Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Breezy
I disagree
What you qualify as "cheating" may very well not be. That being said, just because others cheat isn't an excuse to cheat.
@Live3L
Why shouldn't you cheat? If by cheating or indulging in anything that is supposedly "unethical" you can further your comforts or pleasures in life, then why not? After all we have got just this life to live. It only makes sense that you do whatever you can to maximize pleasures in that little time you've got. Unless of course, you are a believer who has to fear a day of reckoning when you will be made to account for your deeds.
@ROYISM: "Unless of course, you are a believer who has to fear a day of reckoning when you will be made to account for your deeds."
If fear of punishment is your only reason for avoiding wrong actions, you have no morality. Even a dog will avoid doing bad things if it's trained with rewards and punishments.
@Algebe
Then what is morality? Can you tell me why you would help a poor man in need?
@ROYISM: "Can you tell me why you would help a poor man in need?"
Why would you? Would you help that poor man without the hope of heavenly reward or fear of punishment? Would you help even if you thought no one would ever know about your good deed?
That's one definition of morality: Doing the right thing without any expectation of reward or recognition, or fear of punishment.
@Algebe
You said: That's one definition of morality: Doing the right thing without any expectation of reward or recognition, or fear of punishment.
That's just tautology. I asked you to explain what you mean by morality and you have simply substituted the word 'morality' with 'right'. Therefore, I am impelled to ask you, "what is right?"
@ROYISM: "what is right?"
Treating others as I want to be treated. How do you define it?
@Algebe
You said: “Treating others as I want to be treated. How do you define it?”
So, does that mean your morality includes only human beings? Because we kill and eat animals, although we wouldn’t want to be treated like that. So, why do you think human life is more sacred than animal life, if not for your subjective human-centric view? That still leaves your definition of right hanging in the air.
ROYISM: "So, does that mean your morality includes only human beings?"
Who appointed you to be the inquisitor here? I asked you how you define what's right. Answer that question before you ask another one. I won't be interrogated.
@Algebe
You said: “Who appointed you to be the inquisitor here? I asked you how you define what's right. Answer that question before you ask another one. I won't be interrogated.”
Whatever god said is right is right for me. But I am not trying to interrogate you, just trying to understand your standard for judging right. If you say it’s treating others the way you want to be treated, then I am asking why you don’t stick to that dictum in the case of animals.
And here is another example. If I came and told you that you are hurting me by speaking against religion, would you stop doing that? If no, why do you hurt others although you wouldn’t want to be hurt by others?
@ROYISM: "Whatever god said is right for me."
Which god, and when and how did it tell you what's right? Throughout history people have done all kinds of evil because they thought god was talking to them.
"If I came and told you that you are hurting me by speaking against religion"
If we were in a public space or on this forum, I would ask you to respect my freedom of speech. You have three choices: refute my arguments, endure what I say in silence, or go away. Nobody has the right not to be offended. But if we were on your property, I would respect your wishes and leave.
"Why you don’t stick to that dictum in the case of animals"
It's called nature. All living things are part of food chains. That's how we live. It's not something I can change or control. My only moral views concerning animals are that they should not be killed for sport, and that they should be killed humanely. What does your god say about eating animals?
@Algebe
You said: “Which god, and when and how did it tell you what's right?”
This is a subject of a lengthy discussion. I can refer you to a discussion I had on this subject in this forum, if you are interested. The short of it is like this: I study my scripture and find in it evidence for divine authorship based on scientific, historical, linguistic features. Once I am convinced of its divine origins, I take all its moral precepts without question.
You said: “If we were in a public space or on this forum, I would ask you to respect my freedom of speech.”
Why should your freedom of speech be more important than my hurt?
You said: “You have three choices: refute my arguments, endure what I say in silence, or go away.”
You are talking about etiquettes of a debate. I am asking about the moral basis on which you feel hurting me in this fashion is okay.
You said: “It's called nature. All living things are part of food chains.”
And cannibals felt so about people from alien tribes… so cannibals would be justified from your POV.
You said: “That's how we live. It's not something I can change or control.”
If you justify an action based on ‘necessity’ any act can be justified… because every crime is born out of a necessity.
@ROYISM: "You are talking about etiquettes of a debate. I am asking about the moral basis on which you feel hurting me in this fashion is okay."
Everything anyone says can be offensive to someone. So should we all stay silent? Do you support blasphemy laws? Why does your supposed "hurt" trump everyone else's freedom of speech? I'm offended by your references to god. So what?
"And cannibals felt so about people from alien tribes… so cannibals would be justified from your POV."
Cannibals would not be justified in my society. How about yours? That just proves my point. Morality changes and evolves as we learn. I asked you what your god says about eating animals. What's your answer? Is it right or wrong?
@Algebe
You said: “Everything anyone says can be offensive to someone. So should we all stay silent? Do you support blasphemy laws?”
Exactly… so then how do you decide which hurt should matter and which shouldn’t? I don’t support blasphemy laws not because I go by the social conditioning of my environment rather because it goes against the tenets of God.
You said: “Why does your supposed "hurt" trump everyone else's freedom of speech? I'm offended by your references to god. So what?”
I can’t agree with you more. You would be caught in these circles if you go by your standard of morality. In my case, I decide what is hurt and how much of it permissible and all that based on the teachings of God.
You said: “Cannibals would not be justified in my society. How about yours?”
Look, I am waiting to hear a reliable standard with which you can make a moral judgment. if you say you reject cannibalism because it’s not acceptable in your society – is society your standard. Whatever is acceptable to your society acceptable to you? But then why not someone else’s society. T
You said: I asked you what your god says about eating animals. What's your answer? Is it right or wrong?
Yes, it’s fine to eat animals. Because God said so.
@Royism: "I decide what is hurt and how much of it permissible and all that based on the teachings of God."
Not for me you don't.
"Yes, it’s fine to eat animals. Because God said so."
I didn't need god to tell me that.
I think you're being naive when you claim that your god has given you a totally objective sense of morality that is applicable to all people in all situations throughout all time. I also think that viewpoint is dangerous, because people who believe they have that perfect morality often want to impose it on everybody else.
The best we can do morally is to make judgments according to our own consciences, in light of our collective wisdom and our experience in our families and society. We are social animals. Little by little we shape our societies, and our societies shape us. We won't always get it right.That's the human condition, and religion always makes it worse.
@Algebe
You said: “Not for me you don't.”
I am not saying that you should agree with my standard. I am just telling you that I have a clearly defined standard which I can apply at all times and situations and consistently.
you said: “I didn't need god to tell me that.”
It doesn’t really matter in your case. Because whether you take it from god or based on societal conditioning… it’s all equally subjective. You just delude yourself thinking it’s some informed decision that you are making.
You said: “I think you're being naive when you claim that your god has given you a totally objective sense of morality that is applicable to all people in all situations throughout all time.”
You can call me naïve only if you can produce a standard that is more objective, reliable and consistent than mine. When you are yourself at sufferance, it doesn’t make sense to point fingers at others.
You said: “I also think that viewpoint is dangerous, because people who believe they have that perfect morality often want to impose it on everybody else.”
The moment you take a position on an issue you are already declaring that the people in the other camp are wrong. There is no getting away from it. That way you are staking a moral high ground which can lead to the same problems that you are accusing me of.
You said: “The best we can do morally is to make judgments according to our own consciences, in light of our collective wisdom and our experience in our families and society.”
If the collective wisdom of my family/society differs from yours, then which one? Why should collective wisdom ever be reliable given that our past has proved just the opposite?
You said: “We are social animals. Little by little we shape our societies, and our societies shape us. We won't always get it right.”
Even if I were to grant you that… how do you know that the societies are always progressing linearly? What if what we are doing today is deemed more immoral than lets say slave traders a thousand years later? How do you know that you are even making progress… may be you are regressing.
You said: “That's the human condition, and religion always makes it worse.”
Based on what grounds are you saying that religion is making it worse, when you don’t even know if what you are doing is worse or better, other than the claim that your conscience tells you so.
"Whatever god said is right is right for me."
So if god says to murder a child as a sacrifice it becomes moral?
That's a bizarre take on morality I must say.
Something is good because it is good, not because you believe god wills it. Your implication is that you take your senses to be infallible interpretation of what god wills, and that this is good.
Religion is based purely on superstition and not reason, because if it was not based on superstition, it would not be religion. You may claim that it is harmful for others to speak against religion, but if you cannot give any rational reason for how speaking against religion causes more harm than good, then you should not expect others to take what you say at face value.
@Sapporo
You said: Something is good because it is good, not because you believe god wills it.
That's interesting. I can extend that argument and say that Quran is right because it is right. That's what you call a dogma. If you claim something is good, I would like to hear why it is so, and not just lap it up hook, line and tinker.
But you didn't define good as being right: you have said something is right because you believe "god" willed it, even if it is not good.
You do not even do what you think is right: you do what you think something else claims is right.
A dogma is believing something to be true without evidence, perhaps even when there is contrary evidence. I am pleased to see you admit that you have a dogmatic worldview - this may be an important step to moving towards what the facts of history and science tells us.
I do not have a dogmatic view of what it means to be "good". If something minimises pain while maximising pleasure, I consider it good.
" you have simply substituted the word 'morality' with 'right'. "
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Note the word right in the definition of morality....it does't mention blindly following doctrine because you fear punishment in a fictional afterlife.
@Sheldon
You said: “Note the word right in the definition of morality....it does't mention blindly following doctrine because you fear punishment in a fictional afterlife.”
I am not asking for a dictionary meaning of morality, I am asking for a definition from an ontological perspective. I can show you the meaning of soul in the dictionary, would you accept it because it is there?
@ROYISM: "I am not asking for a dictionary meaning of morality"
I agree with you. Dictionary definitions are not arguments. They are the opinions of the people who write dictionaries.
But do you not see the parallel between searching for a definition of morality in a dictionary, and searching for it in a holy book?
This is true, dictionaries just reflect common usage of words, but they're an important point of reference. For instance if morality is not as ROYISM is implying, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Then he talking about a different concept entirely, which of course is precisely what has happened. He is talking about adherence to religious dogma and doctrine when he talks about morality, but others are using the term to mean principle of right and wrong, derived through human reasoning.
I'd argue that his version is little more than an amoral automaton.
"I am not asking for a dictionary meaning of morality, I am asking for a definition from an ontological perspective. "
No, what you said was "you have simply substituted the word 'morality' with 'right'." and I pointed out that morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between ***right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."
"I can show you the meaning of soul in the dictionary, "
It also has a definition for unicorns, what's your point? Morality is the distinction between right and wrong behaviours, so your objection to another poster using the word right was nonsensical.
@Royism that has to be one of the most cynical and immature posts I have ever read. It's clear that you lack a moral compass and lack integrity.
"@Royism that has to be one of the most cynical and immature posts I have ever read. It's clear that you lack a moral compass and lack integrity."
Unsurprisingly I made that very same assessment of him, he hasn't the remotest clue what morality is.
That we seem to have only this life to live is precisely why it is important to live by our principles. I fear my own conscience more than the wrath of some immoral being that may not even exist.
The Christian and Muslim ideologies tell their followers that this life is of little or no value, and that pleasure is sinful. Since their creation, their views has been life is to be endured, and not improved. They have advocated the persecution of those who do not follow their religion, causing much suffering and loss of life.
@Sapporo
You said: That we seem to have only this life to live is precisely why it is important to live by our principles. I fear my own conscience more than the wrath of some immoral being that may not even exist.
Do you mean to say that what one does according to one's conscience is moral? Is that your standard? There are many Robinson Crusoes who find it absolutely conscientious to rob the rich and give the poor. Would that be moral, just because someone finds it conscientious?
@ROYISM "There are many Robinson Crusoes"
I think you mean Robin Hood. The moral issues about Robinson Crusoe relate more to slavery and racism.
Pages