• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is it so hard to explain a simple idea??

Tim the plumber said:
Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.
Click to expand...

The issue for me isn't whether atheists have morals, but rather if those morals always hold true. As an atheist, your morals entirely subjective. That means that what is moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa. Whereas with someone who's code of morals come from an external source doesn't have that problem. What is moral for me today will always be moral and what is immoral will always be immoral. I may not always follow that moral code, but it still consistently defines my morality.
 
X Factor said:
I'm aware of 2 types of atheists. One type is content in their non belief but also have no objections or place any value judgments on those who do believe and this is probably the majority. The other type have an affirmative belief that there is no God and this type will often preach their belief with all the religious fervor of any televangelist and be just as judgmental.

So which type are you?
Click to expand...

The second. But that is not the point of this thread.

Your inability to address the point of this thread is very strong evidence for exactly what I am talking about.
 
X Factor said:
I'm aware of 2 types of atheists. One type is content in their non belief but also have no objections or place any value judgments on those who do believe and this is probably the majority. The other type have an affirmative belief that there is no God and this type will often preach their belief with all the religious fervor of any televangelist and be just as judgmental.

So which type are you?
Click to expand...

I tend to lump them into 2 categories my self..... assholes... and cool ones.

I've never met an asshole atheist IRL, they all seem to be pretty cool.... but i've only run across a couple of cool atheists online, they all seem to be assholes.( some more than others)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Even if you don't explicitly call religious people "idiots" in debate with them, the fact that you hold such contempt for them is going to come out in how you speak to them. With this in mind, I suspect that one of the reasons you, in particular, get religious people telling you that atheists are immoral is because of your behavior. Admittedly, many religious people do have irrational anti-atheist bias, but you don't appear to be any better on that front.
Click to expand...

This is, unfortunately, true and it is extremely interesting how the extreme believers and the extreme anti theists sound very similar.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't think it does any good to be so inflammatory in the opening post when asking a question like this. However, that said, the reason why very religious people don't understand how you can have morality without God is that most very religious people are socially conservative. Social conservatism is an authoritarian ideology that does not accept that there can be any relativeness in morality. Its all black and white with them without any gray areas. Thus the notion that morality could exist without some controlling authority (an omniscient God) is antithetical to everything they believe.
Click to expand...

Yes, sure, but surely they must be able to actually get the idea that there are other sorts of people out there who don't think the same way.

Surely after 10 pages of people making the same point in every possible way they must have actually git it.

That's why we atheists think they are lying all the time. This refusal to understand a simple idea. ...and other stuff.
 
Thrilla said:
I tend to lump them into 2 categories my self..... assholes... and cool ones.

I've never met an asshole atheist IRL, they all seem to be pretty cool.... but i've only run across a couple of cool atheists online, they all seem to be assholes.( some more than others)
Click to expand...

Would you put Richard Dawkins in that category?
 
Thrilla said:
so you tell us you understand them, but your very own morals guide you to openly mocking and disparaging them?..... and you are wondering why the religious question your morals?

seriously?
Click to expand...

Have you read any of the other threads on here about such stuff?

It is the inability to actually take in any idea they don't like I find hard to fathom.

How insulting do you think it is to be told that you have no morals?
 
faithful_servant said:
The issue for me isn't whether atheists have morals, but rather if those morals always hold true. As an atheist, your morals entirely subjective. That means that what is moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa. Whereas with someone who's code of morals come from an external source doesn't have that problem. What is moral for me today will always be moral and what is immoral will always be immoral. I may not always follow that moral code, but it still consistently defines my morality.
Click to expand...

For an atheist morals basically arise from two principles and empathy:

1. Your right to live your life the way you choose to do so extends so far as to not impede another's ability to do the same.

If you steal from someone, kill them, or harm them in anyway, then you are violating that individuals right to live their life as they choose.

2. Actions involving more than one individual requires consent.

For example, if someone molests a child they are violating the first principle, and the second as that child cannot consent. If someone is needless harming an animal, they are violating the second principle as that animal cannot consent.

Empathy comes into play as one would always want to treat others in the same way they others to treat them.

So, no, they are not entirely subjective. One violates another's right to live their life as they choose by killing them. That was the case 10,000 years ago and it will still be the case 10,000 years from now.
 
Tim the plumber said:
That would be a different thread.

This one is about the inability of some to actually get the idea that other people can in fact have a moral code which is just as valid as theirs without their particular world view. I am sure they would have the same trouble with the Pope's as they do with mine.
Click to expand...

Very nice dodge there, Skippy. You can say, all day long, that you have a moral code but until you present it then it cannot be discussed or debated. You give yourself a lofty position and try to say that others are somehow inferior (weaker?) for adopting an existing religious "standard" yet is that any different than agreeing with your view of each person creating or having a different moral "standard"?

Until you define a specific moral code issue (like abortion, capital punishment or larceny) then no discussion of it is possible. Talking in general terms gets us nowhere - we must simply agree to disagree.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
For an atheist morals basically arise from two principles and empathy:

1. Your right to live your life the way you choose to do so extends so far as to not impede another's ability to do the same.

If you steal from someone, kill them, or harm them in anyway, then you are violating that individuals right to live their life as they choose.

2. Actions involving more than one individual requires consent.

For example, if someone molests a child they are violating the first principle, and the second as that child cannot consent. If someone is needless harming an animal, they are violating the second principle as that animal cannot consent.

Empathy comes into play as one would always want to treat others in the same way they treat themselves.

So, no, they are not entirely subjective. One violates another's right to live their life as they choose by killing them. That was the case 10,000 years ago and it will still be the case 10,000 years from now.
Click to expand...

They are entirely subjective. Take the example about someone molesting a child. There are people who think that that is a moral act. That teaching a child to be completely open sexually is a good thing. They chose to apply your SUBJECTIVE standard of not causing harm in a way that makes their immoral act a moral one. That's because they define the morality of act and not any external source.

Empathy is 100% purely subjective. You decide how that person wants to be treated and act on your choice of that person's desires.
 
faithful_servant said:
The issue for me isn't whether atheists have morals, but rather if those morals always hold true. As an atheist, your morals entirely subjective. That means that what is moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa. Whereas with someone who's code of morals come from an external source doesn't have that problem. What is moral for me today will always be moral and what is immoral will always be immoral. I may not always follow that moral code, but it still consistently defines my morality.
Click to expand...

Not so - as an example take Obama's position on SSM which has "evolved" yet he professes to be of the same religion. He must have either been wrong before or is wrong now - so which is it?
 
Tim the plumber said:
The second. But that is not the point of this thread.

Your inability to address the point of this thread is very strong evidence for exactly what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you explore your contempt for believers and in that, you'll have an answer to your question since you are exactly identical to what you're lamenting.

Oh, and since you think you know what all believers think, what is your hostile mind going to make of this?

X Factor said:
I'm a Christian. I've had more than my share of arguments with atheists here. Let me ask you, though, which is better? Being "good", "moral", "responsible" etc. for the sake of all those things or being those things because you were told to be? I think there are some things that are about as close to near universal truths as possible, murder is bad, taking care of your friends and neighbors is good and I don't think a belief in God is necessary to be a good person.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Very nice dodge there, Skippy. You can say, all day long, that you have a moral code but until you present it then it cannot be discussed or debated. You give yourself a lofty position and try to say that others are somehow inferior (weaker?) for adopting an existing religious "standard" yet is that any different than agreeing with your view of each person creating or having a different moral "standard"?

Until you define a specific moral code issue (like abortion, capital punishment or larceny) then no discussion of it is possible. Talking in general terms gets us nowhere - we must simply agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...heism-there-no-objective-morality-w-86-a.html

In the above thread is where you can have that discussion. It has not actually got anywhere. That's the point of this thread.

You are trying to get this thread off topic because you understand the significance of the practice of willful ignorance.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Have you read any of the other threads on here about such stuff?

It is the inability to actually take in any idea they don't like I find hard to fathom.

How insulting do you think it is to be told that you have no morals?
Click to expand...

i'd imagine it's pretty insulting to be told you have no morals...I know i'd be insulted.

my beef is that you don't have much of a standing to whine about it when you, yourself, are so very insulting to them.

ya see, I disagree with saying an atheist has no morals.. I think it's bull****....
it's not about disagreeing with you.. I don't... it's about not having a lick of sympathy for you.
 
X Factor said:
This is, unfortunately, true and it is extremely interesting how the extreme believers and the extreme anti theists sound very similar.
Click to expand...
It's always funny to me how the extreme members of both groups don't realize how similar they are. If they both just calmed down, there wouldn't be so much conflict.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Have you read any of the other threads on here about such stuff?

It is the inability to actually take in any idea they don't like I find hard to fathom.

How insulting do you think it is to be told that you have no morals?
Click to expand...

I've only read the first few responses from the thread "With Atheism There Is No Moral Objectivity," but I've read the ones from the thread I started, "There Is No God, No After Life Thus Live Life To The Fullest."

I don't know if anyone had said atheist have no morals. I never think that because that's not true. That is not what the first title (With atheism there's no moral objectivity) was saying at all. No.

What I've been saying (and perhaps some of my fellow-Christians are too) is that, belief in God is not a requirement to be good, or to have morals.

WE see a lot of atheists doing good deeds and having morals.

However, I'm saying that there won't be objective moral values if God doesn't exists.
That's the issue of the discussion(s).

I don't think any Christian posters here had said that atheists don't have, or can't have any morals.

So, you misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so - as an example take Obama's position on SSM which has "evolved" yet he professes to be of the same religion. He must have either been wrong before or is wrong now - so which is it?
Click to expand...

He's wrong now. He claims that he holds to a Christian moral code, by Biblical definitions, that makes his support of homosexuality an immoral act. SO, he chooses to apply a purely subjective moral standard that overrides the one he professes to follow. This is the problem with having a purely internal moral code, you get to change it at will, so that what is immoral today is moral tomorrow. Your example is great example of the point I'm trying to make.
 
Thrilla said:
I tend to lump them into 2 categories my self..... assholes... and cool ones.

I've never met an asshole atheist IRL, they all seem to be pretty cool.... but i've only run across a couple of cool atheists online, they all seem to be assholes.( some more than others)
Click to expand...

I think there are more "cool atheists" on line than there appears. Their lack of hostility is just not as immediately apparent and they probably don't consider their lack of belief to define who they are so they don't feel a constant need to let everyone know what they do and don't believe.
 
faithful_servant said:
They are entirely subjective. Take the example about someone molesting a child. There are people who think that that is a moral act. That teaching a child to be completely open sexually is a good thing. They chose to apply your SUBJECTIVE standard of not causing harm in a way that makes their immoral act a moral one. That's because they define the morality of act and not any external source.
Click to expand...

Actually no because a child, an animal, or someone mentally disabled is unable to consent.

Empathy is 100% purely subjective. You decide how that person wants to be treated and act on your choice of that person's desires.
Click to expand...

The fact is everything ultimately is purely subjective because everyone ultimately acts according to their conscience. I don't need a holy book to tell me not to do someone wrong, as if I do it weighs upon my conscience just the same. Similarly, even some the most devout Christians have committed some of the most unconscionable acts imaginable because of the human capacity for rationalization.

Think about it this way, at the time of the Hebrew prophets, these prophets were supposed to be getting direct instruction on how to conduct themselves and how God's people were to act from God himself. So by your reasoning, they should have been very moral people. Yet, if Moses were alive today, he would be indicted, tried, and almost certainly convicted of crimes against humanity and genocide. This simply based upon accounts in the OT itself.

Today crime rates are the lowest they have been in decades and instances of war and violence are the lowest they have been in generations if not ever (just because 24/7 news can show you more does not mean there is more of it), yet the world (particularly the developed world) is becoming less religious every day. That should tell you something. Back in the days when we were an extremely religious people in this country we committed genocide against Native Americans, had children working in sweatshops, enslaved Blacks and later the Chinese, and treated entire races and ethnic groups as second class citizens. By any measure, revealing clothes and internet pornography not withstanding , we are a safer and more moral nation today than ever before (that is unless you consider sex outside of marriage to be more immoral than slavery, Jim Crow, genocide, and child labor), yet we also less religious than ever.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
He's wrong now. He claims that he holds to a Christian moral code, by Biblical definitions, that makes his support of homosexuality an immoral act. SO, he chooses to apply a purely subjective moral standard that overrides the one he professes to follow. This is the problem with having a purely internal moral code, you get to change it at will, so that what is immoral today is moral tomorrow. Your example is great example of the point I'm trying to make.
Click to expand...

We are able to discuss this moral code issue now ONLY because we have a specific example of a moral issue AND a moral code (stance on that issue)- which is the point that I was trying to make. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so - as an example take Obama's position on SSM which has "evolved" yet he professes to be of the same religion. He must have either been wrong before or is wrong now - so which is it?
Click to expand...

"evolved" is another way of saying I "adjusted," or I "moved" the goal post (standard).

Relativism.
 
tosca1 said:
"evolved" is another way of saying I "adjusted," or I "moved" the goal post (standard).

Relativism.
Click to expand...

Yep, the "rule" appears to be that 180 degree position change is a "flip flop" if you are a republicant but is an "evolved position" if you are a demorat. ;)

Politicians tend to be for all three sides of a given issue and yet somewhat against it too.
 
Tim the plumber said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwdVD1gGDvA

Try watching that and come back.

It's interesting fun stuff. :)
Click to expand...

I didn't say I haven't seen his stuff... I said i've never run into him IRL or online..... i'e had no personal interaction with him

I think he's a damned fine evolutionary biologist... unfortunately, to me, he spends to much time being an evangelical atheist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom