Morality Without God
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
That would be great and dandy now wouldn't it?..Howeve historically it has been theist who push their idealogies on the rest of us, and sometimes those idealogies have been "forced" on us as well.
Are secularist forcing their idealogies on the ingnorant masses?
I don't think so.
Godless
(Q) said:
OK, maybe most of our morality is orientated around "getting along together". However, not all. Choosing not to eat meat has nothing to do with getting along with others. People do not choose to be vegetarian or vegan to "maintain the social order" for instance. It is likely to be out of "principled conscience" (see below). It is this aspect that Cohen overlooks.
Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (a.k.a. The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (a.k.a. Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles (a.k.a. Principled conscience)
The major spiritual religions aim to model good values (e.g. care of others, forgiveness etc.), and encourage us to discover our own deepest values, internalise them and put them into practice. Most of our highest societal values (e.g. care of the sick (NHS), benefits for those on low income) originate directly from the ideals of Christianity. Religion, like everything, can become dogmatic, rigid and conventional. However, atheism/secularism can too (e.g. consumerism, materialism, competition) but has not the spiritual means to save us!
You cannot be serious?!? I'm sorry to shatter your delusions Q but slavery; exploitation; racism; poverty and imperialism are NOT disputes between theists! They were primarily secular activities with secularists deeply involved in them all!(Q) said:
Oh yes I see it now!! Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein - all just wanted to get along with their family, neighbours, State etc. in happiness and prosperity. If it hadn't been for those nasssty theists....(Q) said:
You're off the planet?! Most of the major wars in recent times are entirely secular - certainly the ones that threaten to wipe us out: WW1, WW2, The Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, Afganistan, Iraq.... Present and future ones will be about OIL. Even the Palestinian-Isreali conflict is about LAND not religion. You don't half tell 'em!(Q) said:
A dictatorship of any kind, wether it be religious or atheist will end up in war one way or another. The point though is that democratic nations that are highly religious will more likely support war than that of secular democracies.
I just noticed you called Afghanistan and Iraq a 'secular' war? How do you come to this conclusion when the whole thing is caused by the instability of two highly religious regions... (ie. the US and the Middle East)? Wasn't Iraq a mission given to Bush from God? I wouldn't be surprised... Notice that the more secular democracies like France and Germany avoided this war and condemmed it.
I just noticed you called Afghanistan and Iraq a 'secular' war? How do you come to this conclusion when the whole thing is caused by the instability of two highly religious regions... (ie. the US and the Middle East)? Wasn't Iraq a mission given to Bush from God? I wouldn't be surprised... Notice that the more secular democracies like France and Germany avoided this war and condemmed it.
Last edited:
YES it does.
Animals point of view: If I NEED food to survive, I will KILL to get it.
Humans slaughter millions of animals everyday worldwide. (but hey im no vegetarian, just making a point)
And you cannot assume torture is anything other than a HUMAN behavior.
We are still comparing animals to humans right? Not humans to humans?
Last edited:
usp8riot
Registered Senior Member
Life is more black and white than that. If you were on a desert island with a friend, stranded, alone and no food/water, the only necessary option was to kill your friend and eat him, would that make it right? Whatever deemed necessary, right? So that makes you a cannibal. Whatever is good for all as a whole is right, not by the necessary needs of the individual.
His religion clearly played it's part. As it did in the majority of US citizens in supporting the war. You see, when citizens who are largely religious are presented with a case for war, they will support it due to this reinforced belief that what they are doing is right.
I'm not sure Bush is actually religious in the sense that it is a personal thing. He is contantly flogging his beliefs in politics and the media, but I feel he does this because he knows it's his flogging of evangelical beliefs that got him into office in the first place. This also allows him to pull the strings of his citizens using this religion by presenting them with lies but since God is on their side it is the right thing to do.
Compare the citizens reactions in America and the UK during the invasion. The UK a much more secular country saw massive demonstrations and Tony Blair was condemned by pretty much everyone outside of America.
But if I have veered off my point, let me just reiterate it: The Iraq war is not a secular war - It was a war created by two unstable highly religious regions.
cole grey said:
That way has failed miserably as we can clearly see in history and today. If peoples beliefs did not extend into their decision making process, there would be no need to criticize their religion and demand secularization.
And of course, "longing for" the existence of gods and the reality of their existence are two completely different things, and that is exactly the problem.
As is the theists mistake with atheism. Unfortunately, theists are unable to find few, if any examples of atheists heinous behaviour.
I take religion as a whole single entity of sorts, mainly because people are different and have different views of their religion and their god. I've asked many theists here to provide their views and have yet to find anything that resembles a match, sort of like trying to match fingerprints. They usually go off raving at one another in their differing views, yet both are of the same faith. Comical, really.
Diogenes' Dog said:
Or maybe just a change of diet?
Of course, they may not have the mind to "maintain the social order" when they chose not to eat meat, but that certainly is a social decision in that others in the society do eat meat, and they are making a statement.
If not, see first answer above.
That is the morality we are currently discussing, which does not require devine intervention. Those religions are not creating any models, they're just parroting the obvious.
Yes, I'm sure Christians would like to believe that too.
I'm afraid you've made a critical error in your assertion of atheism/secularism. There is no dogma, ridigity or conventionalism in atheism, you'd need to show that.
And you assume theists are NOT involved in consumerism, materialism or competition?
I made no mention of the activities, I merely stated they were theists settling disputes between other theists, that is a fact.
They were all theists. You should've known that.
Then, perhaps you can show me a war in which atheists were fighting other atheists?
Where is your evidence of that statement?KennyJC said:
The wars I quoted earlier (ww1, ww2, korea, cold war, vietnam etc.) were all between secular powers. Those communist nations e.g. USSR, Korea, are atheist and prohibit (or at least discourage) religion.
KennyJC said:
Afganistan was ostensibly a revenge attack to destroy the regime that was providing refuge and training facilities for the Sept 11 terrorists. There was a lot of anger after 9/11, and people wanted blood. While religion may have been the motive for 9/11, it was an incidental factor in the US attack. The main motive was the desire for revenge, not disagreement over religion.
Iraq, while paying lip service to Islam was not a theocracy, nor was Saddam Hussein a devout muslim. I don't know what Bush heard from God, but the motive I would suggest was the unfinished business from his Dad and of course oil. The US has a powerful christian lobby, and many of it's citizens are nominal christians, but it is not a theocracy and is a secular country.
I said - "... let everyone do their own thing..."
q said -"That way has failed miserably as we can clearly see in history and today. If peoples beliefs did not extend into their decision making process, there would be no need to criticize their religion and demand secularization."
godless said - "That would be great and dandy now wouldn't it?..Howeve historically it has been theist who push their idealogies on the rest of us, and sometimes those idealogies have been "forced" on us as well. "
Godless implies that theists should have let everyone do their own thing instead of "forcing" the issue, and Q says letting everyone do their own thing has failed -
why don't you two figure out whether or not my way makes sense.
Also, anti-religious regimes such as communist china and old ussr did some bad shit.
Plus during the french revolution a bunch of secularist people also did some heinous shit while they were trying to change the government there. That is a good example - under the pretense of being rationalist they were performing an action that was really based on financial needs. Some people in america are stupid enough to believe the country was founded and then emancipated from being a colony of england for religious reasons - hahaha.
q said -"That way has failed miserably as we can clearly see in history and today. If peoples beliefs did not extend into their decision making process, there would be no need to criticize their religion and demand secularization."
godless said - "That would be great and dandy now wouldn't it?..Howeve historically it has been theist who push their idealogies on the rest of us, and sometimes those idealogies have been "forced" on us as well. "
Godless implies that theists should have let everyone do their own thing instead of "forcing" the issue, and Q says letting everyone do their own thing has failed -
why don't you two figure out whether or not my way makes sense.
A lot of horrible shit has been personally done by atheists. If you think athiests commit no crimes, you are twisted in the head.q said:
Also, anti-religious regimes such as communist china and old ussr did some bad shit.
Plus during the french revolution a bunch of secularist people also did some heinous shit while they were trying to change the government there. That is a good example - under the pretense of being rationalist they were performing an action that was really based on financial needs. Some people in america are stupid enough to believe the country was founded and then emancipated from being a colony of england for religious reasons - hahaha.
It isn't one.q said:
evil is a very very bad thing. Anything that is a very very bad thing - bombing babies, torture, cutting people's throats, or shooting them and leaving them to die in a jungle/desert/forest/city - is evil.(Q) said:
Defending yourself is not, e.g., WWII when french people shot germans who were invading their land, that wasn't evil. The germans shooting the french were evil. Americans in france helping the french=not evil. Americans bombing germans = a necessary evil. Americans dropping a nuke on japan= a necessary evil (supposedly). The second nuke we dropped on japan = evil.
Defenition of "Evil" according to Cole:
Religion:
Victims of Christianity
History of Islam
The Dark Bible
That settles it then, Religion is evil!
Godless
Religion:
Victims of Christianity
History of Islam
The Dark Bible
That settles it then, Religion is evil!
Godless
The evidence is in the fact that secular countries like Sweden, Austrailia, Denmark, France etc in this day and age are never going to start a war. If on the other hand those countries had a huge religious right like America has, do you really think they would be as peaceful?
Atheist communist nations are not secular societies, they are dictatorships. Any country which forces atheism are just as dangerous than those with high religious priorities like the states and the middle east.
You really are trying to stretch the definition of a secular war here. The whole Afghanistan thing started as a result of religious motivations on the part of the attackers on september 11th. The whole Iraq war was started by religious motivations of the citizens and the administration.
It appears your definition of a secular war is any war that isn't started by the church... which is unreasonable. America and the Middle East are causing so much strife in the world today because of their conflicting religions and their religions themselves.
The religious right was very much in support of the war, wheras the liberal left was totally against it... That is my point right there which is what I want you to address.
Last edited:
cole grey said:
I'll clarify. Theist control societies has failed, Godless points out that perhaps Atheist based societies should have a go a it.
Many theists have tried to point out that communist based states, "did some bad shit" although they fail to understand those living within those states were still theists and continued to practice their religion despite state rules. I should know, I spent a year in the Soviet Union and spent a few weeks in China.
"Heinous shit" hahaha. You mean the age of "Enlightenment?" It was the attempted abolition of state and church, the opposition to the cultural and political hegemony of the Vatican.
Theism is theism, no matter how many spins and flavors theists might conjure up. Its a belief in the supernatural, things that have never been shown to exist. So, yes, it IS a single entity.
It matters not whose god can beat up the other god, those are mere details of imagined perceptions.
cole grey said:
You should understand that evil is relative - what may be evil to one is good to another, especially as you've defined it. In fact, you've made that distinction by considering some evils as 'necessary.'
That is primarily one of the reasons atheists don't bother with terms such as good and evil, since these terms are of a biblical nature and are completely subjective.
I think the point is, atheists commit less crimes.
Which is why free secular democracies are the way forward. Power and religion obviously don't work. Power and atheism don't work either. However, having a democratic society where people are free to be atheist or free to practice any religion without either atheism nor religion having power in politics, eduction or law etc is the only way to have a healthy society. Recent trends in seclar democracies have already shown this is the best way forward for social health... But there is a way to go yet...