Are atheists immoral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
Moral according to meaning.
Click to expand...
For sake of argument let’s say there is an ultimate meaning. Whatever it It’s gets distorted or filtered by the religion/philosophy/etc that claims to know what it is and how to comply with it.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
For sake of argument let’s say there is an ultimate meaning. Whatever it It’s gets distorted or filtered by the religion/philosophy/etc that claims to know what it is and how to comply with it.
Click to expand...
You don’t know meaning. Do you? What is the difference between atheist and you then when it comes to meaning? What is the difference between you and atheist when it comes to morality?
 
STT said:
You don’t know meaning. Do you? What is the difference between atheist and you then when it comes to meaning? What is the difference between you and atheist when it comes to morality?
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, I don’t get the intended *meaning *of these questions. Are you asking her what is the difference in how she uses the word “meaning” and how other atheists (plural) use the word? And the same for morality.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
In all seriousness, I don’t get the intended *meaning *of these questions. Are you asking her what is the difference in how she uses the word “meaning” and how other atheists (plural) use the word? And the same for morality.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that we have no base for morality without meaning. By meaning I don’t mean what is meant by a word but what meaning is when it comes to life, meaning of life. Everything is based on our like or dislike when it comes to morality, golden rule for example, if you look carefully.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
For sake of argument let’s say there is an ultimate meaning. Whatever it It’s gets distorted or filtered by the religion/philosophy/etc that claims to know what it is and how to comply with it.
Click to expand...
Does that apply to your belief that claims to know what happens to others? 😉
 
STT said:
No, I am saying that we have no base for morality without meaning. By meaning I don’t mean what is meant by a word but what meaning is when it comes to life, meaning of life. Everything is based on our like or dislike when it comes to morality, golden rule for example, if you look carefully.
Click to expand...
If **everything **is based on our like or dislike there’s no such thing as morality!
 
tonyrey said:
If **everything **is based on our like or dislike there’s no such thing as morality!
Click to expand...
I am not sure whether everything is based on our like or dislike since I don’t know if there is any meaning for life. The current state of affair however confirms that there is no morality.
 
STT said:
No, I am saying that we have no base for morality without meaning. By meaning I don’t mean what is meant by a word but what meaning is when it comes to life, meaning of life. Everything is based on our like or dislike when it comes to morality, golden rule for example, if you look carefully.
Click to expand...
Okay, as in what is also termed as “ultimate purpose.”

I understand morality in the context of one’s awareness of the harm or help that might result on “the objects of concern” (which may be human or non-human) from one’s actions and the behavioural strategies that may be built up around this. This behaviour may change as one becomes more aware of the likely results of their actions or if those actions start to have a different effect over time. Coming to moral agreement on something usually requires some overlap in the objects of concern. When there’s little to no overlap on some moral issue then you may find that coming to an agreement to be much more difficult. There have been times when it was necessary to threaten the interest of another in order to at least come to behavioural/rules agreement (Which still may not be moral agreement). An example of this are some of the boycotts used in the civil rights movement which threatened financial interest to get policies change. I don’t know how a “Classical theism is true therefore change this policy” argument would have worked.

Belief that there is a God (or gods) doesn’t automatically result in a moral agreement on an issue. I don’t have to look outside of CAF to find examples of this (especially in the World News forums).
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Okay, as in what is also termed as “ultimate purpose.”
Click to expand...
Yes, ultimate purpose is quite close to meaning.
ThinkingSapien said:
I understand morality in the context of one’s awareness of the harm or help that might result on “the objects of concern” (which may be human or non-human) from one’s actions and the behavioural strategies that may be built up around this. This behaviour may change as one becomes more aware of the likely results of their actions or if those actions start to have a different effect over time. Coming to moral agreement on something usually requires some overlap in the objects of concern. When there’s little to no overlap on some moral issue then you may find that coming to an agreement to be much more difficult. There have been times when it was necessary to threaten the interest of another in order to at least come to behavioural/rules agreement (Which still may not be moral agreement). An example of this are some of the boycotts used in the civil rights movement which threatened financial interest to get policies change. I don’t know how a “Classical theism is true therefore change this policy” argument would have worked.
Click to expand...
You dislike harm and that is the main reason for you to accept it as a base for establishing a moral system.
ThinkingSapien said:
Belief that there is a God (or gods) doesn’t automatically result in a moral agreement on an issue. I don’t have to look outside of CAF to find examples of this (especially in the World News forums).
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.
 
STT said:
I am not sure whether everything is based on our like or dislike since I don’t know if there is any meaning for life. The current state of affair however confirms that there is no morality.
Click to expand...
If there is no meaning for life why isn’t everything meaningless? 😉

How did it originate in a meaningless universe?
 
ChrisGriffin said:
Honest question to atheist…

If you google worst genocides of the 20th century you won’t find many Christian perpetrators (maybe 1 or 2 out of 20, I’m not an expert). Certainly Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo were not Christians. Is history in favor of Christianity and disfavors atheist and secularism and oriental religion. I’m sure this point has been made many times before but I have never heard the answer myself.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we are not evolved enough. We are still with the mentally of tribes.
 
ChrisGriffin said:
Honest question to atheist…

If you google worst genocides of the 20th century you won’t find many Christian perpetrators (maybe 1 or 2 out of 20, I’m not an expert). Certainly Mao, Hitler, Stalin and Tojo were not Christians. Is history in favor of Christianity and disfavors atheist and secularism and oriental religion. I’m sure this point has been made many times before but I have never heard the answer myself.
Click to expand...
By the 20th century most places where Christianity was common were already established and had already gone through the various conquests attempts (besides the World Wars).

What you left out is that most of these leaders were forcefully implementing some flavor of Marxism, Communism, or just plain ole totalitarianism. That is more the culprit than the lack of faith.

Besides, we humans got a lot better at killing in the 20th century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top