• 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??

If you say "sky daddy" is this not baiting christians? And muslims? And Jews? May as well call them stupid.
 
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...

More Than that, without a solid basis, one's “morals” can mean whatever the individuals wants them to mean, which, ultimately, means that they mean nothing at all.

My moral code solidly tells me that it is wrong to steal, wrong to cheat on my wife, wrong to commit false witness against another, and so on.

I don't get to alter my moral code, in order to comply with my desires. If I choose to do something that my moral code says is wrong, then I have to face the fact that I am choosing to do something that is wrong.

Someone who goes my a “relativistic moral code” can decide that since he wants to cheat on his wife, he can alter his code to allow it. He's still wrong for cheating on his wife, but he gets to lie to himself and tell himself he's doing nothing wrong.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
When you use the term “sky daddy” in that manner, you make it clear that you are only interested in mocking those of us who believe in God, and demonstrating your own willful ignorance and disrespect.

It is highly ironic, of course, although not at all uncommon, for atheists to make a big deal about how ignorant and foolish those of us who believe in God are for so believing, while at the same time, demonstrating their own ignorance and folly.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bob, you took the words right out of my mouth.
 
I think the main problem is that neither side can ever prove they are 100% right. Because neither side can empirically win the debate, extremist prefer to insult each other (ex: OP).

About morals, I think religion can certainly lead you to be a more moral person but religion is certainly not NECESSARY in order to have a solid moral foundation. If religions such as Christianity has such a strict moral code, then how come there are so many different moral views in Christianity? I'm not trying to diss religion at all I'm judging proving that religion does not give you an automatic moral code that is indisputable.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually no because a child, an animal, or someone mentally disabled is unable to consent.



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.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING is purely subjective??? Please tell me that you have nothing to do with teaching or using math.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually no because a child, an animal, or someone mentally disabled is unable to consent.



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.
Click to expand...

Trying to shift the discussion away from the OP isn't going to help.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Try not using sky daddy, or some similar mocking insult, and explain why your definition of a moral code beats that of say the pope. ;)
Click to expand...

My moral code is demonstrably better than that of the Christian Skydaddy (I capitalised it to show the appropriate respect).
 
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...

Yeah, them Atheists are fine while they sit in the corner and just do what religious folks tell them. It's when they become all uppity and start reasoning that some parity in society might be appropriate that I can't stand them. :roll:
 
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...

Except that you don't have an objective revealed morality to work from and I suggest that what you mean to say is that it consistently agrees with your morality, not that it defines it.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
More Than that, without a solid basis, one's “morals” can mean whatever the individuals wants them to mean, which, ultimately, means that they mean nothing at all.

My moral code solidly tells me that it is wrong to steal, wrong to cheat on my wife, wrong to commit false witness against another, and so on.

I don't get to alter my moral code, in order to comply with my desires. If I choose to do something that my moral code says is wrong, then I have to face the fact that I am choosing to do something that is wrong.

Someone who goes my a “relativistic moral code” can decide that since he wants to cheat on his wife, he can alter his code to allow it. He's still wrong for cheating on his wife, but he gets to lie to himself and tell himself he's doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

You're trying to pretend like you have an objective moral standard when you don't. There are thousands of christian denominations with thousands of different interpretations and every single believer interprets scripture and applies it to his own moral code differently. These differences can be subtle or extremely dramatic. The point of the OP was to call attention to the fact that many christians, especially on this forum, seem to think that they're the only ones who could possibly have a moral code and everyone else is just a bunch of hedonist savages about an inch away from raping and murdering everyone.

It's hyperbole. What you should be asking yourself is "Seeing as how atheists really don't believe in a cosmic consequence for their actions, why are they mostly pretty moral, law-abiding normal citizens?". The bible, for instance, implies that slavery is sometimes justified, while my personal moral code is that it never is.

faithful_servant said:
EVERYTHING is purely subjective??? Please tell me that you have nothing to do with teaching or using math.
Click to expand...

EVERYTHING is subjective, to include your moral code. You interpret the world around you and process it in your own way. This is especially relevant when christians pick and choose which biblical scriptures fit with their own moral principles and which were just "metaphors" or "no longer relevant".
 
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...

The Overton Window of belief is skewed towards belief as the default, until that is rectified I reject this argument, point blank.
 
Tim the plumber said:
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.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, after explaining it comprehensively, so many times there comes a point where you can only conclude wilful ignorance or deceit.
 
X Factor said:
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?
Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
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...
Click to expand...

My open mind is able to see that you are not one of those who is unable to see the argument that atheists have morals but you are unable to see that there are some religious people who are so unable.
 
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...
Religion is a meme. As a meme, the most successful religions are those which are easily remembered, often brought back to mind, are expressed through behavior, and can be passed on.

Atheism is not a meme, and so it can't infect like a meme, isn't brought back to mind all the time, is not expressed through behavior (atheists don't have to 'practice atheism' while believers often have to prey or tithe or attend mass, etc). Finally, a lack of meme isn't something which can be passed on.

You have to replace their meme with a better meme. Jesus let himself be crucified so his meme would succeed, what sacrifices are you willing to make for yours?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

The complacency of the fallacy of the middle way. This is as fundamental as any battle to establish parity in an entitlement culture where one side has the comfort of practical political and cultural establishment and the other doesn't and just doesn't seem to know it's place.
 
tosca1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that thread it has been pointed out to you endlessly that basing your moral code on the ideas of ethics, maximum good for maximum people etc, have a logical basis. That is something lacking in any behavioral code based on a book where genocide is often done due to "the orders of God".

Your persistence in not taking this on board at all is the inspiration for this thread.

Your reply above is the most (as far as I am aware) progress in terms of moving that debate forward you have made. I have to ask ;why? The answer that comes to mind is that it is now convenient for you to slightly change your position.
 
HW22 said:
I think the main problem is that neither side can ever prove they are 100% right. Because neither side can empirically win the debate, extremist prefer to insult each other (ex: OP).

About morals, I think religion can certainly lead you to be a more moral person but religion is certainly not NECESSARY in order to have a solid moral foundation. If religions such as Christianity has such a strict moral code, then how come there are so many different moral views in Christianity? I'm not trying to diss religion at all I'm judging proving that religion does not give you an automatic moral code that is indisputable.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what this thread is about.

This above post has missed the whole point of this thread. It would be spot on topic in either of the other threads on morals which are on the go but here it is just not taking on board the idea of the thread.
 
Jerry said:
Religion is a meme. As a meme, the most successful religions are those which are easily remembered, often brought back to mind, are expressed through behavior, and can be passed on.

Atheism is not a meme, and so it can't infect like a meme, isn't brought back to mind all the time, is not expressed through behavior (atheists don't have to 'practice atheism' while believers often have to prey or tithe or attend mass, etc). Finally, a lack of meme isn't something which can be passed on.

You have to replace their meme with a better meme. Jesus let himself be crucified so his meme would succeed, what sacrifices are you willing to make for yours?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Atheism is just as much a mean as anything else. The whole "Don't take anybody's word for it." approach of the British Industrial Enlightenment is certainly a mean. I have met a few atheists who were once Christian and the process of them becoming not Christian was very much the exposure to people who think openly and ask questions.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I disagree. Atheism is just as much a mean as anything else. The whole "Don't take anybody's word for it." approach of the British Industrial Enlightenment is certainly a mean. I have met a few atheists who were once Christian and the process of them becoming not Christian was very much the exposure to people who think openly and ask questions.
Click to expand...
Meme.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. A lack of something is not a something. You're having a hard time with believers because you're fighting a meme with just not having any meme at all. That never wins. You need a better meme, you need to bring a cohesive philosophical body to bear or you will keep losing. Your best bet, as an atheist, is to bring Humanism.
 
Jerry said:
Meme.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. A lack of something is not a something. You're having a hard time with believers because you're fighting a meme with just not having any meme at all. That never wins. You need a better meme, you need to bring a cohesive philosophical body to bear or you will keep losing. Your best bet, as an atheist, is to bring Humanism.
Click to expand...

The lack of something is a something even that is only a vacuum between the ears. ;)
 
Jerry said:
Meme.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. A lack of something is not a something. You're having a hard time with believers because you're fighting a meme with just not having any meme at all. That never wins. You need a better meme, you need to bring a cohesive philosophical body to bear or you will keep losing. Your best bet, as an atheist, is to bring Humanism.
Click to expand...

If that is the case why is the proportion of atheists increasing in the general population whilst the numbers who have ever heard of humanism let alone know what it is are tiny?
 
Tim the plumber said:
If that is the case why is the proportion of atheists increasing in the general population whilst the numbers who have ever heard of humanism let alone know what it is are tiny?
Click to expand...
My comments regarded winning online debate. I have no comment about population flux.
 
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...

1. No one believes in a "sky daddy" almost all abrahamic theorists believe God is transcendant i.e. not in Space or time, i.e. not in a sky.

2. No we dont' believe you are incapable of having any morals, but what you are incapable of doing is rationally grounding any objective morality.

The simple idea is not hard to explain, it's just that clearly you don't understand what theists are arguing for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom