Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it does make a difference if religion makes people worse or not.

I think it's quite obvious that depending on context, religion can do both.

And I don't think anyone on this forum will have to think more then 5 seconds to come up with at least one example of an instance where a religious belief made someone worse as it inspired / motivated them to commit monstrosities.

 

[shunyadragon]

But it does make a difference if religion makes people worse or not.

The history of ancient tribal religions is their laws and moral systems apply to within their tribe and those they control. Outside the tribe ancient laws of warfare, and moral and social exclusion and hostility hostility are the rule in history and today.

 

[1213]

That doesn't follow.
Morality not being universally absolute, like say the gravitational pull of earth, doesn't mean that the only alternative is therefor arbitrary personal opinion.

Having said that, there are right and wrong answers to moral questions - given we agree on a few simple starting points.

Such a starting point could for example be that we are going to care about well-being.
Given that starting point, would it be moral to chop my arm off just for your entertainment?

If it helps the well-being of those who watch? Sorry, I think without God, moral is just subjective opinion and everyone could have own and even show "good" reasons for it.

 

[1213]

An obvious one is indeed senseless killing as being very detrimental for group dynamics. This is why you will not find a single human tribe / society / civilization in the present, past and future, where no moral value is attached to senseless killing.

This is a behavior that simply can not be tolerated if the goal is for the group to survive and thrive.

Can any killing be called senseless? I think there is always some reason behind it, which makes is in a way sensible, even if the reasons are not good.

 

[1213]

No.

Why not?

From the point of view of Jawhe / the Israelites in the old testament, it was also morally good to do the exact same to the amalakites etc.

I don't think it can be called exact the same.

I can actually be consistent and present you with a reasonable argument against any form of genocide / ethnic cleansing - no matter the victims.

Ok, so, at the moment people murder vast amount of babies and call it abortion. That is the biggest genocide in the history of earth. Please, say a word against it.

 

[1213]

Because they identified as such.

So, you think it is fine, if person just identifies as something, even without the person even knowing what it means? If person would for example say he identifies as a cop, and then arrests you, it would be fine, even if he is not really a cop? I think it is ludicrous to think that words have no meanings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it helps the well-being of those who watch?

Answers like this tells me that you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith.

Sorry, I think without God, moral is just subjective opinion and everyone could have own and even show "good" reasons for it.

Yeah, and your way to defend that is to pretend as if you can't provide a simple reasonable argument that requires no appeal to your "god" authority for why it wouldn't be moral to chop my arm off for sheer entertainment purposes.

Excuse me while I can't take you seriously when you say such things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can any killing be called senseless? I think there is always some reason behind it, which makes is in a way sensible, even if the reasons are not good.

More bad faith argumentation, pretending to not understand the point being made.

It is very telling that you need to resort to this kind of "debate" in order to defend your position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why not?

Because if the world "morality" is going to mean anything, you are going to have to justify your moral judgement with a reasonable argument.
Just like if the word "healthy" is going to mean anything, you are going to have to justify your judgement of labeling someone as "sick".
It can not be "anything".

I don't think it can be called exact the same.

Why not?

Ok, so, at the moment people murder vast amount of babies and call it abortion. That is the biggest genocide in the history of earth. Please, say a word against it.

More bad faith argumentation. Regardless of my position on that, you know very well that that debate concerns controversy about if a zygote is a "baby" or not and concerning the rights of women vs the rights of a lump of cells in their womb.

If you wish to compare that to the massacring of actual born babies, toddlers, women, men, elders,... and literally everything else that "breaths", go right ahead.
But just like before, I can not take you seriously and only conclude that this is another sign of how you really actually know that your position on morality isn't worth anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, you think it is fine, if person just identifies as something, even without the person even knowing what it means?

They think they know what it means, just like you think you know what it means. You just don't agree with each other.
It's like protestants vs catholics. Neither thinks the other are "real christians (tm)"
Or sunni's vs shiites. Neither thinks the other are "real muslims (tm)".

It's just a no-true-scottsman.
They identify as such and are sincere in their beliefs. That you don't agree with them is just that... you not agreeing with them. They don't agree with you either.

If person would for example say he identifies as a cop, and then arrests you, it would be fine, even if he is not really a cop?

And again with the bad faith argumentation.
A cop is someone with a badge and an official license provided by an official government-mandated organization. It is not a matter of what you "believe".

To compare that with being a follower / believer of a religion, or denomination thereof, is beyond ridiculous.

I think it is ludicrous to think that words have no meanings.

It's even more ridiculous to ignore that there are many different denominations and sects within certain religions.
And that even within the same sects / denominations, there will also be different sincere interpretations and disagreements about said religions.

 

[1213]

Answers like this tells me that you are engaging in this discussion in bad faith.

Sounds like no true Scotsman argument.

Excuse me while I can't take you seriously when you say such things.

It is interesting that you seem to think your moral is universal and people would not have unreasonable morals because you think you don't have.

I think there is many people that show they can have unreasonable morals. But, most of them think their morals is reasonable. Without God, they always are subjective opinions. Or what do you think, who is right, a person who is against aborting babies, or person who supports it? How can we determine who is right?

 

[1213]

Why not?

For example I believe there was a different reason and justification. Doesn't necessary mean it was good, only that it was different, which makes it not the exact same.

More bad faith argumentation. Regardless of my position on that, you know very well that that debate concerns controversy about if a zygote is a "baby" or not and concerning the rights of women vs the rights of a lump of cells in their womb.

Yes, and that is how all genocides can be justified, it is enough to just dehumanize the murdered people and then "it is fine". But, instead of justifying it, I expected you to have a word against it. Apparently it was not possible for you.

 

[1213]

They think they know what it means, just like you think you know what it means.

No, I think Jesus is the right person to say who are real Christians (disciples of Jesus). Why should someone else be better to say it?

 

[McBell]

No, I think Jesus is the right person to say who are real Christians (disciples of Jesus). Why should someone else be better to say it?

I do not know why you think you can determine who is and who is not a Christian™

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sounds like no true Scotsman argument.

????

Sounds like you don't know what a no-true-scotsman argument is, as that made no sense whatsoever.

It is interesting that you seem to think your moral is universal and people would not have unreasonable morals because you think you don't have.

My morals are based on reason.
So are yours if you are honest about it.
You don't actually require a god to tell you that it is immoral to chop limbs off of people merely for entertainment purposes.
You can easily come up with a reasonable argument for why that is the case

If however you can not come up with a single reason for why such is immoral aside from having a god to tell you that it is... then you have much bigger problems.

I think there is many people that show they can have unreasonable morals.

Sure. And mere obedience to perceived authority, is not a cure for that.
As the saying goes: good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

But, most of them think their morals is reasonable. Without God, they always are subjective opinions. Or what do you think, who is right, a person who is against aborting babies, or person who supports it? How can we determine who is right?

Reason determines it. That's why we can conclude that slavery is bad, even when a god thinks it is fine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example I believe there was a different reason and justification. Doesn't necessary mean it was good, only that it was different, which makes it not the exact same.

Please tell... what possible reason or justification would morally justify engaging in genocide?

Yes, and that is how all genocides can be justified,

No.
I can assure you that not a single nazi would argue that jews weren't humans.

it is enough to just dehumanize the murdered people and then "it is fine". But, instead of justifying it, I expected you to have a word against it. Apparently it was not possible for you.

Because it's a bad faith comparison and you know it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I think Jesus is the right person to say who are real Christians (disciples of Jesus). Why should someone else be better to say it?

And you have a different opinion concerning what jesus meant then those other christians.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it wouldn't matter if they did, they would still be sent to Hell.

 

[Muffled]

What do you see as the difference between moral an ethical behavior?

What I've read is that moral behavior is personal standards of right and wrong whereas ethical behavior is group standards of what is right and wrong although I suspect there is some crossover.

I believe morals are what people in general hold and ethics are a body of believers hold. I believe a person ca nhold to a moral or ethical code or some of both. I was told a groom could not wear white but I did anyway. I broke a cultural moral code.

 

[Muffled]

I would pit my moral standards against yours any day of the week

I am sure that you would be fine in your own eyes but what if God were your judge?