Can Atheists be Moral?

[RWS]

I have my faith, and I would never, ever, ever, ever, hurt anybody because of it.

 

[ding]

According to John Gray, an atheist, "Around the time Haeckel was promoting his racial theories, a different theory of western superiority was developed by Marx. While condemning liberal societies and prophesying their doom, Marx viewed them as the high point of human development to date. (This is why he praised British colonialism in India as an essentially progressive development.) If Marx had serious reservations about Darwinism – and he did – it was because Darwin’s theory did not frame evolution as a progressive process.

The predominant varieties of atheist thinking, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed to show that the secular west is the model for a universal civilisation. The missionary atheism of the present time is a replay of this theme; but the west is in retreat today, and beneath the fervour with which this atheism assaults religion there is an unmistakable mood of fear and anxiety. To a significant extent, the new atheism is the expression of a liberal moral panic."

 

[RWS]

Friggin guy can't answer posts. Just copy/pastes mantra from other sites.

Let's test...

Who is Sponge Bob in Creationist Theory?

 

[ding]

Sam Harris, a new age atheist, wants a “scientific morality” which follows a trajectory similar to monism and eugenics. Whereas today everyone agrees that that sort of atheism was illiberal.

 

[ding]

Harris’s militancy in asserting these values is largely a reaction to the fact that as society became ever more reliant on science, religion did not decline. The militant atheism we see today is in effect a panic on their part.

 

[RWS]

So he's your Sponge Bob of Creation Theory, or evolutionary theory? I want the SB of Creation!

 

[ding]

The grand march of secular reason that more and more societies would join the modern west in marginalising religion has not occurred. So evangelical atheists panic and lash out.

 

[RWS]

You seem to be afraid of science replacing your beliefs, instead of science supplementing your beliefs...

Let me tell you, if you have beliefs, and not religion, science can help very much in understanding those beliefs.

 

[ding]

According to John Gray, an atheist, "The resurgence of religion is a worldwide development. Russian Orthodoxy is stronger than it has been for over a century, while China is the scene of a reawakening of its indigenous faiths and of underground movements that could make it the largest Christian country in the world by the end of this century. Despite tentative shifts in opinion that have been hailed as evidence it is becoming less pious, the US remains massively and pervasively religious – it’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president, for example."

 

[RWS]

If you have religion, then science is nothing, and the world is flat, and dinosaurs walked with man...And the universe was created 6000 years ago.

 

[ding]

According to John Gray, an atheist, "For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable. So, not for the first time, secular thinkers look to science for a foundation for their values.

It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism."

 

[RWS]

Stop quoting an unknown atheist from god knows when, when you have well known atheists talking to you right here, right now. .

Speak your own shit. That's all I've ever been trying to say. Don't rely on past terrors.

 

[RWS]

You rely on copy/paste for your quotes. You don't really put any effort, besides the sites you are told to copy/paste from.

You are a servant to your religion. I don't know if you get paid, or it's just something you have to do to continue to be a member, but you are so FUCKING WRONG, on so many matters, that it hurts me to talk to you further.

I don't want to hurt you, or break your heart. But I wish you can reel back from the brainwashing dude. I don't see a bright future for you, unless you seek some help. We can try, but you really need some professional help. I'm not trying to be funny. Seriously. Sometimes I feel like I'm feeding you, and making it worse. So I will stop posting on this thread. Please, buddy, think about what I said. Please?

 

[sealybobo]

You are not only reading too much into it you are getting all emotional because of one word; sin.

All I am saying is that for any given thing there will be a standard. You are free to follow it or not. You are free to decide which standard you believe in but the actual highest standard is independent of your perception of it. The standard exists independent of your perception.

Boy you will never admit you are wrong huh? Do you know you are a little shit? You can argue that water isn't wet. What is wet? Define wet? That's not wet that's damp. LOL.

One time I thought I was wrong and later found out I was really right so I was wrong at least once.

I make mistakes all of the time. But then I correct them and the case gets stronger because of it.

Ok, here is a great article about how Trump is the most unethical president of all time

The Most Unethical Presidency: Year One - CREW

If you can argue with this article then you prove morality is subjective. If you read this article and agree 100% with the writer then please continue to stubbornly say that morals are set in stone.

I’m not invested in politics as you are.

Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.

.

Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.

why not explain how avowed sinners, a sinning religion, christianity can represent morals by the simple fact those that do not sin whatever that might be are by definition the equivalency of moral and living a true existence, christian. as either the true religion of antiquity to triumph against evil or simply who are non sinners being possibly atheists.

Huh?

Christians say they know right and wrong. On every issue. It’s absolute.

But they don’t claim to actually be moral. They don’t have to be as long as they believe in jesus they get a pass.

As long as they’ve been baptized. No baptism as an adult, no heaven.

I was baptized as a child. So were Catholics. We’re all going to hell. Even if we believe.

 

[ding]

It appears it is true that laughing leads to crying.

 

[LittleNipper]

Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral. That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian. It's called asking God for forgiveness. Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.

Atheists cannot be moral, because they base morality on personal or social acceptance. Morality must be based on the acceptance or rejection of an impartial third party.

Can a murderer be moral? Well, he may choose to do something moral; however, he also has done something immoral. The immoral deed trumps all the individual's moral deeds in GOD's eyes. Only through the saving grace of GOD through the Messiah does GOD extend forgiveness of sin.

Not many atheists are murderers. So I don't understand how you can compare.

However, many religious people ARE MURDERERS, and if not already murderers, they have the murder spirit in their heart. How do you feel about that?

I wouldn't be so sure... Quite prison inmates become "saved" while in prison. Jeffery Dahmer is a case in point. Ask anyone in jail how often they were attending Sunday School and Church services before they got into trouble and I am rather certain that it had been Y E A R S ---- if ever. Of course it could be argued that attending church doesn't make one a Christian. HOWEVER, not attending doesn't encourage a healthy spiritual lifestyle given societies' seeming lack of propriety...

 

[danielpalos]

an atheist must be even more moral than Any deist, if the atheist hopes to win the moral high ground.

 

[BreezeWood]

Of course athiests can be moral...or immoral. That is a perfect reason for Christians can be guilty of breaking a commandment and still be a Christian. It's called asking God for forgiveness. Athiests just ask a mortal for forgiveness when they want it.

Atheists cannot be moral, because they base morality on personal or social acceptance. Morality must be based on the acceptance or rejection of an impartial third party.

Can a murderer be moral? Well, he may choose to do something moral; however, he also has done something immoral. The immoral deed trumps all the individual's moral deeds in GOD's eyes. Only through the saving grace of GOD through the Messiah does GOD extend forgiveness of sin.

Not many atheists are murderers. So I don't understand how you can compare.

However, many religious people ARE MURDERERS, and if not already murderers, they have the murder spirit in their heart. How do you feel about that?

I wouldn't be so sure... Quite prison inmates become "saved" while in prison. Jeffery Dahmer is a case in point. Ask anyone in jail how often they were attending Sunday School and Church services before they got into trouble and I am rather certain that it had been Y E A R S ---- if ever. Of course it could be argued that attending church doesn't make one a Christian. HOWEVER, not attending doesn't encourage a healthy spiritual lifestyle given societies' seeming lack of propriety...

.

Jeffery Dahmer is a case in point.

maybe a fellow sinner might think so, nipper - an irredeemable sin, what can not be given back is unforgivable ... sorry, J will not be able to help you in your case nipper and for the truthful the Almighty has already spoken.

how about you nipper how do you reconcile being a sinner and at the same time claiming to be a moral person. funny how you and bing fit the bill.

 

[danielpalos]

i thought women were for social "feel good" policies for free instead of capital "feel good" policies for a market friendly price.

 

[ding]

Boy you will never admit you are wrong huh? Do you know you are a little shit? You can argue that water isn't wet. What is wet? Define wet? That's not wet that's damp. LOL.

One time I thought I was wrong and later found out I was really right so I was wrong at least once.

I make mistakes all of the time. But then I correct them and the case gets stronger because of it.

Ok, here is a great article about how Trump is the most unethical president of all time

The Most Unethical Presidency: Year One - CREW

If you can argue with this article then you prove morality is subjective. If you read this article and agree 100% with the writer then please continue to stubbornly say that morals are set in stone.

I’m not invested in politics as you are.

Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.

.

Standards exist independent of people following them. We have all kinds of laws that people break all the time. Breaking the law or the standard does not invalidate the law or standard. It only means people will suffer the consequences for doing so.

why not explain how avowed sinners, a sinning religion, christianity can represent morals by the simple fact those that do not sin whatever that might be are by definition the equivalency of moral and living a true existence, christian. as either the true religion of antiquity to triumph against evil or simply who are non sinners being possibly atheists.

Huh?

Christians say they know right and wrong. On every issue. It’s absolute.

But they don’t claim to actually be moral. They don’t have to be as long as they believe in jesus they get a pass.

As long as they’ve been baptized. No baptism as an adult, no heaven.

I was baptized as a child. So were Catholics. We’re all going to hell. Even if we believe.

Have you ever been right about anything?

Because nothing you wrote here is correct.