How can Atheists deny that the moral decline of America isn't their fault?

[realibrad]

I like your points but you Lamarckian take on evolution is completely wrong. But why couldn't something similar happen via the actual rules of evolution?

Can you explain how my take on evolution is wrong?

Evolution = Positive traits are more likely to be passed on, as they would benefit the individual(s), Negative traits are less likely to be passed on, as they would hinder the individual(s).

If being "moral" were a benefit, they would be more likely to be passed on. As I explained before, the increased utility of the "morals" would make them more likely to be added to the individual(s). This could be passed through genetics where the brain would internalize the behaviour physically, or mimicked by others who wish to be successful.

 

[justoh]

My sentence makes perfect sense to me.

Derp. In that case the answer is easy. How can Atheists deny that the moral decline of America isn't their fault? They wouldn't? Because it isn't and couldn't be. Find us one atheist who would deny that it isn't their fault.

 

[Zodiark1593]

How can a person who doesn't believe in God offer anybody a reason to be moral when we live in a world of survival of the fittest and use competition as the basis of our system. I am not asking to address the related fact that most American Christians are just hypocrites and don't act morally either. The fact that they don't live by what they say they believe is a different issue. I would appreciate then, if any who try to answer don't divert to that issue as a means to deflect the problem of creating any moral force behind subjective standards.

If the religious have found a way around the morality they profess by internal denial, what should atheists do to keep up, profess a need for laws for social stability and break them when nobody is looking? Is there any real morality or is it all lip service if you don't pretend you believe in God?

Do Aetheists not follow morals for the same reason the religious do? The threat of consequence, hell in your case.

 

[realibrad]

My sentence makes perfect sense to me. I don't know what the meaning of yours is. Certainly, if we are going to get picky about words, we can't have a morality that is imposed and still have free will. I think that religious morality is recommended and not imposes but on penalty of hell, not imposed, them, but rather strongly suggested.

But in any case, the morality of religion is absolute. What kind are you offering? If there is no God than how can there be any objective morality and why would anybody be particularly interested in it?

It is considered to be moral to kill a girl who was raped in some peoples view. As an atheist, I can say that the decrease in utility would make this immoral. Further, even with the utility argument aside, I could say that a society that is willing to limit the freedom of someone as a punishment for something they could not control is immoral, as that system would produce less than optimal outcomes.

So again, religion and god are not needed to establish morality, as god is very often used to do very immoral things.

 

[Retro Rob]

So again, religion and god are not needed to establish morality, as god is very often used to do very immoral things.

Steak knives are also used to do immoral things, so are penises.

I think you that argument you're making means nothing. I can literally use anything made by science to advance my immoral agenda as well.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Steak knives are also used to do immoral things.

Divine intervention, God's will be done.

 

[Retro Rob]

Divine intervention, God's will be done.

lol,

I agree with him, but that argument can be applied to anything. If we measured our need for something in society based on how its used, we'd literally be back in the stone-age as I can break a light-build and use the shards as a deadly, immoral weapon.

 

[realibrad]

Steak knives are also used to do immoral things.

Correct, and are inherently not moral or immoral devices. They, much like religion, are tools. The difference is that religion is typically the infallible justification to do either or. Atheism does not lead to any action, as it is simply a lack of belief. Stalin, Mao did not act in the lack of belief of Thor any more than the lack of belief of Jesus or any other religious figure. Just like a a serial killer did not kill because they were also water drinkers.

An atheist is not moral or immoral. You simply dont need religion to establish morals.

 

[realibrad]

lol,

I agree with him, but that argument can be applied to anything. If we measured our need for something in society based on how its used, we'd literally be back in the stone-age as I can break a light-build and use the shards as a deadly, immoral weapon.

When did I do that?

 

[Zstream]

It is considered to be moral to kill a girl who was raped in some peoples view. As an atheist, I can say that the decrease in utility would make this immoral. Further, even with the utility argument aside, I could say that a society that is willing to limit the freedom of someone as a punishment for something they could not control is immoral, as that system would produce less than optimal outcomes.

So again, religion and god are not needed to establish morality, as god is very often used to do very immoral things.

What about serial killers who have no control or drunk drivers who kill an innocent civilian?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Steak knives are also used to do immoral things, so are penises.

I think you that argument you're making means nothing. I can literally use anything made by science to advance my immoral agenda as well.

It is not specifically religion that is the problem but the feeling of certainty that one is right. When one is certain that they are in the right they can perform the most heinous of acts against their fellow man without guilt. And while this problem can crop up anywhere, and almost always has deleterious effects, religion actively promotes it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

lol,

I agree with him, but that argument can be applied to anything. If we measured our need for something in society based on how its used, we'd literally be back in the stone-age as I can break a light-build and use the shards as a deadly, immoral weapon.

People who use god as their motivation will use any weapon. The steak knife is just the tool.

 

[realibrad]

What about serial killers who have no control or drunk drivers who kill an innocent civilian?

What about them. I'm not sure I understand the context of your question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me ask you then, whose religious morality is correct? Is it the Christian Bible? Do we stone people to death as it demands, or do we get to decide what parts we like and ignore the rest in an al la cart morality?

Maybe the Hindu religion is the right one, and all you burger eating heathen are doomed.

Perhaps they all have it wrong, and Thor has is right. Perhaps we should be raiding our neighbors and stealing their women, and only those that die while trying to kill someone else is going to Valhalla.

So, whose absolute morality is the right absolute morality?

It's questions like this, is it not, that destroy faith in absolute morality, no. Isn't that just the kind of thing that undermines moral faith, regardless of kind?

If there is no real absolute morality, then would it not follow there is no such thing as morality generally. I didn't start the thread to defend this or that morality, only to say that for those who reject the notion of an absolute God, doesn't that mean they also reject absolute morality? And if so, what do you offer that would inspire people to be moral after you undermine moral faith?

 

[realibrad]

lol,

I agree with him, but that argument can be applied to anything. If we measured our need for something in society based on how its used, we'd literally be back in the stone-age as I can break a light-build and use the shards as a deadly, immoral weapon.

I had to go through my posts again, and I think you missed the meaning of my comment.

The rules of religion are not inherently the cause of morality, as exampled by the fact that immoral things are justified through religion. The argument of this thread, was that only religion can be the backbone of morality.

 

[realibrad]

It's questions like this, is it not, that destroy faith in absolute morality, no. Isn't that just the kind of thing that undermines moral faith, regardless of kind?

If there is no real absolute morality, then would it not follow there is no such thing as morality generally. I didn't start the thread to defend this or that morality, only to say that for those who reject the notion of an absolute God, doesn't that mean they also reject absolute morality? And if so, what do you offer that would inspire people to be moral after you undermine moral faith?

Society gives names to things they do not fully understand. Morality as it is generally thought to be, may or may not be a thing.

 

[master_shake_]

i didn't know atheists ran the us?

learn something new everyday.

 

[Retro Rob]

Correct, and are inherently not moral or immoral devices. They, much like religion, are tools. The difference is that religion is typically the infallible justification to do either or. Atheism does not lead to any action, as it is simply a lack of belief. Stalin, Mao did not act in the lack of belief of Thor any more than the lack of belief of Jesus or any other religious figure. Just like a a serial killer did not kill because they were also water drinkers.

An atheist is not moral or immoral. You simply dont need religion to establish morals.

Umm...ok.

But also, people also use God as the infallible justification for good, per Kent Brantly.

We moved to Liberia because God called us to serve the people of Liberia.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eb...nt-brantlys-full-remarks-god-saved-my-n185956

Oh, but I guess you'll just say that the good done in the name of God is nothing but part of human nature, but the bad done in the name of God has nothing to do with human nature.

I think we have enough good and bad done in the name of God to where we can basically leave that point alone.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's questions like this, is it not, that destroy faith in absolute morality, no. Isn't that just the kind of thing that undermines moral faith, regardless of kind?

Yes, reality is somewhat of a buzzkill if you live in a fantasy world.

If there is no real absolute morality, then would it not follow there is no such thing as morality generally.

If there is no such thing as an absolute blue, is there no such thing a blue?
If there is no such thing as an absolute Point of Reference, is there no such thing as a Point of Reference?

I didn't start the thread to defend this or that morality, only to say that for those who reject the notion of an absolute God, doesn't that mean they also reject absolute morality?

Yes.

And if so, what do you offer that would inspire people to be moral after you undermine moral faith?

Reason.

 

[realibrad]

...

Oh, but I guess you'll just say that the good done in the name of God is nothing but part of human nature, but the bad done in the name of God has nothing to do with human nature.

I think we have enough good and bad done in the name of God to where we can basically leave that point alone.

And you would be wrong. I would say that God is a construct of ignorant people trying to fill the gaps of what they do not know. That leads me to the belief that God is neither good or bad. But, even if I were to assume "God" (and ill go with what I know you mean by god) is real, then the fact that it drives people to do both good and bad, its the proof that it is neither inherently. That is, unless you decide to dismiss one of the two activities.

I see that it is the justification for both acts, and thus dont believe that all of morality comes from God and or religion.

 

[sandorski]

It's questions like this, is it not, that destroy faith in absolute morality, no. Isn't that just the kind of thing that undermines moral faith, regardless of kind?

If there is no real absolute morality, then would it not follow there is no such thing as morality generally. I didn't start the thread to defend this or that morality, only to say that for those who reject the notion of an absolute God, doesn't that mean they also reject absolute morality? And if so, what do you offer that would inspire people to be moral after you undermine moral faith?

What is Absolute Morality?

 

[realibrad]

What is Absolute Morality?

Absolute Morality is the belief that what is moral is black and white as divined by a religion and or god.

 

[sandorski]

Absolute Morality is the belief that what is moral is black and white as divined by a religion and or god.

I understand this aspect of it, but what I want to know is what it is? As in the details of it, not the alleged source of it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well sadorski, that depends on what denomination you affiliate with.

 

[realibrad]

I understand this aspect of it, but what I want to know is what it is? As in the details of it, not the alleged source of it.

That would require Faith, as there is not any evidence of what it is.