[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 363x391, jezusek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7410225 No.7410225[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

can ateists be moral?

>> No.7410226

Hi Steve hardy

>> No.7410237

No, that goes contradictory because they're bad people.

>> No.7410318

>>7410225
Of course not.

>> No.7410324

>>7410225
Can Christians be moral if God doesn't actually exist?

>> No.7410329

>>7410225
No atheists are all raging homicidal psychopaths.

>> No.7410331

Yes, but their morality is 90% religion and 10% other ideals ( which were probably influenced by it )

I've realized though, most atheists have a problem with the word "respect"

>> No.7410346

ONLY atheists can be moral.

>> No.7410348

Depends, will there be refreshments ?

>> No.7410351

>>7410331
90% of religious morals are just common law, the only difference being instead of a political authority they are enforced by a religious one. Religion itself is ultimately just another form of social control so saying that a moral is "religious" has no inherent meaning. Does it matter whether some king wrote down your morals on a tablet or some wacko said God told it to him thousands of years ago? Respect my authority, bitch.

>> No.7410353

>>7410324
I like this question.

What would all the religious people of the world actually do if God was proven to not exist? It's interesting to think about.

>> No.7410359
File: 20 KB, 369x123, no.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7410359

Careful OP

>> No.7410360

>>7410353
They would obviously start raping and killing each other since their morality no longer has any basis.

At least according to the logic of Christians.

>> No.7410363

>>7410225
Can Christians?
1 Samual 15:3
"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
Thus said the Lord.

>> No.7410369

>>7410353
That's implying they would believe it in the first place

>> No.7410380

>>7410363
>taking a quote from the Old Testament as if it applies to Christians

Are you retarded? Nothing in the Old Testament applies to Christians. The "new covenant" wiped the slate clean. While a Christian would likely hold the events of the OT as true in a historical sense, none of the rules or morality actually applies to a christian.

>> No.7410383

>>7410351
Well actually it's the opposite,common law is based on religion

Just look back at the society in ancient greece where faggots would do orgies and shit and the society in the middle ages where you'd get hanged for that.

Now the thing you bitches don't understand is if religions could have lasted for millenias and are still getting more and more followers then there's some truth to it. Cause if there wasn't the religion would have just died of.

>> No.7410386

>>7410369
That's kind of the point though. Is being moral simply because you believe in morals being good any less logical than being moral because you believe some all powerful being exists and wills it? Theist claim to not understand how an atheist can be moral without believing in God. Atheist do not understand what believing in something else has to do with being moral.

>> No.7410391

>>7410353
Well the opposite can be said, what'd you do if you realized god was proven to exist ?

I'd personally continue doing everything I do, cause philosophically most of what you do in religion has a value in life.

>> No.7410392

>>7410383
No, common law is based on human psychology, as is religion. Religion is a subset of morality, a certain way of presenting morality, not the source of morality. Unless of course you believe that God is the source of morality, but atheists don't. It's sort of like saying that God invented the Earth for man when in fact man was "designed" for the Earth by evolution.

>> No.7410396

>>7410386
believing in a higher being does not mean that someone is automatically more moral than another, and on the contrary it seems to have a negative effect

>> No.7410397

>>7410383
>Just look back at the society in ancient greece where faggots would do orgies and shit and the society in the middle ages where you'd get hanged for that.

lol, what's immoral about an orgy? Everything worthwhile about christian morality predates christianity.

>> No.7410402

>>7410396
That's what I'm saying.

>> No.7410404

>>7410392
Well, historically speaking religion was the law for a longass time and then it's what dictated the law. Even though you're right the fact that religion is what inspired the morals for today's society means that the morals you have are inspired by religion.

If you want a good example, duels to the death. Even with today's whole freedom talk no western country'll ever consider it something that should be legalized, and thats cause of the 10 commandments

>> No.7410405

>>7410397
Well I dunno man, the fact that you're cheating your wife by fucking with not one but 5 other women ?

>> No.7410407

>>7410383
>Now the thing you bitches don't understand is if religions could have lasted for millenias and are still getting more and more followers then there's some truth to it. Cause if there wasn't the religion would have just died of.
You know what's lasted just as long (if not longer)? Prostitution, rape, murder, etc. But Christianity says those are bad! So we have a contradiction. Therefore the idea that the longevity of an institution proves its worth is false. Not to mention that religion is slowly getting less popular.

>> No.7410409

>>7410404
>If you want a good example, duels to the death. Even with today's whole freedom talk no western country'll ever consider it something that should be legalized, and thats cause of the 10 commandments

What a load of nonsense. Dueling didn't stop until the 20th century, when people became LESS religious.

>> No.7410411

>>7410380
>God tells people to kill women and infants
Its still the same God you fucking dumbass.

>> No.7410412

>>7410405

I can't tell if you're being deliberately dense as a joke or what.

>> No.7410421

Commonalities in law between completely unrelated peoples are pretty select. I would go as far as to say a "common law" does not really exist. Ultimately most laws we follow in the western world are from Christianity, like it or not.

>> No.7410430

>ITT nobody has heard of divine command theory or moral relativism

Serious lee, guise?

>> No.7410433

>>7410421
I'd bet any law you think is "Christian" can be found in the cod of Hammurabi, which predates Christianity.

>> No.7410434

Why is this in /sci/

>> No.7410436

>>7410430
>divine command theory or moral relativism
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's being discussed. Retarded much?

>> No.7410449

>>7410433
I'm not picking a certain law, I'm talking about our cultural morality.

If you look at the code a hammurabi you'd see very clearly that while they discuss similar laws, the way they handle them culturally is far different from how we handle them in the west. This is primarily due to religious institution.

>> No.7410461

The answer is "reported".

>> No.7410467

>>7410449
No, it's in spite of religious institutions. Cultures have been far more barbaric than ours with the blessings of Christianity and other religions. It's clear if you look at religion throughout history that religion evolves as it is pressured by societal culture, not the other way around.

>> No.7410494

>>7410467
One could simply argue that such barbarism was inherited from an earlier culture and has since been completely replaced by christian teachings.

The Vikings are a great example. As Christianity spread, they stopped being shit heads and pretty much melded into the west. Also you can't really justify any sort of atrocity using the new testament. The entire premise is "be good to one another... oh and also believe in this dude so you go to a happy place".

I'm not claiming that morals exist only because of religion, more simply that without religion the cultural attitude towards such laws would be very very different. (i.e. in the code a hammurabi the penalty for theft is death)

>> No.7410496

>>7410225

READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU COCKSUCKING FAGGOT

>> No.7410584
File: 307 KB, 2397x1805, 1425757146425.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7410584

>>7410225
Nice troll thread.

But in serious response:

Individual atheists can be moral.
But a society which replaces religion with atheism will, in the long term, struggle with morality. This will in turn create generations of immoral people, not unlike we see today in the West.

One must only look at our present state of morality to see where lack of religion takes a society.

>> No.7410596

>>7410584
>One must only look at our present state of morality to see where lack of religion takes a society.
Somewhere pretty good apparently, whether you compare modern religious cultures to modern non-religions cultures or present non-religious cultures to older religious ones.

>> No.7410605

>>7410596
Where are you looking exactly?

Community as it was once known is largely dead in the West.
Charity has become vapid and self indulgent.
Child rearing is a joke.
Sexual morality speaks for itself.
Women have given up their biological roles.
The family is dead and buried.
Entertainment and popular culture have become radioative.

Want me to go on?

>> No.7410609

>>7410225
What is moral?

>> No.7410628

>>7410609
What the majority of people decide is moral.

>> No.7410630

>>7410605
Those are all debatable and personal statements which are arbitrary or subjective. If you look at things like crime rate or reported happiness, less religious cultures seem to have the advantage (for example Sweden vs United States vs India, although obviously there are exceptions).

>> No.7410633

>>7410628
If the majority decided it is ok to kill a minority for no reason, does it make it 'morally right'?

>> No.7410636

>>7410633
From their perspective, yes.

>> No.7410642

>>7410630
The fact that its debatable further proves my point that morals have gone out the window.

>> No.7410643

>>7410636
>From their perspective
So morality is not objective, but rather it is subjective?

>> No.7410648

>>7410643
Obviously

>> No.7410649

>>7410642
No, that would be begging the question.

>> No.7410652
File: 109 KB, 605x400, richnigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7410652

Yo where the fuck are the mods

>> No.7410666

>>7410648
Have you ever heard of 'Expressivism'? I can't follow all the complicated philosophical words, but I like this nice description for the lay person:

>Expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."

What do you think?

>> No.7410676

>>7410494
One could argue that, but they'd be wrong. Christianity is not static, it bends to what society considers correct, or it dies.

>> No.7410683
File: 39 KB, 562x437, Ohwow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7410683

>>7410605
1. define morality as Christian values

2. atheists do not follow Christian values

3. See! Athiests are immoral! This is why we need Christianity!

This is the logical equivalent of sucking one's own dick.

>> No.7410688

>>7410666
It sounds like an easy way to just believe whatever your 'feels' tell you, without having to justify it to anyone, including yourself.

Seems like a counterproductive viewpoint, honestly.

>> No.7410694

>>7410688
As opposed to pretending your feelings and opinions are objective facts from God?

>> No.7410695

>>7410688
>without having to justify it to anyone
What is justify?

>> No.7410703

>>7410694
At least in the mind of religious person they 'know' they are correct.
Expressivism from what I can tell, is basically going with your emotions, without necessarily convincing yourself that you are correct.

If you don't even believe you are correct, how can you possibly justify your decisions?

>>7410695
A justification is a reason for doing something. If you can't even justify a decision to yourself, you might as well just turn off your brain and let a RNG control your life.