Is morality possible without God

[Dyakovo]

Correct Atheism itself makes no such claim, since atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only. It makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. There are however other ideologies that can and do make such claims.

You can't have good or evil without God, since those things don't exist without some kind of God.

Absolute bullshit. Nothing in the definition of good or evil requires there to be a deity.

[United States of White America]

Enough of the sarcasm.

You want to live a life without sarcasm? I guess you're already spiralling into despair if you can even tolerate the thought of it. Have you experienced an epiphany recently, by any chance?

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame.

[United States of White America]

Enough of the sarcasm.

I tried starting a thread about the "merits" of atheism, only for it to be locked.

And that's exactly relevant to this conversation - how? If it's troubling you, it's easy to avoid the discussion - which, is what it is. Not to sound shrewd, so please don't assume it as such - but you can't participate an expect people to agree with you, or that they won't challenge you. If you're looking for that kind of media, a blog is better suited. Now, I may not agree with some of me 'colleagues' (the other atheists) here, in the manner that they handle these discussions - but coming to a conversation without at least a little bit of an open-mind doesn't bode well.

Which, as mentioned above - I don't agree with some of my more aggressive atheists in the manner of denouncing and calling people's beliefs stupid et cetera - to me, that is just trying to be the bigger man, and goes against the ethics of what I consider thorough intellectual debate. The same can obviously be said about the religious people participating as well - we're not here to be 'saved'. The reason these threads get locked so much, is that both sides lack any common decency to be civil, which is ironic in reality, and the debate devolves into the equivalent of two old ladies barking at each other from across the peanut gallery.

You claim that others have been aggressive, when you are doing exactly the same thing. They're taking away my right to complain about them like they're taking my right to live in a country free of gay marriage. You call that morality?

[Planita]

You want to live a life without sarcasm? I guess you're already spiralling into despair if you can even tolerate the thought of it. Have you experienced an epiphany recently, by any chance?

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame.

No one

[Hurdegaryp]

You want to live a life without sarcasm? I guess you're already spiralling into despair if you can even tolerate the thought of it. Have you experienced an epiphany recently, by any chance?

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame.

You cannot blame others for changing personal views. If you do not want to run the risk, nothing stops you from avoiding places where people with different opinions are present. Your choice, your responsibility.

[Godular]

You want to live a life without sarcasm? I guess you're already spiralling into despair if you can even tolerate the thought of it. Have you experienced an epiphany recently, by any chance?

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame thank.

Fixed that for ya.

[United States of White America]

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame.

No one

I mean Risottia.

[United States of White America]

If I end up becoming an atheist, I'll know who to blame thank.

Fixed that for ya.

Arrogant.

[Hurdegaryp]

And that's exactly relevant to this conversation - how? If it's troubling you, it's easy to avoid the discussion - which, is what it is. Not to sound shrewd, so please don't assume it as such - but you can't participate an expect people to agree with you, or that they won't challenge you. If you're looking for that kind of media, a blog is better suited. Now, I may not agree with some of me 'colleagues' (the other atheists) here, in the manner that they handle these discussions - but coming to a conversation without at least a little bit of an open-mind doesn't bode well.

Which, as mentioned above - I don't agree with some of my more aggressive atheists in the manner of denouncing and calling people's beliefs stupid et cetera - to me, that is just trying to be the bigger man, and goes against the ethics of what I consider thorough intellectual debate. The same can obviously be said about the religious people participating as well - we're not here to be 'saved'. The reason these threads get locked so much, is that both sides lack any common decency to be civil, which is ironic in reality, and the debate devolves into the equivalent of two old ladies barking at each other from across the peanut gallery.

You claim that others have been aggressive, when you are doing exactly the same thing. They're taking away my right to complain about them like they're taking my right to live in a country free of gay marriage. You call that morality?

Well, that's just grand. So you feel suppressed because of marriage equality? What value has your concept of freedom if it is based upon denying the same basic freedom to those not like you? You do not care about freedom at all.

[Godular]

Fixed that for ya.

Arrogant.

Projection.

[Geanna]

And that's exactly relevant to this conversation - how? If it's troubling you, it's easy to avoid the discussion - which, is what it is. Not to sound shrewd, so please don't assume it as such - but you can't participate an expect people to agree with you, or that they won't challenge you. If you're looking for that kind of media, a blog is better suited. Now, I may not agree with some of me 'colleagues' (the other atheists) here, in the manner that they handle these discussions - but coming to a conversation without at least a little bit of an open-mind doesn't bode well.

Which, as mentioned above - I don't agree with some of my more aggressive atheists in the manner of denouncing and calling people's beliefs stupid et cetera - to me, that is just trying to be the bigger man, and goes against the ethics of what I consider thorough intellectual debate. The same can obviously be said about the religious people participating as well - we're not here to be 'saved'. The reason these threads get locked so much, is that both sides lack any common decency to be civil, which is ironic in reality, and the debate devolves into the equivalent of two old ladies barking at each other from across the peanut gallery.

You claim that others have been aggressive, when you are doing exactly the same thing. They're taking away my right to complain about them like they're taking my right to live in a country free of gay marriage. You call that morality?

As far as I can see, I haven't been aggressive - and I haven't tried to take away your "right to complain" either. Merely tried to reason with you, that people have differing opinions. Also, this isn't a thread about Gay Marriage and its implications.

[Ardavia]

Me.



You can start spiralling and despairing then. I've been told it's rather fun.

Enough of the sarcasm.

I tried starting a thread about the "merits" of atheism, only for it to be locked.

You mean this thread? viewtopic.php?f=20&t=349259

Because it's fairly obvious why it was locked, tbh.

[Risottia]

No one

I mean Risottia.

Thank you! Now that's some hope you're giving me. I feel useful!

[Hurdegaryp]

You claim that others have been aggressive, when you are doing exactly the same thing. They're taking away my right to complain about them like they're taking my right to live in a country free of gay marriage. You call that morality?

As far as I can see, I haven't been aggressive - and I haven't tried to take away your "right to complain" either. Merely tried to reason with you, that people have differing opinions. Also, this isn't a thread about Gay Marriage and its implications.

His outburst does give us an interesting insight in his true nature. Apparently he feels threatened whenever progress in the field of civil rights is made. That is actually a malevolent and tyrannical mindset masquerading as 'freedom'. Now that is not uncommon for fundamentalists, but it is a highly amoral and potentially dangerous (societally speaking) way of thinking.

[Dyakovo]

It's so obvious that good and evil are relative, isn't it?

No doubt the seal thinks bringing food to it's pup is unquestionably good, the highest of moral duty. And probably the penguin disagrees.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

Humans are an animal species.

Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

[Planita]

Enough of the sarcasm.

I tried starting a thread about the "merits" of atheism, only for it to be locked.

You mean this thread? viewtopic.php?f=20&t=349259

Write a larger OP so it can last longer before we destroy it.

[Geanna]

As far as I can see, I haven't been aggressive - and I haven't tried to take away your "right to complain" either. Merely tried to reason with you, that people have differing opinions. Also, this isn't a thread about Gay Marriage and its implications.

His outburst does give us an interesting insight in his true nature. Apparently he feels threatened whenever progress in the field of civil rights is made. That is actually a malevolent and tyrannical mindset masquerading as 'freedom'. Now that is not uncommon for fundamentalists, but it is a highly amoral and potentially dangerous (societally speaking) way of thinking.

The psychology behind it is interesting - anonymity often exposes the deeper side of a person's personality, what they don't and wouldn't typically display in public. It's why I tend to like this quote;

"D'you know the problem with a disguise?, Mr. Holmes. However how hard you try, it's always a self-portrait."

Basically - what has been discerned is that when an individual is given a "mask", the idea of accountability has been removed, where as expressing a vulgar opinion could result in real repercussions with one's peers, it is less likely to be a force of restraint while behind said "mask". As a result, we get to see what he really thinks behind the glass.

[Dyakovo]

If I could sig that, I would. Partly what convinced me to become an atheist was growing up around the peace walls in NI.

Im guessing that's in America.

You're guessing the peace walls in Northern Ireland are in America?
...
Thats a rather counter-intuitive guess...

[Hurdegaryp]

You mean this thread? viewtopic.php?f=20&t=349259

Write a larger OP so it can last longer before we destroy it.

The neckbeards didn't even get a fair chance to do that thing they do so well. A missed chance, I say.

[Geanna]

Im guessing that's in America.

You're guessing the peace walls in Northern Ireland are in America?
...
Thats a rather counter-intuitive guess...

It was a mistake on his part Dya - no biggie.

[Hurdegaryp]

His outburst does give us an interesting insight in his true nature. Apparently he feels threatened whenever progress in the field of civil rights is made. That is actually a malevolent and tyrannical mindset masquerading as 'freedom'. Now that is not uncommon for fundamentalists, but it is a highly amoral and potentially dangerous (societally speaking) way of thinking.

The psychology behind it is interesting - anonymity often exposes the deeper side of a person's personality, what they don't and wouldn't typically display in public. It's why I tend to like this quote;

"D'you know the problem with a disguise?, Mr. Holmes. However how hard you try, it's always a self-portrait."

Basically - what has been discerned is that when an individual is given a "mask", the idea of accountability has been removed, where as expressing a vulgar opinion could result in real repercussions with one's peers, it is less likely to be a force of restraint while behind said "mask". As a result, we get to see what he really thinks behind the glass.

Well, of course there are more than a few people who actually spout such rethorics in public. Hell, quite a few doom prophets made a career out of it.

[Geanna]

The psychology behind it is interesting - anonymity often exposes the deeper side of a person's personality, what they don't and wouldn't typically display in public. It's why I tend to like this quote;



Basically - what has been discerned is that when an individual is given a "mask", the idea of accountability has been removed, where as expressing a vulgar opinion could result in real repercussions with one's peers, it is less likely to be a force of restraint while behind said "mask". As a result, we get to see what he really thinks behind the glass.

Well, of course there are more than a few people who actually spout such rethorics in public. Hell, quite a few doom prophets made a career out of it.

Indeed. Though I think that has less to deal with devotion to those beliefs, and more to deal with a cult of personality and NPD.

[Risottia]

It's so obvious that good and evil are relative, isn't it?

No doubt the seal thinks bringing food to it's pup is unquestionably good, the highest of moral duty. And probably the penguin disagrees.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable.

1.Are you aware that you have been comparing non-human animals with human animals RIGHT THERE IN YOUR POST?
2.Also, some proof of animals being "built" for some "purpose". What was the purpose of an Anomalocaris?

[Dyakovo]

You're guessing the peace walls in Northern Ireland are in America?
...
Thats a rather counter-intuitive guess...

It was a mistake on his part Dya - no biggie.

Fine... Spoil my fun...

[Herskerstad]

Morality? Well, certainly no transcendence beyond the concept of the collective good. However de-facto without any transcendent nature then ones own existence would be the alpha and omega so to speak which would make it hard to argue against self-serving attitudes however vile.

The weaker the cause, the weaker the effect.