Only Atheists can be truly moral

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Who is to say that this atheist isnt donating to charity for selfish purposes? If donating and helping people out makes someone feel good and provides them a sense of inner fulfillment then it could be said they are doing so out of self gain as well. They help out and it gives them a sense of purpose and inner fulfillment. It could be viewed as just as much of a transaction depending on how you break it down....
Then you're just being cynical and not getting his point....
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
So a lack of belief in deities is a religion? you're delusional.

I suppose a lack of belief in bigfoot is a religion too?
Atheism is a belief and bigfoot might or might not exist. But that's a weak strawman anyway since you're comparing apples and oranges.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
No, it is the BELIEF that there is no God.
Just like not believing in bigfoot is a "belief", and just like not believing in purple dragons is a "belief"

No it's not. It's pseudo-science. I can't even start here with all the flaws the theory has.
So you're a scientist? and you're going to show us your 2,000 page thesis on the flaws of evolution and how everyone else simply got it wrong?
You believing that it's "pseudo-science" doesn't make it so when there is oceans of hard evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Atheism is a belief and bigfoot might or might not exist. But that's a weak strawman anyway since you're comparing apples and oranges.
No you're strawmaning by calling Atheism a belief, when Theism is a cultural belief. Atheists only lack a belief in deities.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
Just like not believing in bigfoot is a "belief", and just like not believing in purple dragons is a "belief"
Again with bigfoot, and purple dragons now. You're grasping at straws, short and thin ones.

So you're a scientist? and you're going to show us your 2,000 page thesis on the flaws of evolution and how everyone else simply got it wrong?
You believing that it's "pseudo-science" doesn't make it so when there is oceans of hard evidence.
I'll believe in evolution when they create life from dead matter and when I see a species automagically transform into another before my eyes. I won't hold my breath for that to happen though.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Again with bigfoot, and purple dragons now. You're grasping at straws, short and thin ones.



I'll believe in evolution when they create life from dead matter and when I see a species automagically transform into another before my eyes. I won't hold my breath for that to happen though.
So you're desperate to oppose evolution, and so willing to believe in gods and godesses without any evidence whatsoever.
You can't know something if you do not test it. That is the difference between knowledge and belief. We know that evolution is almost certainly true since it has been tested so many times and passed the tests. We know that the Bible is false because it has been tested and failed those tests.

We test ideas to see to what extent they are true. That is how science works: try to explain something and *test* that idea by *attempting* to prove it wrong. Those ideas that survive are kept.

You see, humans can be wrong. We come up with ideas that don't completely work. So we *test* to see what does and what does not work. That is how we acquire knowledge.

As for the Bible, the first people to realize the discrepancy between the Biblical time scale and the time scale of reality were Christians trying to support the Bible and verify what is says.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I actually don’t..explain it to me shankara.
Ok so there is this thing Jesus said about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself", sometimes known as "the golden rule". In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to have some idea of how others feel. Empathy makes us understand other people's situations from their own perspectives, rather than judging them ("judge not lest ye be judged"). Effectively if we feel empathy and live in accordance with it then we naturally follow "the golden rule". As the saying goes "you can't understand someone until you walk a mile in their shoes". It is by empathy that we develop understanding of people, by putting ourselves in their position.

I really do find it strange that you find the concept difficult to understand.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Just like not believing in bigfoot is a "belief", and just like not believing in purple dragons is a "belief"
It's not at all the same. Personally I'm not really a Theist, if I believe in a God it's something like Parabrahman. But there is certainly evidence that all of this is not simply "matter". For one, that is just a one-sided philopsophy, a Materialist position is no more tenable than an Idealist position. Reality cannot be explained by any particular philosophical position, it is beyond such conceptual projections. But the notion that there is some kind of "higher power", at least that there is something other than matter, can be demonstrated.

If you look at your own mind, you discover that you are a conscious being, experiencing things as a subjective entity. Now, how can matter create such experience? If it were nothing but an aggregation of molecules, it could not. It could create functioning machines which behave like human beings, but it could not create conscious experience. Well, it could be that everything is conscious, one could take a pantheist position, but then why is consciousness individual rather than collective? In the first case, it begs the question of when matter became conscious? What is the point at which mere mechanical existence becomes living and experiencing existence? In the second case, there is the question of why and how consciousness is individual rather than collective?

It may be possible to create an artificial intelligence which displays all the characteristics of human beings, however it would not be conscious. It would not have (using a rather ill-defined term) "qualia". In Buddhism, the ground of consciousness is compared to "clear light". You may reach the point of explaining, categorizing, mastering, all physical phenomena, but you cannot explain the existence of that "clear light", which manifests as subjective experience with the creative play of thoughts, without abandoning a purely materialist explanation of the universe. Idealism puts too much emphasis on subjectivity, and cannot clear explain the objective universe, while Materialism places too much emphasis on objectivity and cannot explain the subjective universe.

From recognizing the existence of consciousness, theists develop a notion of "soul" or "spirit", and posit the existence of an Ultimate Being who is the source of such experience, like a fire giving off sparks. I would not argue with you if you were to say that such an anthropomorphic deity of judgement is an aberration, however the concept of an Ultimate Being in and of itself is not so illogical. In any case, consciousness itself could be considered a kind of deity, Buddhism speaks of a primordial Buddha known as "Buddha Unchanging Light".
 
Last edited:

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,803
Theists have never been able to demonstrate how their morality is different from Atheists..

Well, Theists don't reject Jesus, but Atheists do, so it's not rocket science to see whose morality has the better street cred.. ;)

PS- in fairness to atheists, they've been put off Jesus by the sly Establishment, so they don't really know him.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Ok so there is this thing Jesus said about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself", sometimes known as "the golden rule". In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to have some idea of how others feel. Empathy makes us understand other people's situations from their own perspectives, rather than judging them ("judge not lest ye be judged"). Effectively if we feel empathy and live in accordance with it then we naturally follow "the golden rule". As the saying goes "you can't understand someone until you walk a mile in their shoes". It is by empathy that we develop understanding of people, by putting ourselves in their position.

I really do find it strange that you find the concept difficult to understand.
How does that empathy make you a more moral person though? It just means you can understand someone’s situation...it doesn’t mean that it makes is moral situation. You can still walk a mile in someone’s shoes and think they did the wrong thing.

Christianity says that murder is wrong..knowing the murderers background doesn’t make it right Or moral. Christianity says lying is wrong..knowing people who lie all the time doesn’t make it right or moral.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
How does that empathy make you a more moral person though? It just means you can understand someone’s situation...it doesn’t mean that it makes is moral situation. You can still walk a mile in someone’s shoes and think they did the wrong thing.

Christianity says that murder is wrong..knowing the murderers background doesn’t make it right Or moral. Christianity says lying is wrong..knowing people who lie all the time doesn’t make it right or moral.
Well in particular it allows us to understand how others suffer. By feeling empathy we come to treat people as we would like to be treated. In the case of someone who kills, though obviously we aren't going to judge such an action to be right, by understanding the trauma that person has been through which led them to such a point (if that is the case) then we might understand that there are extenuating circumstances and not punish them so harshly as if that were not the case.

But empathy is not just about cases like this. There are many instances in life where we humans can be judgemental with our fellow beings, condemning them for their flaws (without noticing our own flaws) and blaming things on them. Through empathy we can come to understand that were we in a similar situation we might also develop the same flaws. It's easy to be like "oh they could have done that" or "oh they could have done this", it is more difficult to really try to understand what another person's experience of life is like for them, in their subjective experience, rather than looking from our outside perspective and thinking we know them and have the wisdom to judge.

Such feeling for one's fellow human beings is the primary cause of "treating others as we would wish to be treated". We should cultivate it.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Well in particular it allows us to understand how others suffer. By feeling empathy we come to treat people as we would like to be treated. In the case of someone who kills, though obviously we aren't going to judge such an action to be right, by understanding the trauma that person has been through which led them to such a point (if that is the case) then we might understand that there are extenuating circumstances and not punish them so harshly as if that were not the case.

But empathy is not just about cases like this. There are many instances in life where we humans can be judgemental with our fellow beings, condemning them for their flaws (without noticing our own flaws) and blaming things on them. Through empathy we can come to understand that were we in a similar situation we might also develop the same flaws. It's easy to be like "oh they could have done that" or "oh they could have done this", it is more difficult to really try to understand what another person's experience of life is like for them, in their subjective experience, rather than looking from our outside perspective and thinking we know them and have the wisdom to judge.

Such feeling for one's fellow human beings is the primary cause of "treating others as we would wish to be treated". We should cultivate it.
How does that equal morality though?
mo·ral·i·ty
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
noun
  • : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
  • : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
In morality there is a good and bad, right behavior and wrong behavior...where does empathy come into that? All you’ve talked about is empathizing with people’s life..but it doesn’t seem that morality has anything to do with empathy at all. As you are trying to find the goodness and badness of something...we don’t just say o, poor you...you had a hard life...I can see why you committed murder. NO..that’s not the right thing at all. Everyone has a hard life..but not everyone decides to murder someone over it. Right v wrong.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
How does that equal morality though?
mo·ral·i·ty
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
noun
  • : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
  • : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
In morality there is a good and bad, right behavior and wrong behavior...where does empathy come into that? All you’ve talked about is empathizing with people’s life..but it doesn’t seem that morality has anything to do with empathy at all. As you are trying to find the goodness and badness of something...we don’t just say o, poor you...you had a hard life...I can see why you committed murder. NO..that’s not the right thing at all. Everyone has a hard life..but not everyone decides to murder someone over it. Right v wrong.
Empathy perhaps allows us to see the continuum of right and wrong and it's many grey areas with a little more clarity than simple "right/wrong" judgements. By putting ourselves in the position of others, we grasp that in their situations we may have done the same thing. It is easy to think of ourselves as very good people who would never do wicked things, it is more difficult to face the reality that we are all quite frail and may be prone to fall into committing the same negative acts as those who we judge, were we to experience the same circumstances.

But the question of empathy isn't just about judging criminals, it's also about seeing the suffering of others in clarity. For example it is easy to say of the poor "oh they are lazy", "oh they don't want to work", but if we really put ourselves in their position and try to understand how they have experienced life, the conditioning they have undergone, the environments in which they were raised, then we start to see that our moralistic value judgements are rather one-sided.

And not only that, also in things of everyday life, it is empathy which helps us to behave decently to people. We don't make intense harsh criticisms of people and tell them they are worthless and evil because we have empathy, and we understand how we would feel if someone behaved like that towards us, that it wouldn't help us to grow but would simply make us feel bad and develop self-hate.

Empathy is the foundation of compassion, basically, and if you can't see the importance of compassion, well, I really don't know what to say...
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
How does that equal morality though?
mo·ral·i·ty
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
noun
  • : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
  • : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
In morality there is a good and bad, right behavior and wrong behavior...where does empathy come into that? All you’ve talked about is empathizing with people’s life..but it doesn’t seem that morality has anything to do with empathy at all. As you are trying to find the goodness and badness of something...we don’t just say o, poor you...you had a hard life...I can see why you committed murder. NO..that’s not the right thing at all. Everyone has a hard life..but not everyone decides to murder someone over it. Right v wrong.
Actually you raise a somewhat interesting question. In the case of someone who kills another, you are dealing with someone who has acted in a way which is completely without empathy for their victim. Hopefully the reason we don't kill people isn't simply because "God said not to", but because we have empathy for our fellow beings and would not ourselves want to be in the situation of being killed. Actually, if you don't kill just because "God said not to", you should perhaps be a little bit worried for yourself.

Buddha puts it quite nicely:
"All beings tremble before danger. All fear death. When you consider this, you will not kill or cause someone else to kill."
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Empathy perhaps allows us to see the continuum of right and wrong and it's many grey areas with a little more clarity than simple "right/wrong" judgements. By putting ourselves in the position of others, we grasp that in their situations we may have done the same thing. It is easy to think of ourselves as very good people who would never do wicked things, it is more difficult to face the reality that we are all quite frail and may be prone to fall into committing the same negative acts as those who we judge, were we to experience the same circumstances.

But the question of empathy isn't just about judging criminals, it's also about seeing the suffering of others in clarity. For example it is easy to say of the poor "oh they are lazy", "oh they don't want to work", but if we really put ourselves in their position and try to understand how they have experienced life, the conditioning they have undergone, the environments in which they were raised, then we start to see that our moralistic value judgements are rather one-sided.

And not only that, also in things of everyday life, it is empathy which helps us to behave decently to people. We don't make intense harsh criticisms of people and tell them they are worthless and evil because we have empathy, and we understand how we would feel if someone behaved like that towards us, that it wouldn't help us to grow but would simply make us feel bad and develop self-hate.

Empathy is the foundation of compassion, basically, and if you can't see the importance of compassion, well, I really don't know what to say...
In what you’re saying empathy helps you not see the morality of it all and go by feelings...poor thing you suffered..well then I understand why you did that. You have to stop moralizing that they did wrong.

People can overcome the environment they were raised in..and many have..so that’s a cop out issue you’ve brought up.

Compassion is good..but so is morality..judging right from wrong. Without that you have emotional babies who commit lawlessness just because...
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
Actually you raise a somewhat interesting question. In the case of someone who kills another, you are dealing with someone who has acted in a way which is completely without empathy for their victim. Hopefully the reason we don't kill people isn't simply because "God said not to", but because we have empathy for our fellow beings and would not ourselves want to be in the situation of being killed. Actually, if you don't kill just because "God said not to", you should perhaps be a little bit worried for yourself.

Buddha puts it quite nicely:
"All beings tremble before danger. All fear death. When you consider this, you will not kill or cause someone else to kill."
Very true! I agree 100%. That's basically the whole point of the new testament (Matthew 22,36-40). If you follow the law because you have to, you aren't a righteous (or moral) person. You have to want to follow the law. But be careful whose law you follow or want to embrace. Both lessons could have been learned during the 1940s.

Kind regards,
threepwood
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Very true! I agree 100%. That's basically the whole point of the new testament (Matthew 22,36-40). If you follow the law because you have to, you aren't a righteous (or moral) person. You have to want to follow the law. But be careful whose law you follow or want to embrace. Both lessons could have been learned during the 1940s.

Kind regards,
threepwood
If you aren’t saved...shouldn’t you be following the law, since you are under the law?
 

Kung Fu

Superstar
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,087
There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?
Of course, atheists can be moral people.
 
Top