Only Atheists can be truly moral

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Well empathy is something we have to cultivate, and it has to become something conscious and aware in order to be compassion and avoid straying into mere sentiment. Of course in Buddhism we seek to overcome negative emotions, in order to avoid anger and delusion clouding our judgement. Feelings, especially if we don't consciously cultivate compassion, are of course sometimes incorrect. But in this case we could say there is a failure of genuine empathy, its replacement with a feeling which we label "empathy" which in fact is not. We may have some notions about right and wrong which correspond more or less with acts which are actually positive or negative, however only seeing from the other's perspective allows us to appreciate the actual complexity of things.
We do know about right and wrong...our consciences prove it. Feelings lie to us all the time..and they aren’t a good barometer of right and wrong. You could happily think sleeping with someone right..until it turns out wrong when you think you really don’t like that person anymore. So..which one was right and which one is wrong? Do we know at that point? But if you say sleeping around is wrong..then that helps people out. Then they know if they do that they are wrong. You might not like it but that’s besides the point.

I don’t think seeing anything from another‘s pov is entirely the end all be all of things. You just got their take on it..and you don’t know if its all a lie or partly a lie..or just their pov..and the truth is in the middle somewhere. They also can be wrong and be part of the problem in their own lives..by making bad decisions for themselves. Having a bad life..and who doesn’t at times...isn’t the moral of things and then allows you to act in any ol way.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
We do know about right and wrong...our consciences prove it. Feelings lie to us all the time..and they aren’t a good barometer of right and wrong. You could happily think sleeping with someone right..until it turns out wrong when you think you really don’t like that person anymore. So..which one was right and which one is wrong? Do we know at that point? But if you say sleeping around is wrong..then that helps people out. Then they know if they do that they are wrong. You might not like it but that’s besides the point.

I don’t think seeing anything from another‘s pov is entirely the end all be all of things. You just got their take on it..and you don’t know if its all a lie or partly a lie..or just their pov..and the truth is in the middle somewhere. They also can be wrong and be part of the problem in their own lives..by making bad decisions for themselves. Having a bad life..and who doesn’t at times...isn’t the moral of things and then allows you to act in any ol way.
Again, this is why we cultivate certain feelings and overcome others. Lust would be one of the things we would strive to overcome. We could come to the conclusion that sleeping around is wrong by seeing the emotional and psychological consequences it has for people, and we could understand these by developing genuine empathy to the point of actually somewhat comprehending people.

I think you are confusing the ideas of seeing from someone else's point of view and having compassion or empathy for others. Seeing from someone else's point of view would include accepting all their individual rationalizations for their behavior and beliefs. Empathizing with them (or perhaps better said being compassionate towards them) would mean feeling their pain and understanding how it has contributed to making them the person they are. This doesn't always mean behaving peacefully towards the person, it is sometimes necessary to be wrathful, but in a way which is founded on love.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Again, this is why we cultivate certain feelings and overcome others. Lust would be one of the things we would strive to overcome. We could come to the conclusion that sleeping around is wrong by seeing the emotional and psychological consequences it has for people, and we could understand these by developing genuine empathy to the point of actually somewhat comprehending people.

I think you are confusing the ideas of seeing from someone else's point of view and having compassion or empathy for others. Seeing from someone else's point of view would include accepting all their individual rationalizations for their behavior and beliefs. Empathizing with them (or perhaps better said being compassionate towards them) would mean feeling their pain and understanding how it has contributed to making them the person they are. This doesn't always mean behaving peacefully towards the person, it is sometimes necessary to be wrathful, but in a way which is founded on love.
Wow! You don’t really live in the real world do you?

I think your’e confusing the idea of morality with empathy.
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
Right...well having a moral compass i.e. knowing right from wrong is better than empathy where feelings are often wrong.

You could just as soon get mad at the person you empathized with because they did something against you...and there goes the good thoughts towards them.
Hi,

hmm.. I never thought of it in that way. Ever heard of a (relatively rare; i believe 3 to 5% of the population) psychological disorder named sociopathy? They are perfectly capable of empathy, but totally lack any kind of conscience.
If these properties pair with the lack of knowing good and bad, its called psychopathy.

So.. I think @Lisa also has a valid point. Empathy, the capability to emphasize with another persons feelings, isnt a virtue in itself.

EDIT:
I guess that's why the bible doesn't call it just empathy,... but, as I was looking up the dictionary, I realized the term "Nächstenliebe" translates to "grace", "grace of charity" or "altruism". And I dont know, if this really gets the point, as the german term "Nächstenliebe" literally translates to something like "love towards the one next to you".

Kind regards,
threepwood
 
Last edited:

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Hi,

hmm.. I never thought of it in that way. Ever heard of a (relatively rare; i believe 3 to 5% of the population) psychological disorder named sociopathy? They are perfectly capable of empathy, but totally lack any kind of conscience.
If these properties pair with the lack of knowing good and bad, its called psychopathy.

So.. I think @Lisa also has a valid point. Empathy, the capability to emphasize with another persons feelings, isnt a virtue in itself.

EDIT:
I guess that's why the bible doesn't call it just empathy,... but, as I was looking up the dictionary, I realized the term "Nächstenliebe" translates to "grace", "grace of charity" or "altruism". And I dont know, if this really gets the point, as the german term "Nächstenliebe" literally translates to something like "love towards the one next to you".

Kind regards,
threepwood
Can anyone really live anyone or even themselves for that matter without God?
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Wow! You don’t really live in the real world do you?

I think your’e confusing the idea of morality with empathy.
You already linked them a couple of pages ago..

8DE297C6-8550-4174-97F3-3CE89DE295A4.jpeg
1moral
adjective
mor·al
\ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

  • 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
 

Toknow

Rookie
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
23
Empathy, the capability to emphasize with another persons feelings, isnt a virtue in itself.
Shankara never said that. Shankara was speaking of morality, that it is based around empathetic understanding of other humans. Through empathy alone we have most of our moral positions justified. Leaving aside other aspects for where they belong; politics.
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
Shankara never said that. Shankara was speaking of morality, that it is based around empathetic understanding of other humans. Through empathy alone we have most of our moral positions justified. Leaving aside other aspects for where they belong; politics.
Hi @Toknow

I didnt want to put any words in Shankaras mouth. And I would have expected, that people would call out my (partly wrong) suggestion sociopaths were perfectly capable of empathy. Which turns out to be only partly true.

And I already agreed to Shankara, by saying that empathy could also be called "love thy neighbour as thyself" (I'm using an old KJ). But, I was trying to make the point, that you need morality for this to be a virtue. Our feelings dont come from nowhere. It very much depends on our moral positions.
So I would argue, that it is our conscience, which pushes us to either help or take advantage of someones vulnerability. Not the mere understanding of someone else's position.

Kind regards,
threepwood
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
Can anyone really live anyone or even themselves for that matter without God?
Hi Lisa,
no, i dont believe that's the case. If this were true, i guess there wouldn't be a reason for anyone to even try to be a better person.

But, i would also say, that love without direction (without God, so to speak), is more of a destructive force, than most people think it is.

Kind regards,
threepwood
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
Hi Lisa,
no, i dont believe that's the case. If this were true, i guess there wouldn't be a reason for anyone to even try to be a better person.

But, i would also say, that love without direction (without God, so to speak), is more of a destructive force, than most people think it is.

Kind regards,
threepwood
So much for random acts of kindness, I guess.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Hi Lisa,
no, i dont believe that's the case. If this were true, i guess there wouldn't be a reason for anyone to even try to be a better person.

But, i would also say, that love without direction (without God, so to speak), is more of a destructive force, than most people think it is.

Kind regards,
threepwood
Guten Morgen, threepwood!
How many times do people try to be ’better’ people and fail..or have good intentions that fail too? But..we know that God...
Romans‬ ‭8:28‬ ‭
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
So much for random acts of kindness, I guess.
Random acts isn‘t the end all/be all of things. They do surprise and delight people and have value in that..however, its often not enough to change lives..Jesus changes lives.
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
Guten Morgen, threepwood!
How many times do people try to be ’better’ people and fail..or have good intentions that fail too? But..we know that God...
Romans‬ ‭8:28‬ ‭
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Hello there!

I always loved that verse. Nevertheless, i believe people fail to be better, because they love other things instead. This doesnt even have to be something bad, like money. But, in most cases, its not enough of a reason to pull through. And, like the bible teaches us, nothing else can change the heart. That's why alcoholics are said to be alcoholics, even if they are abstinent. And, putting God first every time, can be very hard, even for Christians.

Kind regards,
Threepwood
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,470
I catch your drift but I think the problem lies in the meaninglessness you attribute to life. Why bother being kind to others unless you too wish for others to be kind to you? With or without God as a guide, what drives morality in an atheist? That's a question I pose to YOU since you are so bent on dismantling theological/religious beliefs...
What drives an atheists morality?
But then that shows the selfishness of Christians and the kindness of an athiest. If an atheist is good for just the sake of being good, but the Christian only does it for reward. That shows the athiest is the more moral of the two.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
But then that shows the selfishness of Christians and the kindness of an athiest. If an atheist is good for just the sake of being good, but the Christian only does it for reward. That shows the athiest is the more moral of the two.
No one does anything for the sake of being good. Christians tried to do God’s will as a thankful act of the grace we’ve been shown.
 

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,803
Thread title- Only Atheists can be truly moral
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmm...A few years ago the owner of a strategy game website announced he was having to close it down in order to look after his wife who was critically ill, so I asked him if he'd like me and a few Christian pals to pray for her, but to our surprise he replied "Thanks but no thanks, she's got people looking after her", whatever that meant.
Perhaps he was an atheist, I don't know.
(I never did know if his wife recovered)

Another time, a self-proclaimed atheist in a general chat forum said his two young daughters were sending him round the bend pestering him to let them "adopt" an alpaca (a llama-type thing) for about £100 (131 US dollars) which he couldn't (or wouldn't) afford, the creature would remain at the alpaca farm, and by "adopting" it they'd be sent pictures of it, and could visit it to hug and tickle it.
So I said to the atheist "No problem mate, me and my christian pals will have a whip-round and send you a cheque"
However he fobbed me off by muttering something like "Huh, you know you don't mean it", and wouldn't discuss it any more, so his kids never did get their alpaca.
 

threepwood

Rookie
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
58
But then that shows the selfishness of Christians and the kindness of an athiest. If an atheist is good for just the sake of being good, but the Christian only does it for reward. That shows the athiest is the more moral of the two.
Hi,

how would an atheist define "good"?

There was a really interesting debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris (in Vancouver) about very much everything, moral included. And Sam Harris really is someone, who puts forward the idea, that Religion generally can't be moral. But funny enough, he, like any atheist, really has a problem defining Good and Evil, which is why he met with the gnostic Jordan Peterson.
When I remember correctly, his definition of moral very much depends on the outcome of someones actions. Whereas this outcome has no fundamental meaning. Its merely a calculation of some positive factors against some negative ones. Like, how much tears did your words cause, in comparison of another string of words, you could have said.
Its no surprise, that this is the only possible way for an atheist to make a distinction between good and evil or right and wrong. The distinction between selfishness and altruism, than depends merely on someones time preference.

And this is not a concept of Good and Evil, this is just calculus. Feel free to imagine where this kind of "moral" would lead to.

Kind regards,
threepwood
 

Alanantic

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
1,384
All human beings have a moral sense. It's called the conscience. The myth of the tree of good & evil is western religion's way of accounting for it.

"The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body … Lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, & consider every act of this kind as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties, and increase your worth." -- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787
 
Top