Morality: Do you agree

[Trailblazer]

If morality depended exclusively on religion, religious people would never do bad things.

Religious people do bad things because they don't follow the laws of God.

 

[Polymath257]

Mmmh. I disagree.

The logical way to explain the existence of order in a universe that supposedly arose on its own is that there was a hand behind its raise, ordering everything. That's the logical way to explain it to someone who doesn't have a preconceived idea about the non/existence of a Designer of the universe.

I would strongly disagree. To have a 'hand' requires there already be a lot of order. So that does not explain the existence of order.

Instead, having order and structure as an inherent part of things is much more reasonable in my estimate.

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist can deny they believe in God, but they cannot deny they know of Him

Please don't dictate what an atheist does or doesn't believe it really quite immoral to paint your views on another person, particularly when it seems you know very little about atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I agree with this since I believe God sets the standards for human morality by revealing laws through the Messengers of God.

So what about all the immoral and amoral laws?

 

[Eli G]

You can ask the same of theists.
This is not an argument.

That is truth ... that depends on how much the one who claims to worship Him really respects God. Some of us take biblical principles very seriously, like we, Jehovah's witnesses.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Objective morality means you need an objective manner to define "good" and "bad".
Referring to a god's opinions of those, is not that.

Agreed.

 

[Eli G]

Longer is not the same as forever.

I cannot even imagine conditions that would make living forever anything but pure torture. Anything past a few tens of millions of years would get brutal.

Well, you are just you.

Some millionaires are devoting a great part of their fortunes to discover a way to prolong life. And most people get very happy when they listen some news about it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Please don't dictate what an atheist does or doesn't believe it really quite immoral to paint your views on another person, particularly when it seems you know very little about atheism.

pfft are you being prickly because you have evidence to the contrary or because you wish to put your head in the sand and ignore the "lit firecracker" in your back pocket?

The point remains...atheists cannot deny they know of God. I will challenge anyone to go throughout their local community and run a survey...even in non Christian countries...by far the majority of individuals know exactly how to define God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If not from God, where would objective morality come from?

From the definition of the words "moral" and "immoral".

Moral = that which increases well-being / decreases suffering
immoral = that which does the opposite
amoral = that which does neither.


It's not hard.
From there, moral reasoning can be done in pretty objective fashion.
Meaning that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
No god required. In fact..... "divine command theory" isn't morality at all. It's just mere obedience to perceived authority.

If not God's laws, what makes something morally wrong?

How it affects the well-being and suffering of sentient creatures.

If you are going to disagree that morality pertains to well-being of sentient creatures, then I don't know what you are referring to when you use the term.

 

[Trailblazer]

It also begs the question why anyone would *want* to live on Earth forever.

I certainly would not want to live on earth forever, but nobody is going to live on earth forever, whether they *want* to or not.

 

[Eli G]

I would strongly disagree. To have a 'hand' requires there already be a lot of order. So that does not explain the existence of order.

Instead, having order and structure as an inherent part of things is much more reasonable in my estimate.

We only knows one planet like ours, and it is our planet. That is enough to me; I am a very realistic person; not one who like to argue about things so easy to realize.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are aware that life exists. No scientist seems to be able to explain its origin.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Well, when people were more religious a few years ago (like before 1914), was the world better or worse than now?

Worse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If not God's opinions, then what determines what is good and bad?

Well-being and suffering and how they are affected by the act in question.

 

[Polymath257]

No one wants adults to corrupt their children. In many countries, the corrupters of minors and those who abuse them are condemned. This morbid desire to expose oneself publicly is obviously an unhealthy desire of some people who have lost their sense of decency. They want to impose their own views on sexual matters and other liberties that they take on others.

I disagree. First, nudity does not automatically imply anything sexual. It has nothing to do with corrupting children. If anything, it helps them to be more comfortable with their bodies and to be happier and healthier their whole lives.

Yes, those that abuse children should be condemned. But I see religion as being more abusive than nudity.

Everyone knows that if sex is not controlled, societies get sick and can disappear as a result of contagion of all kinds of diseases.

I call garbage. Sexually transmitted diseases do not lead to the extinction of societies, even at their worst. And, in modern times, we have learned how to treat many of those diseases (like we have others).

For me in particular, I would like to live in a world where the innocence of children is respected and in which they can naturally arrive at the moment for everything that their own bodies will tell them and not because some sexual pervert talked to them about sex, touched them inappropriately, or showed them things they weren't supposed to see at their age.

And part of the innocence of children is that they see nothing wrong with nudity. Again, nudity in no way implies sexuality.

Yes, please condemn those that abuse children. You will find far more religious perpetrators than non-religious ones for these crimes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is truth ... that depends on how much the one who claims to worship Him really respects God. Some of us take biblical principles very seriously, like we, Jehovah's witnesses.

I know.
The result is much immorality that JW see as pious and moral.

That's the tragedy.

 

[ChristineM]

pfft are you being prickly because you have evidence to the contrary or because you wish to put your head in the sand and ignore the "lit firecracker" in your back pocket?

The point remains...atheists cannot deny they know of God. I will challenge anyone to go throughout their local community and run a survey...even in non Christian countries...by far the majority of individuals know exactly how to define God.

"pfft" well that eas expected

I know there is no god, so how can i know what doesn't exist.

Challenge accepted every person i know who believes in god will describe god differently, its one of the reasons (there are many others) why i say there is no gof

 

[Polymath257]

Easy to say ... not that easy to demonstrate. How can the idea of guilt for harming another arise in an animal?

Well, we see a sense of fairness in some species of monkeys. We see social structures in some species of apes. We see guilt for behavior in many species.

Social animals have rules of conduct that are appropriate for their species. They have evolved to get along based on their biology. So have we.

 

[Eli G]

So? What does that have to do with anything?

That was part of an answer that I did not complete. It has to do with and old post about discovering things without knowing the why they exist ...

Worse

I disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree.

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, when people were more religious a few years ago (like before 1914), was the world better or worse than now?

Worse in many objective ways. From infant mortality, to the chance of dying by violence, we are *by far* better off now than almost any time in history.