Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[1213]

This is utterly false. And you know it.

Why? Bible tells that person who kidnaps other must be killed. That obviously means, one can become a slave only voluntarily, otherwise it would mean the person is kidnapped and the kidnapper should be killed.

Prohibiting kidnapping does not prohibit slavery.

I agree, but it makes it not possible to get a slave by force.

Ancient Rome had laws against kidnapping also.

Difficult to believe that they then went against their law.

 

[1213]

The so-called "golden rule" is not at all original nor exclusive to abrahamic religion.
Just about every civilization / society in the history of humanity had something idea like it.

And yet only few seems to follow it.

You are demonstrably incorrect as this idea shows up EVERYWHERE in human history. Including before the advent of abrahamic religion and / or in places where they never heard of it.

It is possible God has let also other people to know it. Abrahamic religion is not the source of it, I believe the source is God.

It is common sense. It is "objective" only in the sense that if we are going to care about having our social group survive and thrive, valuing the idea is going to make surviving and thriving a lot more successful / easier.

I don't think that is a good argument for it. With that logic, you could as well justify that all must be Nazis, "because it just makes life easier for us".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It is objective by the idea that whatever right you take, you give also to others. There is no double standard, or someone who has more rights that other people have. Also it leads to the same conclusion from both sides. For example, no one wants something to be done to them, against their own will, therefore doing something against others will is objectively wrong, because everyone agrees with it.

Yeah, I don't use the word objective like that. I get what you are saying, but to me it is subjectively shared as a norm.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true, it is not objective because I agree with it. It is objective because you can't argue against it.

Read the bolded part with attention.

See? This is you acknowledging that morality is about making a proper argument. Not about mere obedience to a perceived authority.

Things are moral or not for argued reasons, not because some perceived authority just says so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How could anyone say God has moral responsibility?

He is a thinking agent who is called "just".
That makes him a moral agent. Meaning he is morally accountable.

Have you moral responsibility?

Yes.

Who gives it to you?

My functioning brain.

Yes, only alternative to death is eternal life.

Bad faith argument.

We are not talking about alternatives to "death" full stop.
We are talking about alternatives for things like infanticide and genocide.
The alternative of killing toddlers is "not killing them".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? Bible tells that person who kidnaps other must be killed.

Roman law said that as well.
Was there no slavery in Rome?

That obviously means, one can become a slave only voluntarily

No, it doesn't mean that at all.
Obvious examples are buying slaves from other nations (it is not known how they became slaves), blood slavery (if an israelite slave has children while being a slave, the children are automatically slaves as well) and prisoners of war (which doesn't count as "kidnapping").

I agree, but it makes it not possible to get a slave by force.

If you agree, then the conversation is over and you concede the point, since your point was that there is no actual slavery in the bible "because you can't kidnap people".
Again, in ancient Rome you couldn't just kidnap free people and enslave them either.
But I bet you wouldn't dare to use that as an argument that there was no "real slavery" in Rome, right?

I don't think you'll find a society that allowed slavery which didn't have laws against just kidnapping free people and enslave them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet only few seems to follow it.

You can say the same about abrahamic followers. So again this is a complete non-argument.

It is possible God has let also other people to know it. Abrahamic religion is not the source of it, I believe the source is God.

Translation: "heads I win, tails you lose".

At least you seem to be acknolwedging that this idea isn't original to christianity or abrahamic religion at all.

I don't think that is a good argument for it. With that logic, you could as well justify that all must be Nazis, "because it just makes life easier for us".

That makes no sense. It also shows your lack of honest reflection on what is being said.
I clearly stated it was about the social group. This means the "in-group". Outsiders often got (and still get) very different treatment.

This is why the bible, for example, had no issues at all with genocide of non-israelites. Like the massacre of amalakites and alike.
In fact, just look at the slavery rules of the old testament.

Literally different treatment of "foreign slaves" vs "israelite slaves".
In-group vs out-group. It's a thing.

 

[AppieB]

It is objective by the idea that whatever right you take, you give also to others. There is no double standard, or someone who has more rights that other people have. Also it leads to the same conclusion from both sides. For example, no one wants something to be done to them, against their own will, therefore doing something against others will is objectively wrong, because everyone agrees with it.

"objective by the idea". The idea of whom? Why should we support that idea?
Is it "objectively wrong" because "everyone agrees with it"? Does everyone agree with it?

What is your definition of "objective" and "subjective"? I really want to know, because this doesn't make any sense.

So, as an atheist, I can call my morality also objective. It's about the idea I have that human well being matters. Everyone seems to agree with it, so therefore it's objective. No need for a god to have objective morality or morality in general.

 

[AppieB]

That is true, it is not objective because I agree with it. It is objective because you can't argue against it.

That's in contradiction with an earlier statement of yours:

For example, no one wants something to be done to them, against their own will, therefore doing something against others will is objectively wrong, because everyone agrees with it.

 

[1213]

This is you acknowledging that morality is about making a proper argument. Not about mere obedience to a perceived authority.

I think morality can come by the two ways. But, the correct morality can always be argued correct, and it cannot be argued wrong.

 

[1213]

He is a thinking agent who is called "just".
That makes him a moral agent. Meaning he is morally accountable.

He is just, because he judges fairly.

My functioning brain.

And what makes it the authority that is correct?

We are talking about alternatives for things like infanticide and genocide.

Doesn't everyone die anyway? So, the problem for you must be in, how long person is allowed to live.

 

[1213]

Obvious examples are buying slaves from other nations (it is not known how they became slaves), blood slavery (if an israelite slave has children while being a slave, the children are automatically slaves as well) and prisoners of war (which doesn't count as "kidnapping").

I think kidnapping is, if person is taken against his will, in all cases.

 

[1213]

At least you seem to be acknolwedging that this idea isn't original to christianity or abrahamic religion at all.

It depends on what is original Christianity or Judaism. I think those essentially go to Adam and Eve and is original to those, meaning, it is not copied to those.

That makes no sense. It also shows your lack of honest reflection on what is being said.
I clearly stated it was about the social group. This means the "in-group". Outsiders often got (and still get) very different treatment.

Yeah, but if everyone would be insider, as I think they wanted, then everything would be fine.

This is why the bible, for example, had no issues at all with genocide of non-israelites. Like the massacre of amalakites and alike.
In fact, just look at the slavery rules of the old testament.

I don't think the reason was that they were outsiders. More likely it was because of the wrong things they did.

 

[1213]

What is your definition of "objective" and "subjective"?

Subjective = Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. If also the external world agrees, it is not subjective and can be seen as objective.

That's in contradiction with an earlier statement of yours:

Ok, sorry, I should have been more accurate. I meant, it is not objective only because I agree with it. It is objective, because all agree with it. And all agree with it, because no one can argue against it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Subjective = Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. If also the external world agrees, it is not subjective and can be seen as objective.

Ok, sorry, I should have been more accurate. I meant, it is not objective only because I agree with it. It is objective, because all agree with it. And all agree with it, because no one can argue against it.

It is still a contradiction, because of the effect of inter-subjective. If X is in all persons' minds and agreed upon it is still not in the external world. It is just share among more than one mind.
As for what is correct as far as arguing goes, that is subjective as it is in the mind(s).

 

[1213]

It is still a contradiction, because of the effect of inter-subjective. If X is in all persons' minds and agreed upon it is still not in the external world....

Ok, I think external world is everything outside ones own mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think morality can come by the two ways. But, the correct morality can always be argued correct, and it cannot be argued wrong.

IOW: no perceived authorities, like gods, required.

Things are right and wrong because of reasons, not because some god or other authority says so.

 

[AppieB]

Subjective = Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. If also the external world agrees, it is not subjective and can be seen as objective.

You were specifically talking about the idea's of people and what people want in regard of morality. Those are things from or taking place in a person's mind or depend on it. Therefore it is subjective.
The fact that people once agreed that the world was flat doesn't make it objectively true.
It also means you can have this type of morality without God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, I think external world is everything outside ones own mind.

Then I don't exist with my own mind, because your mind is the only mind. But that also works in the other direction, so you don't have a mind, because I am the only mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is just, because he judges fairly.

Does he? How do you know / conclude it to be so?

And what makes it the authority that is correct?

Being a moral agent doesn't make one an authority on morality.
Do you even know what a moral agent is?

It merely means that the entity in question has the capacity of moral reasoning and is therefor morally accountable for its actions and decisions.

Doesn't everyone die anyway? So, the problem for you must be in, how long person is allowed to live.

No. The problem is about how a person dies.
You do not recognize the difference between a 5-year old's execution by sticking a sword in its chest vs a 5-year old dying from an accident or desease or something?
Or that same 5-year old dying of old age years in the future because it wasn't executed by having a sword puncture its chest at 5?



To me, this is more bad faith argumentation on your part.
Off course you know the difference... this is just the macabre length you have to engage in to defend god-ordered, or god himself enaging in, genocide and infanticide in the bible.