Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheist v/s Spirituality/Christianty


willowdreams

Recommended Posts

religious people can and do say killing is wrong, yet then they will use their religious quotes to say it is ok to kill the killer or go to war and kill whoever ceasar says to kill.

Well, that's their problem. Either they were violating their morality, or their morality allows murdering certain people and is therefore not correct morality.

the main problem i have with your thought is, as an atheist i do not believe in god. *oh my.. this means there is NO higher power morality, just our morality in as many forms as we come in*

I don't and can't believe this. If this is true, then whether slaughtering children for fun is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

No spiritual person of any faith has ever been able to absolutely prove there is a god or spiritual omnipotent being. so saying there is like a HIGHER morality based on a higher being does not really work, because there has never been proof of such a being, not even in the religious/spiritual realm, in the end you have to break it down to the itty bitty of blind faith. and i do not believe or desire to believe in a morality based on blind faith.

Depends on what you mean by proof. I don't know about gods, but the existence of angel-like beings is pretty much a fact to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever morality is examined, religious authority an morality adapts to society, at least whenever it's considered progress.

I mean, we now allow women to teach, slavery is mostly abolished, and we wear mixed fibers. Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do good and have morals if you are an atheist? As an atheist, you believe that when you die, you no longer exist, and your body decomposes into the ground. So, why have morals if there is no consequence for anything you do in life, because everyone dies eventually?

I personally believe in karma, so that's why I choose to go good things and be as honest and loving as I can. I do not call myself an atheist, but more of an agnostic. I have my reasons for not being religious, but I feel as if we all have Souls and there is a great mystery that religion has tried to solve but cant.

Do you believe in anything life that? Cause to my understanding, atheists do not believe in any of that, including karma.

Im not starting a debate, just curious what kind of atheist you are.

sorry i took so long to respond, yday was medicated and did not think i could really do anyone any justice by responding to much :)

Anyways, why do good? Why do bad? No, I do not believe in Karma. Why would I? I do not think things come back at people, i WANT there to be karma, but there is no. I have seen horrid pple do really really horrid things, and they have a great life and genuinely are happy! if there is karma after death, then it is no good now. it is this lifetime you suffer, yanno?

Anyways, since I do not believe in karma, i do not believe in heaven or hell, and i honestly believe this is it. WHY would I want to be bad? I have emotions, i feel for others in pain, hate it.. why would I want to cause bad feelings in other people? I mean, I believe this life is it, if I want pleasure and fun for myself, then wouldnt my neighbor?

Why would I make him or her suffer?

Why do bad? If I was a bad person who did not feel for others, did not have empathy, then sure, nothing would stop me aside of the law if caught or death.

But if you are christian and have no empathy, well believing in something is not gonna stop you from being bad if you like it a lOT and do not feel any empathy for others.

Karma? I doubt pple who dont care bout others care bout karma.

Besides, when i get down to the nitty gritty of things, i would hate to think that the ONLY reason i do good and not bad is because of karma, or something, i would like to believe that inside me i feel enough for other people to NOT want to hurt them, because i CARE.

I also believe it is what children need, to have their empathy fed, nurtured.. to teach them love, care, feel.

**shrugs** prolly did not explain it well, and that is ok, I did what i could :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do good? Personally I always feel doing good to be the default position, doing harm to be the abnormal behaviour.

And why not? What do I gain from acting immorally?

Life is short, and to make life worthwhile most of us require friends and family. Acting immorally will usually not reward you with a large amount of worthwhile friends, and might separate you from your family as well.

And yes, your body may just rot in the ground, but hopefully your memory will live on. And for myself at least, I wish to be remembered well. It's not as lasting as the immortality offered in myths and legends, but if I were to die tomorrow I know for a fact people will miss me, my nieces will remember the time I spent helping them, my friends will remember what times we had, and hopefully I've provided some example (I won't kid,mostly a bad example,but even so.) of how to find worthwhile things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- post removed -

Fair point. I use the Bible as an example because it is most familiar to me.

Thanks for answering the first question (and second one - almost). So, you see objective morality as being revealed divinely and is unchanging. Is that right? I agree with this - if it did exist. I could describe in geat detail the lesser-spotted manchurian unicorn - but this doesn't make it real.

So, if objective morality does exist, then can you give me an example of it? I ask this because I can't think of one single moral principle that has not changed over time, or is conditional based on context.

For example (and sorry to use the Bible again) but one divinely revealed moral was "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Fair enough. Except that further revelations to Moses make it clear that it's fine (compulsory, in fact) to kill sinners, homosexuals, people who have sex with animals, people of have sex with their mother-in-law (Incidentally, I'm fine with this rule), and Canaanites (all of them).

Is it Ok to kill in self-defence or during war? Is capital punishment acceptable? This divine revelation is all very well but not that helpful when it comes to how to implement these things practically.

So, human created morality is not oxymoronic, as objective morality does not exist. Unless you can provide an example.

One more thing, as I said before, morality is not about personal opinion. You say: " One human says murder is wrong, another says it's right. " but this isn't so. One may say it's right, but millions will say it's wrong. And when this goes wrong the whole world sees the damage that is done. This is why autocracies and dictatorships are often so malign. Democracies (for all their faults) would not allow this to happen, because it isn't about personal opinion, it's about collective opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do good and have morals if you are an atheist? As an atheist, you believe that when you die, you no longer exist, and your body decomposes into the ground. So, why have morals if there is no consequence for anything you do in life, because everyone dies eventually?

I personally believe in karma, so that's why I choose to go good things and be as honest and loving as I can. I do not call myself an atheist, but more of an agnostic. I have my reasons for not being religious, but I feel as if we all have Souls and there is a great mystery that religion has tried to solve but cant.

Do you believe in anything life that? Cause to my understanding, atheists do not believe in any of that, including karma.

Im not starting a debate, just curious what kind of atheist you are.

I think you may be doing yourself down a bit here. Is it really only fear of the consequences that keep you from doing bad things (or the rewards of doing good)?

I'll bet you're not that different to me. I'm an atheist. I don't believe that I will face the consequences of anything bad I do, in the next life or an afterlife. Yet I don't steal, I try not to harm others, I've never struck any of my children and never in my life thrown a punch (and as I'm getting on a bit now I don't intend to start soon). So, why not?

I believe it's because I see value in other people's lives that I see in my own. I empathise with others. I believe if you do right by someone, they'll do right by you. I won't do to others that which I wouldn't want done to me, etc....

Edited by Arbenol68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- post removed -

I would argue that religious people still have their own personal opinion. That is called theology. What does a non-spiritual person have besides their opinion? Science, philosophy, history, experience...

One more thing, as I said before, morality is not about personal opinion. You say: " One human says murder is wrong, another says it's right. " but this isn't so. One may say it's right, but millions will say it's wrong. And when this goes wrong the whole world sees the damage that is done. This is why autocracies and dictatorships are often so malign. Democracies (for all their faults) would not allow this to happen, because it isn't about personal opinion, it's about collective opinion.

If you think democracies would not allow these types of things I think you need an American History lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- post removed -

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

- post removed -

I know it's not objective morality. I'm arguing that it does not exist anyway. Your comment makes the assumption that it exists and your argument stems from that assumption. If your assumption is incorrect, then your entire argument is void.

Why would any society take to sacrificing toddlers? If it was their own toddlers, then they wouldn't be around for long. Do you mean toddlers from a different society or tribe? Well, I guess that has happened in the past, where children have been directly or indirectly targetted. Not that long ago European children were stuffed up chimneys to do a days work, and the equivalent of this still happens in many parts of the world. Clearly the children's rights movement has not reached everywhere. But that just illuminates the point that morality is relative. I find it abhorrent that children are treated so poorly. I also find the death penalty abhorrent. You don't have to go back too far to a time when slavery was seen as acceptable, women were burned as witches, etc. If you lived in these societies at these times you would probably see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they believed they were doing the right thing. You might even have taken your kids to a public execution for a nice day out.

Moral standards change over time. We look back at history and are appalled by much of the behaviour of our ancestors. Our distant descendants will probably look back at us and consider that we were morally retarded (for the way we still farm and butcher animals, for example). Who knows how things will change?

Morality is relative to time and place. There is no absolute truth. We often get things badly wrong, but I believe that most people try their best to do what is right. It's a work in progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think democracies would not allow these types of things I think you need an American History lesson.

True democracies are a relatively new invention. If you look at America historically you can't claim that is was a democracy when only white males got to vote.

Although point taken. It would be more accurate to have said: 'Democracies (for all their faults) would generally not allow this to happen'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

laugh.gif so true lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that religious people still have their own personal opinion. That is called theology. What does a non-spiritual person have besides their opinion? Science, philosophy, history, experience...

Indeed. But objective morality isn't derived from those things.

All due respect, but you could make this argument for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

I'm aware of that. The point is about solid evidence that can be presented to other people, such as a photo, or a body part. If you go to Loch Ness and come across Nessie, and see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, on several occasions, then it does exist, regardless of whether you can prove it to other people.

I know it's not objective morality. I'm arguing that it does not exist anyway. Your comment makes the assumption that it exists and your argument stems from that assumption. If your assumption is incorrect, then your entire argument is void.

Why would any society take to sacrificing toddlers? If it was their own toddlers, then they wouldn't be around for long. Do you mean toddlers from a different society or tribe? Well, I guess that has happened in the past, where children have been directly or indirectly targetted. Not that long ago European children were stuffed up chimneys to do a days work, and the equivalent of this still happens in many parts of the world. Clearly the children's rights movement has not reached everywhere. But that just illuminates the point that morality is relative. I find it abhorrent that children are treated so poorly. I also find the death penalty abhorrent. You don't have to go back too far to a time when slavery was seen as acceptable, women were burned as witches, etc. If you lived in these societies at these times you would probably see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they believed they were doing the right thing. You might even have taken your kids to a public execution for a nice day out.

Moral standards change over time. We look back at history and are appalled by much of the behaviour of our ancestors. Our distant descendants will probably look back at us and consider that we were morally retarded (for the way we still farm and butcher animals, for example). Who knows how things will change?

Morality is relative to time and place. There is no absolute truth. We often get things badly wrong, but I believe that most people try their best to do what is right. It's a work in progress.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, but how do know objective morality doesn't exist? Perhaps it does but we don't know it yet. No one has proved the nonexistence of objective moral truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have to agree to disagree then, but how do know objective morality doesn't exist? Perhaps it does but we don't know it yet. No one has proved the nonexistence of objective moral truth.

I don't know it doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (just like you can't prove that God doesn't exist).

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I'm open to persuasion. The idea of an absolute truth of objective morality is a concrete concept. It isn't something vague and nebulous. If it does indeed exist then it really should be more apparent than this.

Is there anybody that can provide an example of something that reflects an absolute and objective morality? Or is that a dumb question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see atheists, christians or whoever both sticking their beliefs in other peoples faces, thats what everyone doesn't like and what gives them both the bad name. I don't think it's much to do with morals as much as it is being an annoyance. I'm not saying everyone does it, but the bad ones do give everyone else a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the sake of interest, are you aware how insulting that sounds, to state that someone who ends their journey at religion is "stunted". I mean, I'm growing my beliefs daily so I can't say my journey is at an "end". No true human being will stop growing in their beliefs or non-beliefs. But the way I interpret your words here, it sounds as if those who hold a religious faith are people worthy of pity for not being able to "grow" beyond faith in a particular deity. And that is just plain insulting, whether you intend it to be or not.

Just a thought,

With that rationale, if you went back in time and talked to the smartest of cavemen, do you not think they would think you were insulting to them, even if you weren't outright insulting them? My rationale would equate to what the tv show star trek has. If we ever do become interstellar, and we find another species that is far less advanced than us, if we spoke to them, doubtless they would think we were talking down to them, even though we weren't. You may feel insulted, but I am not insulting you. Religion is the beginning but not the end, just as emotion is the beginning but not the end. So yes, if one stays with religion only, and does not grow beyond it, they are stunting their growth. It isn't insulting just as someone who only learns english but not math wouldn't be insulted if they came upon a mathematician. That is the growth I speak of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do good? Personally I always feel doing good to be the default position, doing harm to be the abnormal behaviour.

And why not? What do I gain from acting immorally?

Life is short, and to make life worthwhile most of us require friends and family. Acting immorally will usually not reward you with a large amount of worthwhile friends, and might separate you from your family as well.

And yes, your body may just rot in the ground, but hopefully your memory will live on. And for myself at least, I wish to be remembered well. It's not as lasting as the immortality offered in myths and legends, but if I were to die tomorrow I know for a fact people will miss me, my nieces will remember the time I spent helping them, my friends will remember what times we had, and hopefully I've provided some example (I won't kid,mostly a bad example,but even so.) of how to find worthwhile things.

Mankind is barbaric. That is natural. The abnormality is doing the opposite. Though perhaps on an evolutionary ideal, perhaps as time goes on then perhaps doing good will become the norm, but with the way things go, that is going the route of the dodo. The gain from acting morally is survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that rationale, if you went back in time and talked to the smartest of cavemen, do you not think they would think you were insulting to them, even if you weren't outright insulting them? My rationale would equate to what the tv show star trek has. If we ever do become interstellar, and we find another species that is far less advanced than us, if we spoke to them, doubtless they would think we were talking down to them, even though we weren't. You may feel insulted, but I am not insulting you. Religion is the beginning but not the end, just as emotion is the beginning but not the end. So yes, if one stays with religion only, and does not grow beyond it, they are stunting their growth. It isn't insulting just as someone who only learns english but not math wouldn't be insulted if they came upon a mathematician. That is the growth I speak of.

Ok, so you weren't insulting us religious types, you just feel that religious people are less evolved than those who have managed to move beyond religious ideology. In order to be "less evolved" it implies an evolutionary superiority on your part. Sure, you may not intend to be insulting, but nevertheless you are. That's just how I see it.

~ Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you weren't insulting us religious types, you just feel that religious people are less evolved than those who have managed to move beyond religious ideology. In order to be "less evolved" it implies an evolutionary superiority on your part. Sure, you may not intend to be insulting, but nevertheless you are. That's just how I see it.

~ Regards,

I wouldn't say that religious types are unevolved just because they follow religion. I would say the same about someone that is pure logic. One that stops at one and refuses to go forwards is in effect stunting themselves. That's a fact. You think it is insulting when it is not. But if you feel that way, nothing I can do about it. Make sure you never go to a tribe thats never seen "civilized" people before, they may think you're insulting them. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that religious types are unevolved just because they follow religion. I would say the same about someone that is pure logic. One that stops at one and refuses to go forwards is in effect stunting themselves. That's a fact. You think it is insulting when it is not. But if you feel that way, nothing I can do about it. Make sure you never go to a tribe thats never seen "civilized" people before, they may think you're insulting them. :rolleyes:

I think it's more the manner in which you say it. You used the word "stunted", and just checking the online dictionary, stunted is defined as "retarded of growth or development". Moreover, your use of the caveman analogy and us going back to see even the smartest of them. Then linking that to religious folk being the analogous caveman, even the smartest of us religious folk are still not as evolved as someone like you.

I don't see you as anything different to I. We are all human beings following our hearts and minds to wherever it leads us. Obviously you don't return that concept of equality. You may treat us equally, but you believe you are evolutionarily superior. I simply think we are all in the same boat called "humanity".

~ Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So religious people imply atheist are immoral and hold up Pol pot, Stalin, and Mao as examples. Atheist say people who believe in religion are stupid and violent people that have yet to evolve; and hold up the Crusades, Inquisition, and modern day religious terror as examples. Why don;t we all just agree the human race is stupid and self destructive as a whole, and leave it at that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more the manner in which you say it. You used the word "stunted", and just checking the online dictionary, stunted is defined as "retarded of growth or development". Moreover, your use of the caveman analogy and us going back to see even the smartest of them. Then linking that to religious folk being the analogous caveman, even the smartest of us religious folk are still not as evolved as someone like you.

I don't see you as anything different to I. We are all human beings following our hearts and minds to wherever it leads us. Obviously you don't return that concept of equality. You may treat us equally, but you believe you are evolutionarily superior. I simply think we are all in the same boat called "humanity".

~ Regards,

You've hit upon something I've said in other posts and it may invariably be true. I feel I'm losing my humanity. I've grown so different from humanity that I barely consider myself human anymore. Hence why in another thread, I've said I've been looking for something salvageable in mankind. I've yet to find it. :(

And in case you think I feel superior or it makes me happy, it doesn't, only different. And alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people pick and choose what is good and bad in the Bible, doesn't that mean they had morals before they read it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people pick and choose what is good and bad in the Bible, doesn't that mean they had morals before they read it?

Everyone has morals, just as everyone has their own version of reality. The question is: are their morals, or version of reality, true or false? I assume the Bible says some morals are right and others are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know it doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something (just like you can't prove that God doesn't exist).

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I'm open to persuasion. The idea of an absolute truth of objective morality is a concrete concept. It isn't something vague and nebulous. If it does indeed exist then it really should be more apparent than this.

Is there anybody that can provide an example of something that reflects an absolute and objective morality? Or is that a dumb question?

It isn't a dumb question, and I'm glad you're open-minded, but I think "converting" due to personal experience is better than doing it because of something you read. I don't know how to convince you to believe what I believe, so I can only hope that you have a nice spiritual experience to convince you of the truth. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people pick and choose what is good and bad in the Bible, doesn't that mean they had morals before they read it?

Of course they did... In fact mankind has had morals to live by long before we heard of a bible..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.