Can Atheists be Moral?

[hobelim]

i want sex as easily and as conveniently as Any woman can get it.

.

Have you considered trying a new perfume?

 

[BreezeWood]

i want sex as easily and as conveniently as Any woman can get it.

not quite, they have the side effect not shared, pregnancy otherwise the floodgates might indeed be wide open - except for selective religious demonicism: to outlaw what they do not like, free will innocents they named prostitution and better, forced labour for life through unwanted pregnancy the denial of manifest destiny to the same, abortion.

 

[ding]

Part 2:

Here's where I may lose you, but I love you enough to be honest with you even when God's ways are hard for me to understand and accept.

The next logical question (I'll ask it myself to speed this up) is, if we can't be righteous on our own, did God just set us up to fail.

God sent HIMSELF as Jesus Christ who lived a perfect life and then died in the cross for your and my sin (unrighteous acts). By doing so, God (through Jesus Christ) paid the price necessary to redeem us (or save us from our own unrighteousness) and by doing so makes (present tense purposeful) righteous (right with God).

Now here's where it gets crazy.

The gift of salvation (redemption from sin) is a free gift. All one need to do to accept it is to be humble enough to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (essentially choose to believe in him and his ability to save and agree to be directed by him).

Now here's where it gets really crazy.

This gift is an example of God's grace (receiving what we didn't earn and don't deserve), so God offers it to all regardless of what they've done in their past.

So be as wretched as you want but accept Jesus

I'd rather strive to live as well as I possibly can with no illusion that I will be granted eternal life or some such nonsense

I have no illusion either.

But your premise that it’s lip service is flawed. Some people do pay lip service but I’m not sure it is intentional as you seem to imply.

Human nature

Promise everlasting life in paradise if they do as they are told and people will comply
Promise eternal suffering pain and torture if they don't do as they are told and they will do as they are told

That hasn’t been my observation.

You do know there is more to anything than just what you have observed don't you?

I know that for any given thing there is a distribution. So I see distributions which is what my observations are based upon.

 

[RWS]

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

I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive.

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run.

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

 

[RWS]

All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.

They make sure they are safe, to keep their species alive. They only kill to eat. They don't kill each other.

Any species that kills it's own, is doomed to not last very long.

Only humans want to kill other humans. Why?

I'll tell you why... religion...

Animals do not have religion. But we do, and it's the reason we do crazy shit....

 

[Blues Man]

So be as wretched as you want but accept Jesus

I'd rather strive to live as well as I possibly can with no illusion that I will be granted eternal life or some such nonsense

I have no illusion either.

But your premise that it’s lip service is flawed. Some people do pay lip service but I’m not sure it is intentional as you seem to imply.

Human nature

Promise everlasting life in paradise if they do as they are told and people will comply
Promise eternal suffering pain and torture if they don't do as they are told and they will do as they are told

That hasn’t been my observation.

You do know there is more to anything than just what you have observed don't you?

I know that for any given thing there is a distribution. So I see distributions which is what my observations are based upon.

yeah OK

 

[hobelim]

All animals besides humans, seem to have incredible morals that humans do not follow.

They make sure they are safe, to keep their species alive. They only kill to eat. They don't kill each other.

Any species that kills it's own, is doomed to not last very long.

Only humans want to kill other humans. Why?

I'll tell you why... religion...

Animals do not have religion. But we do, and it's the reason we do crazy shit....

Plenty of people who have no religion kill and do crazy shit too.

How do you explain that?

 

[ding]

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

I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive.

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run.

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

 

[hobelim]

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

I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive.

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run.

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

 

[ding]

And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.

 

[hobelim]

And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.

I know, Its messed up, isn't it?

Vast herds of liars and hypocrites, blood thirsty creatures, who feed exclusively on the flesh of unbelievers and Jews, professing to be teachers of the moral law without having any understanding about the words and subjects about which they are so dogmatic.

But don't you worry your goofy selves about it.

A sky fairy has struck the right wing religious conservative republican herd with foot in mouth disease.

If you don't believe me, just watch.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive.

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run.

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

- that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

deception and guile have two sides to their survival strategy.

the distinction for all beings is between whether their behavior is unnecessary exaggeration, evil or a progression of fulfillment exemplified by evolutionary attainments. metaphysical purity that is attained to add to the progression to a higher state of purity. a triumph first accomplished, an apex to make a change possible by the metaphysical content of the physical being.

 

[hobelim]

I'm very late in this dance, but I am atheist. But I am very moral. I need no reason to be moral, I just am.

Evolutionist theory would say that every species should be moral, unless they lay millions of eggs. Morality is being nice to your own species so you can survive.

A species that kills their own, unless they lay thousands of eggs, will not survive for the long run.

Being "good" is an evolutionary trait, not a religious one.

There are many examples of animals that aren't "moral", but those are one-off and rare, like humans. Most animals respect this "moral code". Because that is the basis of surviving.

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

- that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

deception and guile have two sides to their survival strategy.

the distinction for all beings is between whether their behavior is unnecessary exaggeration, evil or a progression of fulfillment exemplified by evolutionary attainments. metaphysical purity that is attained to add to the progression to a higher state of purity. a triumph first accomplished, an apex to make a change possible by the metaphysical content of the physical being.

And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp, thinks he's having a spiritual experience, and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and swallowed.

 

[ding]

And yet here people are quarreling over right and wrong and expecting everyone else to understand that their beliefs of right should be universally accepted.

I know, Its messed up, isn't it?

Vast herds of liars and hypocrites, blood thirsty creatures, who feed exclusively on the flesh of unbelievers and Jews, professing to be teachers of the moral law without having any understanding about the words and subjects about which they are so dogmatic.

But don't you worry your goofy selves about it.

A sky fairy has struck the right wing religious conservative republican herd with foot in mouth disease.

If you don't believe me, just watch.

Stop being so silly. If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[danielpalos]

i can be Honest about full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work.

 

[ding]

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

- that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

deception and guile have two sides to their survival strategy.

the distinction for all beings is between whether their behavior is unnecessary exaggeration, evil or a progression of fulfillment exemplified by evolutionary attainments. metaphysical purity that is attained to add to the progression to a higher state of purity. a triumph first accomplished, an apex to make a change possible by the metaphysical content of the physical being.

And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp, thinks he's having a spiritual experience, and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and swallowed.

Death is just another phase of life. Don't be afraid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Death is just another phase of life.

*Cuckoo*
.
.
.
.
*Cuckoo*

 

[ding]

Death is just another phase of life.

*Cuckoo*
.
.
.
.
*Cuckoo*

That's only because you are a materialist.

 

[BreezeWood]

So in effect you are saying that nature has selected the behaviors which lead to success which it has.

In other words morals or the behaviors which lead to success can’t be anything we want them to be because the standards of successful behaviors are independent of man. They exist in and of themselves which they do.

No, you did that. Morals and behaviors are evolutionary traits.

So you are saying nature selected virtue as a successful behavior because it offers a functional advantage? I agree.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

.

There are plenty of species that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

Sometimes when the moon is full you can hear them howling in the distance, solitary creatures laying in wait to pounce on a progressive democrat galumphing along unaware while singing kumbaya.

- that thrive on deception and guile as a survival strategy.

deception and guile have two sides to their survival strategy.

the distinction for all beings is between whether their behavior is unnecessary exaggeration, evil or a progression of fulfillment exemplified by evolutionary attainments. metaphysical purity that is attained to add to the progression to a higher state of purity. a triumph first accomplished, an apex to make a change possible by the metaphysical content of the physical being.

And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp, thinks he's having a spiritual experience, and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and swallowed.

.

And when a mouse is caught in the teeth of a cat he goes limp, thinks he's having a spiritual experience, and tells himself that he has a powerful new friend ....right before he is chewed up and swallowed.

he goes limp because he knows his time is up ... his life cut short. the spiritual being definitely does not feel liberated by such events.

 

[danielpalos]

dear women,

you know i am male.