Can Atheists be Moral?

[cnm]

no, you misspelled - bible belt ... north and south, slavery.

In the north it was considered to be an invalid moral, generally, not one that would assist the survival of the community. As opposed to the South, where slavery was deemed morally valid, essential to the survival of the community.

 

[Unkotare]

No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.

Slavery was moral to the South. ......

You don't understand history or morality.

 

[Mindful]

Does morality require the existence of a god?

 

[Mindful]

No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.

Slavery was moral to the South. ......

You don't understand history or morality.

He uses any nefarious excuse to bash America.

Therefore he is dishonest, and therefore immoral.

 

[Mindful]

A recent string of popular-level books written by the New Atheists have leveled the accusation that the God of the Old Testament is nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a cosmic child abuser. This viewpoint is even making inroads into the church. How are Christians to respond to such accusations? And how are we to reconcile the seemingly disconnected natures of God portrayed in the two testaments?

Paul Copan takes on some of the most vexing accusations of our time, including:
God is and jealous
God punishes people too harshly
God is guilty of ethnic cleansing
God oppresses women
God endorses slavery
Christianity causes violence
and more

Copan not only answers God's critics, he also shows how to read both the Old and New Testaments faithfully, seeing an unchanging, righteous, and loving God in both.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[ding]

The Jews saw God as loving and caring.

The original meaning of their message has been lost.

 

[Mindful]

The Jews saw God as loving and caring.

The original meaning of their message has been lost.

We still do.

 

[ding]

The Jews saw God as loving and caring.

The original meaning of their message has been lost.

We still do.

I don’t really see them singing God’s praises here.

 

[ding]

I wish they would.

 

[Crick]

Morality is the set of rules by which human society can exist. Morality is not the product of religion. It is their attempt to set the rules.

 

[Unkotare]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

"1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not."


1. god doesn't exist. the source of morality for people why believe in god does NOT come from a non-existant god. It comes from a book written by uneducated, ignorant, primitive savages.

The fact that these people NEED a book (and a god) to tell them what is right or wrong, moral v immoral, is sad, pathetic and rather scary!

what if that book says "kill gays and atheists and witches!"?


And not just "I'm god....don't steal!"....

that wasn't enough to deter them or make them moral.

They needed FEAR!

So god had to say "I'm god....don't steal....or YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!"

Now THAT got their attention.

(2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

ridiculous.


I know right v wrong and I did NOT need a bible to tell me.

In fact, MOST of what the bible says is IMMORAL is BS.

The Bible teaches us what is right and wrong but it is up to us to know the difference an act accordingly. But we do not need the bible to do what is right. We have free will.

"The Bible teaches us what is right and wrong but it is up to us to know the difference an act accordingly. But we do not need the bible to do what is right. We have free will."


Ok
so what IS right?

what is wrong?

is it right for gays to have equal rights in America?

is it wrong?

is it right to criminalize gays (roy moore wants)?

is it wrong?

since you have free will.....

I know what is right and what is wrong but it is not up to me to judge what other people do is right or wrong. I can only answer for myself.

That is not morality.

 

[danielpalos]

i don't trust women who are not doing me; does that count?

So you don’t trust any woman. Got it.

Man must have invented money for a reason. We even put, In God We Trust, on it.

 

[Unkotare]

No, it was not. Don't use words you don't understand.

Slavery was moral to the South. ....

No, it was not.

 

[danielpalos]

Does morality require the existence of a god?

we should mind our morals if Gods are involved; otherwise, ethics should be sufficient.

 

[danielpalos]

i have the lowest numbers and least amount of practice if it is about the morality of abstinence and just saying No, to silly chic trics.

 

[BreezeWood]

This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans.

That is not morality.

their publications are factitious ...

there is no doubt ... morality would never be in the confines of a written document. the religion of antiquity - The Triumph of Good vs Evil - abandoned by the desert religions is the example of the human construct in replacement of the true representation of the metaphysical Almighty and is the cause of their errant conclusions and history of debauchery.

 

[Unkotare]

Anti abortionist say 100000 babies minimum a month for 50 years have been aborted. We are already overpopulated. Necessary evil.

The women who abort would be the worst moms

We are most certainly NOT ‘overpopulated.’ Brainless is also without morals.

Yes were are. Too many beaners... like you.

He's an irishman with a zipper fetish.

And he's a wrestling coach for sweaty teen boys who like to hug and grab each other in all kinds of places.

No means no, pervert.

 

[G.T.]

Morality is the set of rules by which human society can exist. Morality is not the product of religion. It is their attempt to set the rules.

Which is evident, and tangible.

 

[koshergrl]

All community norms are not considered *moral* even by the communities in which they are normal.

Not all community norms will assist survival or prosperity. They are invalid morals.

It's statements like that where you expose yourself as a simpleton.

#1. Not all community norms are established as morals. So yeah. There's that.
#2. Whether or not community norms *survive* or *prosper* has nothing to do with their *validity*, even if all community norms are considered as *morals* (which they aren't).

You've built a whole mountain of nothing on false premise.
For example, it might be a community norm to accept a king having sex and children with his siblings. The Pharoahs and the Romans went through that. The community accepted it..but it wasn't considered *moral*....Likewise the German community accepted it as a community norm to kill Jews in the street. It wasn't considered *moral* just because it was common and accepted. If an entire community sucks their thumbs as they go about their daily chores..the fact that they do it doesn't make it *moral*.

Regarding the validity...no, just because a community norm that is considered a part of the societal understanding of morality disappears, it doesn't mean the moral is *invalid*. I have no idea how you can make such an illogical leap...The Golden Rule is considered to be moral around the world. If tomorrow aliens came from the sky and took us hostage and forced us all to reject the Golden Rule and commence to slaughtering, raping, and pillaging, the fact that we are no longer allowed to abide by it doesn't render it "invalid".

 

[danielpalos]

i don't trust women who are not doing me; does that count?

So you don’t trust any woman. Got it.

Man must have invented money for a reason. We even put, In God We Trust, on it.

So you pay to get laid. Why am I not surprised?

i also resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments; coincidence or conspiracy?