Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2016, 03:36 PM
Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Id have to approach this is a more aggressive tinge of nihilistic snark and note now what point would the concept of being moral be?

This is part of the problem with a word like moral that's skewed in do many ways to seem like something powerful and fearsome.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Reltzik,

Thank you for posting that speech by Dr. King. I was aware of every fact in that speech, because I minored in military history (major in biochemistry, of course), but I had never seen that speech of his, even though I've read a lot of Dr. King's writings and heard many of his speeches. It moved me to tears. That's one of the most incredible orations I've had the pleasure of hearing. Amazing.

Though you were kind enough to hide it behind tags, I will post it directly here, and encourage every member here to listen to every word he says (obviously, we can ignore the God bits) about our moral compass as a nation. No wonder the FBI was trying so hard to destroy him. Sad




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 05:33 PM by excitedpenguin.)
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 01:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 03:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Religious people get reminded in church to be moral. Where do atheist's get their reminders? Please don't bother responding to the thread if you aren't going to watch the tedtalk.
Morality is a pipe dream. There are no morals, no rights and wrongs.
There is no authority, no way to determine a set of objective rights, it's all just a matter of personal opinions.

The dark side of morality, the shunning, the shaming, the fighting wars for the sake of righteousness is not worth the idea of having a "moral" society.

Anyone that tries to tell you that you must be moral and supplies you with their set of morals, those people are trying to control you. They are not on your side. They are the "evil" wormtongue spewing garbage and making you a dependant zombie

[Image: LOTR-The-Two-Towers-527-670x230.jpg]

All due respect, I vehemently disagree. Morality is not necessarily a pipe dream. There are lots of moralities, as many as there are people, groups and ideologies that are morally oriented, in fact.

There are morals and there are rights and wrongs. That we could disagree about what these three are is a different matter entirely.

There are authorities guiding our social behaviour and consequently imposing their moral code upon us. These can range from the most obviously powerful, the governments, to the more subtle, the ideologies and their proponents.

There could be ways to determine a set of objective rights. Scientific ways. That we are bogged down by philosophical considerations on the matter is certainly unfortunate, but not conclusive that it is impossible to achieve a better understanding of morality in all of society's best interests.

It is always worth to strive for a better society. Don't let your disillusionment with certain aspects of the world, as well as its past, make you too much of a cynic on the matter. Because if you don't think society has any chance to continue to evolve in a moral sense then you might as well throw in the towel.

Ah, control. Yes, an ubiquitous thing. Undeniably so. However, it is not something you can point to as a building block for your argument for it invalidates your own opinion on the matter if we are to follow it to its logical conclusion. Are you not trying to control us, the ones who are reading your posts, by providing us with your views? Isn't discussion itself an attempt at imposing one's own views against another? Isn't it always a battle of intellects and their wishes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like excitedpenguin's post
24-08-2016, 05:46 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 08:35 AM)izel Wrote:  I've always fucking hated this question. I would say the worst part of this question is that every time someone brings it up, they think they are the first person to ever bring this up and have completely proven god. Very annoying.

One of the conclusions of his experiments was that people in general will cheat less if reminded to be moral. Atheists have claimed they don't need religion to behave morally. Are they claiming they are special? Or do they get reminded to be moral from other sources. If so what are they?

This isn't an argument for God's existence or a claim that religious people are more moral than atheists.
Why would one think they are claiming to be special if they refuse to get their morality from religion, either exclusively or otherwise? I will need you to answer that before I can make sense of that part of your post.

Let me address the OP now. That Ted Talk is perfectly fine, I'm not sure how scientific his endeavours on the matter were, but nevertheless, I'm more than happy to take him at his word that he found out about the fact that people's intuitions aren't always right. But that is still nothing more than an observation. There is nothing really to conclude from that talk, at least not for me. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know or suspect and I didn't encounter any new arguments for anything at all. As for the connection you made with atheism, that's strenuous at best. It would've been a better idea to speak of humanity as a whole instead of singling out atheists in an attempt to beat them over the head over their lack of religiously prescribed morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 05:55 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 03:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Atheists have claimed they don't need religion to behave morally. Are they claiming they are special? Or do they get reminded to be moral from other sources. If so what are they?
Moral lessons are everywhere. Every idiot is trying to teach us a lesson about acceptable behaviour.

Just watch all these hero tv shows and movies where we have "good" guys and "bad" guys. Comic books, and news and newspaper articles, all dripping in the filth of morality.

It's very hard to avoid other people's opinions about what is moral or not. Many Christians in particular seem to feel the obligation to go around telling others what is morally right or wrong. They even want to implement their morals into law, to force it upon us all.



Responding to your last statement here, as an opener, but I'm reacting to other parts of your post as well.

The fact that they are trying to implement their morals into law is not only expected, it is laudable as an exercise in democracy. That you and I believe their morality is wrong and misguided is something we ought to try and convince the rest of the world of, in turn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2016 06:09 PM by Aliza.)
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 05:46 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  
(24-08-2016 03:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  One of the conclusions of his experiments was that people in general will cheat less if reminded to be moral. Atheists have claimed they don't need religion to behave morally. Are they claiming they are special? Or do they get reminded to be moral from other sources. If so what are they?

This isn't an argument for God's existence or a claim that religious people are more moral than atheists.
Why would one think they are claiming to be special if they refuse to get their morality from religion, either exclusively or otherwise? I will need you to answer that before I can make sense of that part of your post.

Let me address the OP now. That Ted Talk is perfectly fine, I'm not sure how scientific his endeavours on the matter were, but nevertheless, I'm more than happy to take him at his word that he found out about the fact that people's intuitions aren't always right. But that is still nothing more than an observation. There is nothing really to conclude from that talk, at least not for me. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know or suspect and I didn't encounter any new arguments for anything at all. As for the connection you made with atheism, that's strenuous at best. It would've been a better idea to speak of humanity as a whole instead of singling out atheists in an attempt to beat them over the head over their lack of religiously prescribed morals.

Welcome to TTA, excitedpenguin. I see you have met our horrible people user base (membership: 1). Please don't give up on us because of this unfortunate encounter. The rest of us are really nice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
24-08-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 06:06 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Welcome to TTA, excitedpenguin. I see you have met our horrible people user base (membership: 1). Please don't give up on us because of this unfortunate encounter. The rest of us are really nice.

Thank you for the welcome.

I already like it here. It's certainly different, but in a good way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes excitedpenguin's post
24-08-2016, 06:19 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  All due respect, I vehemently disagree. Morality is not necessarily a pipe dream. There are lots of moralities, as many as there are people, groups and ideologies that are morally oriented, in fact.
Most people have an opinion about what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Their own definitions as to what is meant by the terms "morally right", "morally wrong" may differ and their lists may differ but they call their own lists those things that are morally right and those things that are morally wrong.
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  There are authorities guiding our social behaviour and consequently imposing their moral code upon us. These can range from the most obviously powerful, the governments, to the more subtle, the ideologies and their proponents.
Governments implement and enforce laws, not moralies.
Sure there are people that try to promote their own moral beliefs, their ideologies.
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  There could be ways to determine a set of objective rights.
Not so far as I know.
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  That we are bogged down by philosophical considerations on the matter is certainly unfortunate, but not conclusive that it is impossible to achieve a better understanding of morality in all of society's best interests.
We are individuals competing for limited resources, you cannot please everyone. How do YOU determine what is in society's best interests?
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  It is always worth to strive for a better society.
How do YOU define better?
Is it one where people don't behave immorraly?
Is it one where people are free to make their own choices?
Is it one where people are rewarded for taking initiative, risks, putting in effort?
Is it one where all people are equal, without a divide between rich and poor?
(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Don't let your disillusionment with certain aspects of the world, as well as its past, make you too much of a cynic on the matter. Because if you don't think society has any chance to continue to evolve in a moral sense then you might as well throw in the towel.
I'm not throwing in the towel. I've been putting in quite a bit of effort to convince people to cast away their own moral beliefs. To cast away the idea that they know how others should behave.
I look forward to an amoral society, one that is tolerant and diverse, where people aren't judging each other based on perceived transgressions of their own personal moral beliefs.

(24-08-2016 05:25 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Ah, control. Yes, an ubiquitous thing. Undeniably so. However, it is not something you can point to as a building block for your argument for it invalidates your own opinion on the matter if we are to follow it to its logical conclusion. Are you not trying to control us, the ones who are reading your posts, by providing us with your views? Isn't discussion itself an attempt at imposing one's own views against another? Isn't it always a battle of intellects and their wishes?
I'm attempting to influence you into a position where you are comfortable making your own decisions (without guilt), where you are focussing on yourself rather than focussing on me, rather than judging me because I don't live upto your own standard.
I'm not trying to make your decisions for you. I'm not trying to tell you what is right or wrong.
I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that your own perception of right and wrong is merely your own opinion. It isn't my opinion, I'm not trying to live upto your standard. I can't be judged based on your standard. There is no unwritten social contract. I am an individual, I am different from you. I have lived my own life, I have my own values and ideas. I am the only person qualified to make a judgment as to whether my choices/actions are morally right or morally wrong. I don't make that judgement, even of myself, it's pointless. Noone is keeping track. There are no rewards for being good, no punishment for being bad, I am under no obligation to be good. All I have to worry about are real consequences. If I don't compete for a job then I will be jobless, if I don't compete for money and food then I will be hungry, if I don't compete for a mate then I will be lonely. If I lie and steal then others won't trust me, they may see me as a threat and react to stop me. I don't want others to become barriers as this will limit my future options. I behave in a way that I deem to be successful for me. You behave in a way that you deem to be appropriate for you. If your behaviours clash with my goals then we must compete.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
Stevil Wrote:Most people have an opinion about what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Their own definitions as to what is meant by the terms "morally right", "morally wrong" may differ and their lists may differ but they call their own lists those things that are morally right and those things that are morally wrong.

I do believe you are repeating my own statement back to me, albeit in a slightly diluted fashion. I would love to know why.

Stevil Wrote:Governments implement and enforce laws, not moralies.
Sure there are people that try to promote their own moral beliefs, their ideologies.

By doing that, they are enforcing certain moralities as well. To punish someone for stealing is to declare the act of stealing to be wrong. Governments can and do act as moral entities, if only in a wider context than individuals.

Stevil Wrote:We are individuals competing for limited resources, you cannot please everyone.

While it may be hard to achieve, it is not inconceivable that you could.
Stevi Wrote:How do YOU determine what is in society's best interests?
I do not. We do, collectively.

Stevi Wrote:How do YOU define better?
Is it one where people don't behave immorraly?
Is it one where people are free to make their own choices?
Is it one where people are rewarded for taking initiative, risks, putting in effort?
Is it one where all people are equal, without a divide between rich and poor?

You are trying to pin on me the burden of satisfactorily defining a necessarily elusive idea, that of a perfect society. That is beside the point, however. While I could direct you to specific instances of what I might deem to be good to the extent that it would best apply towards all groups and individuals as a whole, that would quickly become an exercise in futility if I further tried to present that as a constant, something you seem to be goading me into.

You are trying to argue against goodness as an utopic ideal, whereas I am arguing for the usefulness of that same concept in action, as well as for its results. You are aware of the fact that we are making progress, as a society, are you not? Is that same progress not moral in itself? It may not end up being absolutely moral in practice, but it certainly has to have that quality in theory, otherwise progress itself wouldn't be possible. Humanity might never eat its carrot, but it has to have it dangled in front of it all the same.

Stevil Wrote:I'm not throwing in the towel. I've been putting in quite a bit of effort to convince people to cast away their own moral beliefs. To cast away the idea that they know how others should behave.
I look forward to an amoral society, one that is tolerant and diverse, where people aren't judging each other based on perceived transgressions of their own personal moral beliefs.

You seem to be arguing from an absolutist's point of view, ironically enough. You cannot have an amoral society, not even in theory. I do understand your desire for balance, but we do not live in an unchanging world. As such, people will always clash over their differing moral outlooks. You cannot have both diversity and tolerance in equal amounts. One or the other has to give at any one moment, going forward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like excitedpenguin's post
24-08-2016, 07:41 PM
RE: Do Atheist need to be remided to be moral?
(24-08-2016 05:55 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  Responding to your last statement here, as an opener, but I'm reacting to other parts of your post as well.

The fact that they are trying to implement their morals into law is not only expected, it is laudable as an exercise in democracy. That you and I believe their morality is wrong and misguided is something we ought to try and convince the rest of the world of, in turn.
No, I don't want a moral society.
I just want a safe, stable and thriving society.
I want to make my own decisions regarding moral choice, thank you very much.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: