Morality

[Beskar]

3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..

Because wearing a condom is preached as a bigger sin than sex before marriage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.

If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:

A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle

and then pick one ffs.

And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.

[Vincent Butler]

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do. This is false

Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.

[rickinator9]

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values.

Where in the bible does it say that teen pregnancy is wrong? And why were girls married as young as 12(so they could get pregnant in their teenage years) in medieval times, one of the periods in history that is characterised by a strict lifestyle based on Christian values?

[Husar]

That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

And for some people it is their religiosity or "christian values"...

[Vincent Butler]

The term "teen pregnancy" is usually used with the understanding that the pregnancy is outside of wedlock. As such, the girl (and guy) would be guilty of fornication, which is a sin. The guy is just as much in the wrong as the girl. If a teenager gets married, and marriages at eighteen or nineteen are not rare, or sometimes younger (though not necessarily advisable), and gets pregnant, that is usually not considered when people talk about when they say "teen pregnancy". Girls getting married at twelve is not wise, as her body is not yet ready for pregnancy. But they had such a short lifespan (partially aided by the pregnancies at that age) that it was important to have children at a young age. I am by no means excusing that practice, I deplore it. There was nothing strictly Christian about the medieval times, just curious, what makes you say that?

[Kralizec]

Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals.

Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.

Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

[rvg]

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

[Kadagar_AV]

Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.

Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.

What biblical values? To keep slaves? To send women out to be gang raped?

How would your culture be better off by that?

[Kralizec]

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

Then it's not really saying much, because the things specified in the 10 commandments are either:

1) idiosyncrasies of Judaism/Christianity, such as monotheism and ban on idolatery
2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

[a completely inoffensive name]

2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

Then we really have found absolute morals.

[rvg]

Then it's not really saying much...

Perhaps that's the key to being timeless: brevity and simplicity.

[Kadagar_AV]

2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time

Let's not overwhelm the poor guy with clear and utterly sane posts adhering to logic...

Instead let him slowly bleed out, till he becomes one of us..*

* Bitter, broken and possibly a danger to society.

[Hooahguy]

Violent crime, teen pregnancy, drug use all skyrocketed.

Actually, teen pregnancy went way down, violent crime also decreased, and drug use mostly went down as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:

1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

[rvg]

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."

Oh I know, that's my point. I am just saying that as an atheist with my own "absolute morals" I still would go that route.

[Papewaio]

You are spot on Vincent. Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals. It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.

Lest anyone get offended, I am not saying atheists have no morality. I am saying that their moral views are inconsistent with their atheism.

BTW, I hope you'll be sticking around because I could do with some backup here!

Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)

Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc

=][=

Also I take exception about not talking about Democracy. This isn't a USA only forum. It is international and a lot of us live in functioning democracies with:
Higher literacy
Longer lifespans
Cheaper education
Universal Healthcare
Dearth of school shootings

So maybe it isn't religious makeup, or gun rights, or personel responsibility it is not being a democracy that is the fault with USA.

[Kadagar_AV]

I just want gay atheists to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!!

Yeah... One really shouldnt be too concerned about US issues on an international board... Nor christian ones, IMHO.

[HoreTore]

What are these morals of yours based on?

The common good, mostly.

Reason. Logic.

[HoreTore]

A. Read some Mill

Mill despised atheism, though.

Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Mill despised atheism, though.

Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.

According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!

[HoreTore]

According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!

Wow! Two!

Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...

I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I try my best to be clear in what I am saying, but it seems that people will just not pay the least bit of attention to what I say. It's almost as if people presume I am saying one thing, and argue against that, without realising that I am in fact saying very much the opposite...

Here we go again.

1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.

2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.

My post directly above yours clearly states:

the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)"

So, what point of mine were you arguing against when you made your post Kad?

Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.

If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:

A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle

and then pick one ffs.

Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.

IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.

And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.

God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?

Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.

I applaud your honesty in saying that atheism and absolute morality are not compatible. Of course, I do not think of absolute morality as absurd, but that is because I am thinking within a theistic framework. I realise that you will also consider that to be absurd, but at least we are being honest with each other.

Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.

You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.

Whatever so-called Christians may have said or done throughout history, the Christian position is ultimately that the Bible alone contains a true revelation of the unchanging moral order. The actions of all Christians should be held to that standard.

Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)

Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc

As I said to Kralizec, I applaud your honesty in not attempting to reconcile atheism with absolute morality. If you do not hold to absolute morals, then that position is perfectly compatible with your atheism.

I posted in this thread to highlight the hypocrisy of those atheists who try to argue for an absolute, objective moral order without God. I'll not start any wider arguments over other points in the meantime.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't believe in secular "morality". To me, those are just manners, and who gives a shit about manners? There are either transcendent reasons to do or not do something, or it is up to an individual to determine If an action would benefit them more than it would hurt them and compare that consequence with their desire to do the action.

On the flip side, I believe in a secular public legal system and a minimalist State. I am perfectly happy accepting the Bible as my personal superlative; I am legally free to be a hypocrite if my will or personal reason/logic supersedes something that I read in the Bible. I am not okay with government developing laws based on the Bible/Koran/Fight Club/etc.

Down with laws, up with personal morality which is taught in the home and in communities.

[Greyblades]

Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.

Which is kinda funny because there have been at least 7 differring official versions and the translation has been interprited in many ways, the most egregous being though shalt not murder/kill.

Also, commandments 1-3 (Catholic edition) are superfluous to non abrahamic societies and 4 is naiively ignoring the possibility of your father and/or mother being completely underserving of honour.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.

IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.

Oh god. Now I have to remember all the intro PHIL classes I have taken.

Mill's utilitarianism is based on maximizing utility AKA happiness. Scientifically you can pretty much verify that almost every human at least has various receptors which do communicate a signal that is interpreted as pain or pleasure. So while the individual experience may be subjective, the presence of pain and pleasure is objectively universal and so we can build off of that without invoking God.

Aristotle if I remember the beginning to Nicomachean Ethics correctly doesn't even bother with first principles. He lays out a guideline for particular humans and kind of waves away the foundation by saying it is not really important to define the Good (like Plato tries) before promoting what is Good.

I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.

God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?

They care more. The monotheistic route at its core is that there a God and you need to obey him, the differences in religion are superficial rituals. The secular route kind of gets treated as a buffet where people pick and choose what they like for individual situations. I personally still try to understand more about Kant and Aristotle because I actually take it seriously as to which I choose to follow.

I remember having an argument with my ex (who I inadvertently turned into an atheist) where she was trying to argue why pirating songs and movies wasn't wrong. It was silly and I didn't understand why something so clearly wrong by any standard is so common among people who are otherwise 'moral' and like to take pride that they don't need God to be nice to fellow people.

[HoreTore]

Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wow! Two!

Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...

I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.

I was being a bit facetious lol. As for On Liberty, you might need to dig deeper because it is possible that he said that in order to make his work more palatable to the public. Keep in mind, Mill was also one of the first to write in the public sphere for the inclusion of women into society and the human rights of women. You can only rock the boat so much before you start hindering your message.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...

????? No government = stealing property is ok?