Morality of Non-Believers

[Skull Pilot]

Morality and religion are not inextricably bound.

I would posit that a man who believes in a supreme being who does good works for the promise of an eternal reward or to avoid eternal damnation is not a moral man but a man motivated by greed and/or fear.

On the other hand, a man who believes not in a supreme being nor an after life and makes the conscious, deliberate decision to engage in good works, to treat his fellow man and animals with respect and kindness for no other reason than it is the honorable way to live who expects no eternal reward and is not motivated by fear of eternal punishment is a truly moral man.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Skull,
Not sure a man believing in a supreme being is exclusively of the former.

 

[HUGGY]

Shouting down opposing views accomplishes nothing other than to prove the shouter is his own zealot.

Opposing views? All religion that uses as its foundation the existance of an invisible supreme being is lying. Your lies are not "views". They are lies and need pointing out.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull,
Not sure a man believing in a supreme being is exclusively of the former.

I didn't say it was. I said a man who believes in a supreme being and does...

But I have yet to meet a person who worships a supreme being fail to mention the words heaven or hell, paradise or damnation.

In fact I have yet to hear a prayer averring to do good works and shunning eternal life in heaven.

"Oh heavenly Father, I promise to do good works in your name with no expectation of eternal reward."

I've never heard that have you?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

You have now met one.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Huggy,
You just confirmed it.

 

[YWN666]

I think some believers insist that non-believers have no morals because they must. To acknowledge that someone can live a happy and successful life without religion means that their religion (or anyone's religion) is not necessary and they can't admit to that.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Did I miss something? The topic is the morality of non-believers. I presume the OP means that those who do not believe in God have morality.

An alternate version of the topic would be that those who don't believe in any kind of morality would be non-believers in moralty, period.

Ethics is a topic of philosophy. Belief in God is not necessary to have ethical guidelines.

Why would we care about what other peoples morality is? It's a hard enough task to just mind one's own.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

People who impose their theologies (any of them) on anyone else are out of line in my view. Unfortunately man has an inbred instinct to dominate so just because I think it is out of line, will not stop people from judging others through the lense of their own beliefs. It is the judging part I object to.

 

[Sky Dancer]

People who impose their theologies (any of them) on anyone else are out of line in my view. Unfortunately man has an inbred instinct to dominate so just because I think it is out of line, will not stop people from judging others through the lense of their own beliefs. It is the judging part I object to.

Hmm. Not sure I agree with your view that man as an inbred instinct to dominate. I think if we don't want others to judge us, then we have to stop judging ourselves and others.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Sky,
Not on board with that one as expressed. Can you elaborate?

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy,
You just confirmed it.

The internet has little influence on the fanatical religious. You wack christians, jews and mormans will actually have to grow old and die to see the waste of your lives and the ignorance you attempt to impose on other human beings.

In that last glimpse of light and there is nothing waiting for you before your brains cease to function when it is too late to change anything I will get no solace from the justice that flashes the truth to you. You will be gone and your legacy of lies will be all you leave behind.

If I have convinced just one person to use thier brain and reject religion all the nonsense I have to endure would be worth it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Sky,
Not on board with that one as expressed. Can you elaborate?

I think the whole purpose of ethics is to guide personal behavior. It's easy to recognize when we are being judged by others. When we have personal ethics to not judge others, then it is self-correction the guidelines are for--not for finger pointing at anyone else.

I think it is human nature to judge, because our minds are dualitic; we see self and other. I don't think its man's nature to dominate others.

I think its the nature of a thinking mind to have discernment and attachment. We notice things and then we evaluate whether we like it or not. That is attachment.

When religious people point their fingers at others and wag them they are misusing ethics in my opinion.

It's not the flaw of the religion itself--it's the essential flaw of a thinking mind that puts a value judgement on discernment itself.

I hope that helps.

If our value is to not judge others, then rather than reacting to others when they judge us, we can curb our own tendency to judge them for judging us. That's where the power is.

 

[N4mddissent]

If they just take Jesus's word about the greatest commandment the world would instantly heal itself.

I think you have a commendable interpretation of what it means to be a christian, but unfortunately it is not shared by all. I think it the quote above should more accurately be read, "if they would just accept my interpretation of Jesus' word" the world would heal itself. And thus the problem is revealed- For positive interpretations to justify christianity as a charitable religion, they must offer compelling reason for all christians to accept such an interpretation. As it stands now, there are no good arguments for those who focus upon the more divisive and harsh scriptures to abandon those interpretations as incorrect. The wrathful, angry god who orders genocide and bears a sword is equally reasonable as the loving, forgiving god who wants to save mankind based upon scripture.

I was counted among the faithful for a large portion of my life, but no longer believe. I cannot speak for kittenkoder, but I reject any assumptions you may make about whether I was truly faithful. To say someone did not do it for "faith" when you could not possibly know anything about their motivations or how they reallly felt is more than a little presumptuous on your part.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Hang on to your chalks and choaks there mountain man. I am not bitter..just getting worn out on the nonsense religion has imposed on the human race.

I am hopeful that people will come to thier senses and start thinking smarter and acting better towards one another.

I feel similar to your first statement above except recently I've come to understand why someone has faith, regardless of whether its rational or not. I am angry, or frustrated, or bitter, or all of the above because of the detriment religion has been to the advancement of the human race and for the arbitrary rules/traditions/laws/cultural guidelines that I have to follow in order not to go to jail, to be a social outcast, or what have you because of religious scripture and its base in not-observable reality.

I am hopeful that those who do have faith and are part of an organized religion understand why those of us who don't have faith, don't, and why not everyone has to live by the standards imposed by their gods.

Faith and religious belief should be personal. Observable reality should be the basis of policy, law, tradition, and culture. And, Cecilie and Againsheila, so should human psychology.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Let me just add ethics and morality to the last paragraph of the above post.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's MOOT. Not MUTE, frigging retardo.

"Mute" means unable to speak.

"Moot" means it's irrelevant.

Two different things, two different spellings.

 

[Amanda]

I think some believers insist that non-believers have no morals because they must. To acknowledge that someone can live a happy and successful life without religion means that their religion (or anyone's religion) is not necessary and they can't admit to that.

Your narrow minded way of looking at things is simply astonishing. I always thought open minded people were supposed to not have their mind made up about everything. You sort of personify why I think Liberals fail miserably.

 

[Amanda]

Hang on to your chalks and choaks there mountain man. I am not bitter..just getting worn out on the nonsense religion has imposed on the human race.

I am hopeful that people will come to thier senses and start thinking smarter and acting better towards one another.

I feel similar to your first statement above except recently I've come to understand why someone has faith, regardless of whether its rational or not. I am angry, or frustrated, or bitter, or all of the above because of the detriment religion has been to the advancement of the human race and for the arbitrary rules/traditions/laws/cultural guidelines that I have to follow in order not to go to jail, to be a social outcast, or what have you because of religious scripture and its base in not-observable reality.

I am hopeful that those who do have faith and are part of an organized religion understand why those of us who don't have faith, don't, and why not everyone has to live by the standards imposed by their gods.

Faith and religious belief should be personal. Observable reality should be the basis of policy, law, tradition, and culture. And, Cecilie and Againsheila, so should human psychology.

You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

 

[Yukon]

PRAISE JESUS and BLESS our POPE.
You must belive in both to have life everlasting.