Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[Revoltingest]

It seems that what these people understand by "objective", is simply to avoid doing their own thinking and reasoning and instead just replace it with mere obedience to a perceived authority.

They consider it "objective" only because they feel that in that case, they can't have their own opinions.

Why think & reason, eh.
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc....each does that for them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why think & reason, eh.
The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc....each does that for them.

Well, thinking and objective reasoning alone won't make a moral stance or system, as in effect morality is not objective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, thinking and objective reasoning alone won't make a moral stance or system, as in effect morality is not objective.

Your post is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, thinking and objective reasoning alone won't make a moral stance or system,

Not only does it make one, it is in fact the only way to make one.

When proponents of "divine command theory" offload their moral reasoning to their scriptures, all they are doing is taking on the moral reasoning of the humans that came up with those and which were eventually written down in those scriptures.

Moral systems aren't found under rocks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never come across any objective morality regardless of religion or not. So it has not to do with religion as such, but rather it seems that morality is not objective.

I'ld say that it is pseudo-objective.

"pseudo" because we have to agree on a starting point which could be said to be subjective/arbitrary.
Like for example agreeing that we are going to care about well-being and determine it to be preferable to suffering.

Once we establish such a starting point, we can say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
Wrong answers would increase suffering.
Right answers would increase well-being


To put it very simplistically, off course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'ld say that it is pseudo-objective.

"pseudo" because we have to agree on a starting point which could be said to be subjective/arbitrary.
Like for example agreeing that we are going to care about well-being and determine it to be preferable to suffering.

Once we establish such a starting point, we can say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
Wrong answers would increase suffering.
Right answers would increase well-being


To put it very simplistically, off course.

Yes, we start subjectively and subjectively define well-being including that all cases of well-being are not the same for all cases of humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your post is subjective.

Yes, that is true, real and a fact and as such a part of reality, the world, the universe and everything. It is only non-thinking people who claim that the universe is objective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that is true, real and a fact and as such a part of reality, the world, the universe and everything. It is only non-thinking people who claim that the universe is objective.

That is subjective too.

My point here is the irony of dismissing
another's post as subjective. Why
bother stating the obvious that applies
to us all, eh.

 

[Betho_br]

Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.

So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.

In the Parable of the Ten Virgins, all ten virgins were morally upright, as evidenced by their possession of lamps, symbolizing their knowledge. However, only five of them were prepared for the unexpected delay of the bridegroom because they brought extra oil, indicating foresight and readiness for unforeseen circumstances.

This aspect of preparedness highlights the need for resilience and having reserves to deal with adversities and surprises, much like the Parable of the House Built on the Rock, which withstood storms due to its solid foundation. The lesson here is that, beyond having a strong moral foundation, it's crucial to have a strategy for preparation and resilience. This includes not only spiritual readiness but also economic stability and community robustness.

Therefore, the parable teaches that we should be prepared for misfortunes and challenges, ensuring we have what is necessary to maintain our faith (absolute certainty) and resources during difficult times, and that this preparation includes economic and communal stability.

Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives? YES​

 

[Augustus]

For whatever reason, I have never gotten tired of this activity. I find that kind of thinking endlessly fascinating and wonder why some people are that way (the groups I just named) while others are very different in their approach to processing information, trusting reason and empiricism to find answers and gain knowledge."

I’ve never got tired of “tapping the glass” with “rationalists” who take themselves a bit too seriously as they have not yet worked out that we are all that person on one topic or another.

A fair degree of irrationality is part of our evolved cognition, yet many folk seem to think they personally transcend our animalistic nature.

 

[Valjean]

Can you provide the data on it? Can you prove your statement scientifically?

If not, you fail your own standard.

 

[Valjean]

Knowing God is real, doesn't necessary make one righteous, that is why belief that God is real is not very useful.

Q: Why was God invented? There's neither objective evidence nor need for Him.
How do you evidence God as an ontological reality?

It seems life doesn't appear from dead non organic material on its own.

How can non-organic matter be "dead?"

It seems life absolutely did arise from non-organic matter. You need to bone up on your elementary biology.
What other mechanism would you propose, and what evidence do you have for it? [NB: "God" is not a mechanism. He's an agent.]

Jesus was not a communist, for example because he said: "…the laborer is worthy of his wages..." Luke 10:7. Socialists=communists think they have right to take share of other peoples wage.

Jesus is reported to have said all sorts of questionable and inconsistent things. He's generally depicted as a transient cult leader. His band shared everything and kept a common purse. "For each according to his need."
The NT depicts him as some sort of idealistic Hippie, unless confronted; all about peace, love, and equality.

Socialists/Communists believe those who generate wealth should be its beneficiaries. It's Capitalism, and the owner of the laborer's tools ("means of production") that takes the profit and shares only enough to keep the laborer poor and tied to the job. You've got it all backwards.

Socialist co-ops share the wealth equitably, and all have a say in what the business does and how it's organized.

 

[Valjean]

Well, that version of science is a cultural convention as there are other cultural understandings of what science is.

But unless they reflect how science actually describes itself, and its actual methodology, they're only cultural misunderstandings.

 

[firedragon]

Excellent evidence. Thank you so much.

 

[Madsaac]

Well, thinking and objective reasoning alone won't make a moral stance or system, as in effect morality is not objective.

No it won't but can it help.

Can't morality be 'objective' up until a point. In other words, humans can agree on what morality is.

If humanity wants to move in the right direction together, we need to be on the same page, for example, agreeing on what morality is

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it won't but can it help.

Can't morality be 'objective' up until a point. In other words, humans can agree on what morality is.

If humanity wants to move in the right direction together, we need to be on the same page, for example, agreeing on what morality is

That is called intersubjective, i.e. it is shared subjectively.

As for that we, it is not there in the biological sense because replication of the fittest gene also takes places with the human species.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But unless they reflect how science actually describes itself, and its actual methodology, they're only cultural misunderstandings.

There is no science in itself, science is not a thing. It is an observable behaviour in humans.

You have no objective evidence for its actual methodology as it is cognitive and meta-cognitive norms in effect.

 

[1213]

So, if I figure out how to construct a human from scratch putting that person together molecule by molecule... I get to torture and kill it also, no questions asked?

I don't think God tortures anyone. But, can you answer, why should God give eternal life for evil people? Is there some good reason why God should allow evil to continue forever?

btw: you also just absolved your god from any and every moral responsibility.

How? Can you say why God should give eternal life for all?

 

[1213]

You are more then welcome to "play" slave and act like one. But you wouldn't be an actual slave. Because you'ld be able to change your mind and walk away. An actual slave can't do that.

Ok, so in that case there was no actual slaves by Biblical rules, because according to the Bible, people were not allowed to kidnap anyone, which makes it impossible to take a slave against persons own will.

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

 

[1213]

Which objective moral?

That what is in the Bible. And it is objective, because it is based on the idea of love other as yourself, which means you do others what you want to be done to you. For example, if you steal, you want others to steal from you and by stealing you give the same right for others.