enough.
I´m sensing, though, that you are ascribing a meaning to "Atheist" that doesn´t necessarily include me (I am concluding it from the fact that you capitalize it).
Can you tell me more about that?

But they are still separated in that religious people are just that "religious" and by default can tell you what form of morality they are using

You mean they can throw out a label ("I adhere to Christian morality") while atheists can´t? I´m not seeing a problem there. Labels aren´t that telling, anyway.
Why would you think an atheist is unable to tell you "what form of morality" they are using?

and most likely show you the origins.

But if you dont have the knowledge of said morality to understand why you're doing what youre doing then it isnt "your" morality that guides you.

Since you equate "knowing the origins" and "understanding why" I get the impression the point you are trying to make is about swallowing a thought system out of sheer obedience to an alleged authority?

And if you're saying all you need is to understand the moral ramifications then I would say, that isn't morality at work but self preservation.
BECAUSE, You could be allowing instinct to help motivate you into doing or not doing something and if its instinctual then its not based on morality, because morality is thought out and the ramifications youre suffering are actually from instinct and not the knowledge of morality.

So who is that "thought out" your morality? And what makes you assume that they didn´t "think it out" as a result of instinctive self-preservation?

 

[Mattao]

Some how Im not getting my point across to you. Im not sure if its your current mind set or that we simply cant communicate with each other.

Fair enough.
I´m sensing, though, that you are ascribing a meaning to "Atheist" that doesn´t necessarily include me (I am concluding it from the fact that you capitalize it).
Can you tell me more about that?

Doesnt have anything to do with this

You mean they can throw out a label ("I adhere to Christian morality") while atheists can´t? I´m not seeing a problem there. Labels aren´t that telling, anyway.
Why would you think an atheist is unable to tell you "what form of morality" they are using?

They can.
Its so easy for them to know what form or forms of morality they're using. That doesnt matter.
It's not their morality, unless its from a single persons culture and thats why they're practicing it.
But as a "whole" Atheist can not have their "own" morality. You can explain why you use the morality you do and where it came from, it doesn't make it yours.
Until Atheist come together and figure out what their morality is, they wont have one either. They'll always have to adopt one.

Since you equate "knowing the origins" and "understanding why" I get the impression the point you are trying to make is about swallowing a thought system out of sheer obedience to an alleged authority?

No, its about understanding the thing beyond the use of it and having the experience that helps explain why its useful.
In culture, something can be used in morality because it was useful and understanding why its useful is a form of experience that some people will never have even if they use whatever it is thats useful.

Dont get me wrong, religion is like that to. Not everything in religion is mind numbing tradition.
There are ideas in morality from religion that are useful outside of the religion and are beneficial and while that information can be helpful to anyone, only a person who understands why it exist can get the full benefit from it.

So who is that "thought out" your morality? And what makes you assume that they didn´t "think it out" as a result of instinctive self-preservation?

Thats not the point either.
You can be compelled to do something out of fear and equate it to a moral code. Doesnt mean youre doing it for the sake of morality.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is addressed to Christians only, because obviously Atheists and Muslims wouldn't think of themselves as immoral.So Christians, do you think Atheists and Muslims are categorically immoral? Meaning they are immoral by their belief alone?Vote: I want to know your opinion.ALSO; if you think they are immoral, what is the solution for atheists and muslims?

I'd say they are more focused on the actions of others than on
personal growth, so they are more moral.

 

[SteveB28]

I dont think this question will produce the answer I should give you, because it seems like you asked a question you can disprove the answer to.
Are there proofs of documentation that show the origins of the bible? That could cause us to veer off into another 30 page tangent.
Are there people practicing forms of morality that they can prove the origins to said morality?
Yes, of course there are.
There are plenty of religions that can show you directly where a train of thought came from that lead to a rule practiced within the morality of that particular religion. Documents and all. Doesn't have to be Christianity. Although I used Christianity because I am one, I believe I didnt say specifically that it had to be Christianity and simply used the word religion.

There are also plenty of cultural views that extend into morality that the origins can be explained and shown in a document of one kind or another.

Stop stalling.

You are claiming that atheists have a morality, but that it is not "original". Fine. Then show me how your morality is original.

 

[MissRowy]

MOD HAT ON
IF YOUR POST IS MISSING IT HAS BEEN REMOVED IN A CLEAN UP
CAN I REMIND THE POSTERS IN THIS THREAD THAT FLAMING IS NOT ALLOWED AND OFF TOPIC POSTS ARE AGAINST THE SITE WIDE RULES
ANY FURTHER VIOLATIONS AND THIS THREAD WILL BE PERMANENTLY CLOSED
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[quatona]

Some how Im not getting my point across to you. Im not sure if its your current mind set or that we simply cant communicate with each other.

From my perspective, the reason is that you seem to claim there are significant differences between the way believers and non-believers adopt their ethical approaches, and yet you can´t come up with such significant differences, or rather: You claim a difference, and when I point out that it is a communality, you say the point didn´t matter.

Doesnt have anything to do with this[/quote]
Ok, then I´ll ignore your statement.

They can.
Its so easy for them to know what form or forms of morality they're using. That doesnt matter.

Then why did you bring it up, in the first place?

It's not their morality, unless its from a single persons culture and thats why they're practicing it.

I don´t know that anyone has an ownership or copyright on a moral view - so if that´s your point, who cares?

But as a "whole" Atheist can not have their "own" morality.

Each person have their morality, and all of them owe it to cultural influences. I don´t know what you mean by "as a 'whole'".

You can explain why you use the morality you do and where it came from, it doesn't make it yours.

And that´s different with theists exactly how?

Until Atheist come together and figure out what their morality is, they wont have one either. They'll always have to adopt one.

Just like anybody else.
[Btw., I don´t understand what "Atheist" (capitalized and used as a plural) is meant to be.]

No, its about understanding the thing beyond the use of it and having the experience that helps explain why its useful.
In culture, something can be used in morality because it was useful and understanding why its useful is a form of experience that some people will never have even if they use whatever it is thats useful.

And these "some people" are always and exclusively non-believers? Or was that just another comment that will turn out to "not matter"?

Dont get me wrong, religion is like that to. Not everything in religion is mind numbing tradition.
There are ideas in morality from religion that are useful outside of the religion and are beneficial and while that information can be helpful to anyone, only a person who understands why it exist can get the full benefit from it.

Good. So that would be another communality.

Thats not the point either.
You can be compelled to do something out of fear and equate it to a moral code. Doesnt mean youre doing it for the sake of morality.

So you are introducing a totally new criterium: Doing something "for the sake of morality".
I am not seeing how that´s impossible for a non-believer, and necessarily true for a believer.
But yes, personally, I find no value in that.