Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bumble Bee Tuna · 10-31-2002, 05:53 PM

The problem here is that you assume that because atheists might come up with similar morals to theists, they must be based on theistic morals. Not the case.

All morals, religious and otherwise, are man-made. The theistic ones are made up by the writers of the Bible. So what made them pick the morals they did? They picked morals that they thought would make society run smoother and please their personal preferences.

Atheists are more capable today of picking good sets of morals than the writers of the Bible. They will not just assimilate religious morals. They will make their own. Some will be the same (Don't murder) because murder has not changed to somehow make society work better since Biblical times. Some (Don't have sex before marriage) will no longer be in effect because we have birth control now.

Morals in an atheist society will be based on logic and reason, just like anything else an atheist does.

And yes, the US is a secular state, and the "morals" of our government are mainly based on John Locke and his argument about natural rights and the social contract, which works just fine without inserting God into the midst.

[nitpicky]Also, the thing about religious tests for office is not an amendment. I believe it's in Section I, but seeing as this is nitpicky mode I probably shouldn't say that because I'm not sure.[/nitpicky]

-B

DigitalDruid · 10-31-2002, 07:39 PM

Zentraedi,

Sometimes the truth is not for the good.

Do I take that to mean that you think atheism is true but may not be for the good? Other posts have addressed your concern about the goodness of atheism. I�d just comment on what seems to be your overriding concern - that of atheistic morality:

Religion digs deep into your logic. How would your morals work in a non-religious society? You�d probably base them off the ones you already know of. (Formally religious-based ones)

If you have ever been a student of philosophy you would know that there are entire systems of ethics that do not depend on the supernatural: Platonic, Aristotelian, Hedonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, Kantian, etc. All of theses ethical systems derive from our common humanity : our natural compassion and our innate sense of fairness.

Also, let me ask you: if some one offers you a glass of water when you are thirsty, do you infer that the person must be a theist? If not, the compassion that you see in the atheist came from his humanity not from a supernatural source.

Zentraedi · 11-01-2002, 05:33 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna:
The problem here is that you assume that because atheists might come up with similar morals to theists, they must be based on theistic morals. Not the case.

I'm saying that a good amount of atheist are using the moral code of their religious society. I then stated that if an atheist had their own society unaffected by the current religions, the outcome may not be to their liking.

All morals, religious and otherwise, are man-made. The theistic ones are made up by the writers of the Bible. So what made them pick the morals they did? They picked morals that they thought would make society run smoother and please their personal preferences.

Today's religions are what helped to make society on a complex scale run smoothly. So I agree, with what you stated.

Atheists are more capable today of picking good sets of morals than the writers of the Bible. They will not just assimilate religious morals. They will make their own. Some will be the same (Don't murder) because murder has not changed to somehow make society work better since Biblical times. Some (Don't have sex before marriage) will no longer be in effect because we have birth control now.

Yes, it is true to say that atheist are assimilating religious morals and creating their own.

Morals in an atheist society will be based on logic and reason, just like anything else an atheist does.

It could be based on cannibalism. I don't think that's reasonable.

And yes, the US is a secular state, and the "morals" of our government are mainly based on John Locke and his argument about natural rights and the social contract, which works just fine without inserting God into the midst.

What you believe has an influence from religious beliefs.

Zentraedi · 11-01-2002, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
<strong>

"the unknown" is something that cannot be known.

But, that is not "the unknown" because all you have to do is look and you know. I fear a car coming at 80mph, I do NOT fear not knowing whether a car is coming.</strong>

Ok, you are minding your own business when a pitch black 'portal' of somekind appears before you. It is in a shape of a circle and big enough for you to step through. Would you step through to see what is on the otherside or would you have reservations about it?

Mageth · 11-01-2002, 05:41 AM

Bumble Bee Tuna:

[nitpicky]Also, the thing about religious tests for office is not an amendment. I believe it's in Section I, but seeing as this is nitpicky mode I probably shouldn't say that because I'm not sure.[/nitpicky]

I think you're right as to it not being in an amendment, as I did a cursory search of the amendments and couldn't find it. (don't worry about the "nitpicky" part - I don't mind being corrected.)

Mageth · 11-01-2002, 05:45 AM

It could be based on cannibalism. I don't think that's reasonable.

If the atheist society was based on logic and reason, and cannibalism is not "reaasonable" (

), then the atheist society wouldn't be based on cannibalism, would it?

Mageth · 11-01-2002, 05:51 AM

Ok, you are minding your own business when a pitch black 'portal' of somekind appears before you. It is in a shape of a circle and big enough for you to step through. Would you step through to see what is on the otherside or would you have reservations about it?

How would I know what I was seeing was a "portal?"

Zentraedi · 11-01-2002, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peteyh:
<strong>Is there a FAQ on this site for theist trolls?

Every few weeks there seems to be another guy asking the exact same questions. It would be a lot easier to just point them towards that than bother to respond to the same ignorant rants time and time again.</strong>

LOL, I'm non-religious. I am not a theist or an atheist. I am not agnostic, the existance of a god may be attainable. I think it may be possible to determine the existence of a god, but not at this point in time. You assume too much. Anyone have an 'ism' for such beliefs? Who else here falls into the same category?

I believe that it's not logical to disbelieve the possibilty of god(s). To say "god does not exist", is an ignorant statement, especially if you are scientific-minded.

There has never been 'hard' evidence for or against a god(s) existence, therefore I will not make judgement.

Something that you have never sensed, may exist. To state something does not exist without proof, is no more useful to aquiring knowledge then stating something exists without proof. Such thinking does not promote further investigation.

K · 11-01-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Ok, you are minding your own business when a pitch black 'portal' of somekind appears before you. It is in a shape of a circle and big enough for you to step through. Would you step through to see what is on the otherside or would you have reservations about it?

If the same thing happened to you, would you wait for scientists to investigate it and try to determine exactly what it was? Or would you just pray for guidance to determine whether or not you should jump into it?

Why should not having fear of the unknown prevent you from investigating things before you make decisions? Do you do everything that you're not afraid to do?

Zentraedi · 11-01-2002, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:

Or, if the Bible is supposed to be the source of morality in Christian America, where did we get the idea to abolish slavery, since the Bible condones slavery?

Where do you get your morals from? I can not speak for everyone, do the math yourself. Are you not in a society with religious beliefs?

I know I am in a society with an influence on christian beliefs. I am not a Christian, but yet I hold a lot of the same moral code as a Christian. Why? If I was in a cannibalistic society, couldn't it be possible that I would be feeding off human flesh?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 05:53 PM	#61
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	The problem here is that you assume that because atheists might come up with similar morals to theists, they must be based on theistic morals. Not the case. All morals, religious and otherwise, are man-made. The theistic ones are made up by the writers of the Bible. So what made them pick the morals they did? They picked morals that they thought would make society run smoother and please their personal preferences. Atheists are more capable today of picking good sets of morals than the writers of the Bible. They will not just assimilate religious morals. They will make their own. Some will be the same (Don't murder) because murder has not changed to somehow make society work better since Biblical times. Some (Don't have sex before marriage) will no longer be in effect because we have birth control now. Morals in an atheist society will be based on logic and reason, just like anything else an atheist does. And yes, the US is a secular state, and the "morals" of our government are mainly based on John Locke and his argument about natural rights and the social contract, which works just fine without inserting God into the midst. [nitpicky]Also, the thing about religious tests for office is not an amendment. I believe it's in Section I, but seeing as this is nitpicky mode I probably shouldn't say that because I'm not sure.[/nitpicky] -B

10-31-2002, 07:39 PM	#62
DigitalDruid Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 712	Zentraedi, Sometimes the truth is not for the good. Do I take that to mean that you think atheism is true but may not be for the good? Other posts have addressed your concern about the goodness of atheism. I�d just comment on what seems to be your overriding concern - that of atheistic morality: Religion digs deep into your logic. How would your morals work in a non-religious society? You�d probably base them off the ones you already know of. (Formally religious-based ones) If you have ever been a student of philosophy you would know that there are entire systems of ethics that do not depend on the supernatural: Platonic, Aristotelian, Hedonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, Utilitarianism, Kantian, etc. All of theses ethical systems derive from our common humanity : our natural compassion and our innate sense of fairness. Also, let me ask you: if some one offers you a glass of water when you are thirsty, do you infer that the person must be a theist? If not, the compassion that you see in the atheist came from his humanity not from a supernatural source.

11-01-2002, 05:33 AM	#63
Zentraedi Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Anytown, USA Posts: 103	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna: The problem here is that you assume that because atheists might come up with similar morals to theists, they must be based on theistic morals. Not the case. I'm saying that a good amount of atheist are using the moral code of their religious society. I then stated that if an atheist had their own society unaffected by the current religions, the outcome may not be to their liking. All morals, religious and otherwise, are man-made. The theistic ones are made up by the writers of the Bible. So what made them pick the morals they did? They picked morals that they thought would make society run smoother and please their personal preferences. Today's religions are what helped to make society on a complex scale run smoothly. So I agree, with what you stated. Atheists are more capable today of picking good sets of morals than the writers of the Bible. They will not just assimilate religious morals. They will make their own. Some will be the same (Don't murder) because murder has not changed to somehow make society work better since Biblical times. Some (Don't have sex before marriage) will no longer be in effect because we have birth control now. Yes, it is true to say that atheist are assimilating religious morals and creating their own. Morals in an atheist society will be based on logic and reason, just like anything else an atheist does. It could be based on cannibalism. I don't think that's reasonable. And yes, the US is a secular state, and the "morals" of our government are mainly based on John Locke and his argument about natural rights and the social contract, which works just fine without inserting God into the midst. What you believe has an influence from religious beliefs.

11-01-2002, 05:41 AM	#65
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Bumble Bee Tuna: [nitpicky]Also, the thing about religious tests for office is not an amendment. I believe it's in Section I, but seeing as this is nitpicky mode I probably shouldn't say that because I'm not sure.[/nitpicky] I think you're right as to it not being in an amendment, as I did a cursory search of the amendments and couldn't find it. (don't worry about the "nitpicky" part - I don't mind being corrected.)

11-01-2002, 05:45 AM	#66
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	It could be based on cannibalism. I don't think that's reasonable. If the atheist society was based on logic and reason, and cannibalism is not "reaasonable" ( ), then the atheist society wouldn't be based on cannibalism, would it?

11-01-2002, 05:51 AM	#67
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Ok, you are minding your own business when a pitch black 'portal' of somekind appears before you. It is in a shape of a circle and big enough for you to step through. Would you step through to see what is on the otherside or would you have reservations about it? How would I know what I was seeing was a "portal?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.