Morality (1 Viewer)

[JasonG123]

How do you atheists choose a strong system of morality? It seems like you're just going with whatever society says is good and bad because you don't have any real principles. Who says something you consider to be bad now will not be considered to be good a few decades in the future? The laws and rules of Islam, which come from the holy Qur'an and the Hadiths, on the other hand, have been unchanged for 1,400 years!

Can't tell if OP is troll or idiot. Will answer as if idiot.

Saying we don't have morality within religion is quite insulting. To suggest that we need some sort of celestial dictator to tell us what is right and wrong is ridiculous. I mean, if you were presented with conclusive proof that all religion were complete bullshit, would you go raping and murdering in the streets? There's obviously something innate that gives us some sort of morality. Moreover, the morality condoned by religion is quite obviously flawed, given that it often advocates obviously immoral actions e.g. violence against non-believers in Islam.

Also, human beings have existed for between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The bible has been around a couple thousand years. It's obvious we have some sort of innate morality, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten this far by ourselves for 98,000 years before the bible was given. If there wasn't an innate morality, we all would have killed ourselves by then.

Lastly, consider this: Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot. Now consider this (a far easier question): Name an immoral act that is a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.

 

[Myans]

Can't tell if OP is troll or idiot. Will answer as if idiot.

Saying we don't have morality within religion is quite insulting. To suggest that we need some sort of celestial dictator to tell us what is right and wrong is ridiculous. I mean, if you were presented with conclusive proof that all religion were complete bullshit, would you go raping and murdering in the streets? There's obviously something innate that gives us some sort of morality. Moreover, the morality condoned by religion is quite obviously flawed, given that it often advocates obviously immoral actions e.g. violence against non-believers in Islam.

Also, human beings have existed for between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The bible has been around a couple thousand years. It's obvious we have some sort of innate morality, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten this far by ourselves for 98,000 years before the bible was given. If there wasn't an innate morality, we all would have killed ourselves by then.

Lastly, consider this: Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot. Now consider this (a far easier question): Name an immoral act that is a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.

+1

 

[Frostbitten]

Which means it could easily accept any behaviour again in the future.



With a solid grounding of morality (Islam) you would know it's not okay. With atheism you would just go with your peers.

How would you know, the change in the Western society has been from a typically middle eastern one to what we have now, it has taken individuals to stand up and say that its wrong to do these things like chop someone's hand off for stealing a loaf of bread. Couldn't I be one of those individuals? You act as if we just go, damn can't rape in this society, guess we gotta follow these rules, where in reality to me it seems unfair to the victim. I wouldn't want it to happen to me so it shouldn't happen to them, it ruins peoples lives for someone's momentary pleasure making it have no benefit at all really, so it shouldn't be allowed because of the damage to the individual. That's my way of thinking and I wouldn't be surprised if it continued in a impoverished country where you are allowed to kill people for doing barely anything.

 

[john-doe]

i dont get why the arabs in my school constantly try to convert me...even if i say no, they try to prove that islam is the best religion and i am like you cant compare religions and i just walk away! what happiness do they get from this?

 

[Peccadillo]

i dont get why the arabs in my school constantly try to convert me...even if i say no, they try to prove that islam is the best religion and i am like you cant compare religions and i just walk away! what happiness do they get from this?

No one should try to impose their beliefs. Islam encourages to give positive Dawah (preachings of faith) where possible but it is actually makrooh (not recommended) to impose beliefs on someone appears not to have sought this information. Tell them this and hopefully they will stop pestering you

 

[Peccadillo]

Lastly, consider this: Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot. Now consider this (a far easier question): Name an immoral act that is a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.

Heres one scenario.

A man has kidnapped me and a friend. The man gives a decision that I alone can decide. He says that he will spare the life of my friend if I permit him to kill me. If I do not permit him to kill me, he will kill both.

If I do not fear god and the consequence of my decision beyond that of my conscience why would I spare my friends life in favour of my own, would I not easily convince myself that my life is more worthy than my friends to me? Or that I am not the immoral one in this scenario, it is that of the kidnapper therefore my conscience should not suffer in favour of his immorality?

Now given.. the decision NOT to give my life in favour of my friends may not be IMMORAL. However, surely it is lacks any display of morality and virtue.

 

[Garygaz]

scenario 1:
you die/friend lives
net result:
1 alive 1 dead

scenario 2:
you both die
net result:
2 dead


so why exactly would I just want both of us to die? there's no possible way for me to survive, you think you need to make a spiritual leap of faith to make the correct decision here? nope, just a little bit of common sense, human compassion and cost/benefit analysis.

 

[funkshen]

Here's a better question.

I have this personal relationship with this god dude (I can't prove it - just run with it okay). He's a tempestuous bastard; he demands utter obedience; complete subservience. He's asked me to kill my son. What should I do?

The hypothetical cuts both ways, and more often than not in these circumstances it is not the product of critical thinking but rather bias-confirmation. Moreover, to ground your morality in the hypothetical is lunacy. Morality is only to be found in human experience.

 

[Peccadillo]

scenario 1:
you die/friend lives
net result:
1 alive 1 dead

scenario 2:
you both die
net result:
2 dead


so why exactly would I just want both of us to die? there's no possible way for me to survive, you think you need to make a spiritual leap of faith to make the correct decision here? nope, just a little bit of common sense, human compassion and cost/benefit analysis.

No.. If you didn't realise that neither decision results in both dead you didnt understand the scenario... :S

However you are correct, with no belief in God I put forward it does simply come down to a Cost/Benefit analysis.. Now is an individuals cost/benefit anaylsis any method in determining a morally astute decision, given the only benefit of allowing your friend to die in favour of your own would be to prevent feelings of guilt.

.[/QUOTE

 

[Peccadillo]

Here's a better question.

I have this personal relationship with this god dude (I can't prove it - just run with it okay). He's a tempestuous bastard; he demands utter obedience; complete subservience. He's asked me to kill my son. What should I do?

The hypothetical cuts both ways, and more often than not in these circumstances it is not the product of critical thinking but rather bias-confirmation. Moreover, to ground your morality in the hypothetical is lunacy. Morality is only to be found in human experience.

You kill your son. Luckily mine never asks me to.

 

[funkshen]

You kill your son. Luckily mine never asks me to.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

 

[JasonG123]

Heres one scenario.

A man has kidnapped me and a friend. The man gives a decision that I alone can decide. He says that he will spare the life of my friend if I permit him to kill me. If I do not permit him to kill me, he will kill both.

If I do not fear god and the consequence of my decision beyond that of my conscience why would I spare my friends life in favour of my own, would I not easily convince myself that my life is more worthy than my friends to me? Or that I am not the immoral one in this scenario, it is that of the kidnapper therefore my conscience should not suffer in favour of his immorality?

Now given.. the decision NOT to give my life in favour of my friends may not be IMMORAL. However, surely it is lacks any display of morality and virtue.

I'm sorry. I don't understand how fearing God relates to this moral predicament.

You're not a slave, God doesn't need to make decisions for you. You arrived at your conclusion that letting your friend die is immoral by your own innate reasoning. God didn't tell you this, you figured it out by yourself. Any rational person would come to this conclusion.

I've already alluded to how the morality condoned by religion is not morality. Religion condones very wicked and immoral acts that an intelligent, sane person would not even contemplate if not for religion e.g. killing your own son, terrorism.

 

[funkshen]

Moreover, if you are impelled to act out of a personal fear of a retributive god, you have made an explicit, albeit spiritual, cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Peccadillo]

I'm sorry. I don't understand how fearing God relates to this moral predicament.

You're not a slave, God doesn't need to make decisions for you. You arrived at your conclusion that letting your friend die is immoral by your own innate reasoning. God didn't tell you this, you figured it out by yourself. Any rational person would come to this conclusion.

Lets say I'm an asshole. I'm a selfish bastard who cares only for myself. I dont even really like my friend beyond a superficial level. I am also a devout muslim (insert jokes here). The ONLY thing that would make me spare my friends life and allow my kidnapper to murder me would be because I fear punishment in the after-life for this decision.

 

[Peccadillo]

Moreover, if you are impelled to act out of a personal fear of a retributive god, you have made an explicit, albeit spiritual, cost/benefit analysis.

lol fair point. It is still a cost/benefit analysis. Bad wording.

 

[funkshen]

Lets say I'm an asshole. I'm a selfish bastard who cares only for myself. I dont even really like my friend beyond a superficial level. I am also a devout muslim (insert jokes here). The ONLY thing that would make me spare my friends life and allow my kidnapper to murder me would be because I fear punishment in the after-life for this decision.

So you're saying that, rather than a claim of absolute truth, Islam's virtue is functional; it is a response to the dilemmas of human behaviour and cognition; a life saving device, like air bag.

lol fair point. It is still a cost/benefit analysis. Bad wording.

This is not bad wording. The cost/benefit analysis is the same, but the rubric is changed; one is material, one is idealistic. There is no difference, and this is certainly no vindication of some doctrine of absolute truth.

Look, I don't think Islam is all that bad. Compared to the track record of most other religions, it really isn't that special, and I would attribute most of them to endemic poverty and the reaction to economic and cultural modernity (this is certainly not unique to Islam... what do people think fascism was?). The African-American Islamic community has had immense success in reducing drug abuse and crime among; far, far, far more success than non-Islamic African-American communities. But this is no testament to the veracity of your faith, or your morality; these things simply cannot be sought in the material realm we surely occupy (although I guess you guys do believe in genies.)

 

[JasonG123]

Lets say I'm an asshole. I'm a selfish bastard who cares only for myself. I dont even really like my friend beyond a superficial level. I am also a devout muslim (insert jokes here). The ONLY thing that would make me spare my friends life and allow my kidnapper to murder me would be because I fear punishment in the after-life for this decision.

You don't need God to give you consequences. That purpose will face real life consequences for their decision one way or another e.g. guilt, unless of course they're insane, which is an entirely different story.

Also, although the person might commit an immoral act, he is still aware that it is immoral. (unless insane) The fact that the person understands that his own act is immoral suggests that the judgement of what is right and wrong is inherent to humanity. Even if his actions differ from his thought process.

Also, the fact that you have to look for obscure hypothetical examples to my first question when I can give you several real world examples to the latter question speaks volumes.

 

[moll.]

If an action has a purely egoistic imperative, it can have no moral worth. The implication, therefore, is that a man whose piety is impelled by the plight of his soul in the afterlife is not such a moral man after all. Morality is instead founded in the everyday phenomenon of compassion. The spontaneous participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, primarily in the suffering of another, and thus in the prevention or elimination of it. Only insofar as an action has sprung from compassion does it have moral value; and every action resulting from any other motives has none. You will find, then, that your dogmas and codes are of no moral value at all, for the experience of the individual - acting in accordance with his own freedom - is at both the beginning and end of morality.

Didn't Kant take this further with the idea that a moral act done out of compassion or altruism still isn't actually moral, because the actor gets some sort of positive utility (through emotion/reputation) from it and thus it isn't actually selfless? He held that true selflessness is the conduct of a moral act because of a sense of duty to do so, even if you're reluctant. A desire to be moral means some sort of positive feedback mechanism from morality that pushes that desire and hence cannot be moral.
May have misread Kant though.

 

[moll.]

Also, p. sure OP is trolling.

 

[fortyfortyforty]

Can't tell if OP is troll or idiot. Will answer as if idiot.

Saying we don't have morality within religion is quite insulting. To suggest that we need some sort of celestial dictator to tell us what is right and wrong is ridiculous. I mean, if you were presented with conclusive proof that all religion were complete bullshit, would you go raping and murdering in the streets? There's obviously something innate that gives us some sort of morality. Moreover, the morality condoned by religion is quite obviously flawed, given that it often advocates obviously immoral actions e.g. violence against non-believers in Islam.

This is absurd. No one is saying that once you become areligious/atheist you suddenly drop all moral knowledge that you had before, because it wouldn't be done in isolation. It would be done in a society where the history and culture and the majority of the people have already dictated what's right and wrong. There's no evidence in that for innate morality. Also what are you using to say whether violence against non-believers is wrong?

Also, human beings have existed for between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The bible has been around a couple thousand years. It's obvious we have some sort of innate morality, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten this far by ourselves for 98,000 years before the bible was given. If there wasn't an innate morality, we all would have killed ourselves by then.

Humans still existing is not evidence for innate morality, because for most of human history, total genocide of the species is something that would have been extremely unrealistic given how far humans spread and the primitive weapons techology. You're also saying that without innate morality, a behavioural characteristic that humans would have is murdering/warring constantly (at some rate above the fertility rate needed to replace the dead). That sounds extreme and something with no thought behind it. Instead of using total genocide of the species to judge whether or not innate morality exists there is other evidence to look at e.g. comparison of murder rates at different times.

Lastly, consider this: Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot. Now consider this (a far easier question): Name an immoral act that is a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.

Nothing and nothing?