Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[upant]

If you think that a fear of further punishment is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow then that seems not to work.

I believe it has been pointed out, it has nothing to do with fear. there is nothing to fear. everyone knows what they are doing based on the law planted in their hearts by God, even non-believers. People make the decision to not follow.

it is groupthink, the majority decision rules even if the decision is immoral: abortion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you think that a fear of further punishment is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow then that seems not to work.

I believe it has been pointed out, it has nothing to do with fear. there is nothing to fear. everyone knows what they are doing based on the law planted in their hearts by God, even non-believers. People make the decision to not follow.

OK, we’ll take it from you that there is no fear of retribution. It’s just that you have accountability to God.

The same argument stands. It doesn’t appear to work. Christians (including Catholics) break moral laws all the time. As do followers of other religions and people with no belief.

If all Christians lived lives upholding high standards and were an example to the rest of us then one might think ‘There’s obviously something here I need to look into’. But I see Christians and people of other faith and those with no beliefs all acting pretty much the same. Some are good and virtuous. Some are not. Some are exemplary in their behaviour. Some are evil.

Why we act as we do should be of interest to us all. And this thread is, in part, an exercise in attempting to find out. Although some posters really do not seem to want to investigate it at all and are quite happy declaring ‘we are right and you are wrong’.

 

[upant]

Why we act as we do should be of interest to us all. And this thread is, in part, an exercise in attempting to find out. Although some posters really do not seem to want to investigate it at all and are quite happy declaring ‘we are right and you are wrong’.

I am not saying you are right or wrong in your personal code. I am saying a world without a creator, one that was created by physical forces doesn’t require or even support a moral code.

Trying to determine what is moral is a waste of time because it only applies to those who agree and those who don’t suffer-no-consequences unless they break social laws.

But I see Christians and people of other faith and those with no beliefs all acting pretty much the same.

Of course, we are all sinners. A Christian will have to account for their behavior even if we don’t see it here on earth.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Why we act as we do should be of interest to us all. And this thread is, in part, an exercise in attempting to find out. Although some posters really do not seem to want to investigate it at all and are quite happy declaring ‘we are right and you are wrong’.

I am not saying you are right or wrong in your personal code. I am saying a world without a creator, one that was created by physical forces doesn’t require or even support a moral code.

That is plainly wrong. Of course we need moral codes. Long before Christianity was even thought of there were moral codes. They’ve existed ever since societies were formed. Morality didn’t pop into existence when Jesus was born. And the societies that had agreed moral norms were the ones that enforced it. Not by rules and laws. But by what members of any given society expected from one another.

Follow along with the posts that I started with Harry Stotle. If he doesn’t wish to continue then you certainly can. I’ll list all the reasons why we think an act is wrong and none of them will relate to any belief system. Feel free to deny any point I make (onviously with a reason why you deny it).

 

[upant]

That is plainly wrong. Of course we need moral codes.

no, we don’t. We need community laws to get along but there is no requirement for these laws to be moral. history proves this.

Long before Christianity was even thought of there were moral codes.

God was there from the beginning, morals didn’t start with Christians.

But by what members of any given society expected from one another.

this is where we have a disagreement, you are calling societal laws morals but I don’t. they change and morals don’t.

if you accept morals that change we are at an impasse. We have fundamentally different beliefs about what morals are.

yet, your definition can be used in a world created without a purpose because it is the best you got. the greatest good for the greatest number, without a universal definition for good. where did we hear this before

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That is plainly wrong. Of course we need moral codes.

no, we don’t. We need community laws to get along but there is no requirement for these laws to be moral. history proves this.

Long before Christianity was even thought of there were moral codes.

God was there from the beginning, morals didn’t start with Christians.

But by what members of any given society expected from one another.

this is where we have a disagreement, you are calling societal laws morals but I don’t. they change and morals don’t.

if you accept morals that change we are at an impasse. We have fundamentally different beliefs about what morals are.

yet, your definition can be used in a world created without a purpose because it is the best you got. the greatest good for the greatest number, without a universal definition for good. where did we hear this before

Well all I can say is tune in to the section of the thread where we discuss ‘Should you save a drowning child’. Then we can discuss why we would do such a thing.

 

[Freddy]

Baby steps, Harry. And we just did get to one reason why it would be a bad thing to let her drown. We agreed on that.

Now what would happen if you told a non swimmer alongside you that you weren’t going to jump in to save her because you’d just bought a new suit. Would people think badly of you?

So here you go, @upant. This is your opportunity to dicuss an actual moral problem and see where it takes us. @HarryStotle has accepted the first couple of proposals so let’s see where it goes. Harry can feel free to reject any proposal I make from now on in and tell us why be rejects it.

On the basis that no-one will answer these questions (but I’ll remain optomistic), I’ll propose how a reasonable person might answer myself. So…

Would any reasonable person refuse to help a drowning child because it would ruin his suit? Obviously not. For one very good reason to start: We consider a child’s life in immediate danger where we can actively prevent her death to be worth more than the dollar value of some nice looking threads.

Agreed?

I’ll let that sit there for a while so we have the opportunity for anyone to deny that statement.

 

[QwertyGirl]

what happens if an atheist decides he doesn’t want to follow any moral laws? he just suffers the social consequences, if there are any, nothing more.

How else would you like to see him suffer?

 

[Elf01]

We consider a child’s life in immediate danger where we can actively prevent her death to be worth more than the dollar value of some nice looking threads.

Assuming I don’t know the child why would I, as an atheist?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Assuming I don’t know the child why would I, as an atheist?

Wow. You really have a low opinion of atheists!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

We consider a child’s life in immediate danger where we can actively prevent her death to be worth more than the dollar value of some nice looking threads.

Assuming I don’t know the child why would I, as an atheist?

We’re looking for agreement on each point. So are you saying that you wouldn’t save her but let her drown if you didn’t believe in God? And I’m not asking WHY you’d think an atheist wouldn’t or couldn’t. We’ve had that dance. Now we’re looking to see what an atheist and a Christian would agree on.

The last reason that we had for saving her that was agreed by all parties (me and Harry) was that we understood the anguish her parents would go through if they knew she could have been saved but wasn’t. And getting your suit damaged would seem a lot less of a reason then preventing such anguish.
Do you agree?

 

[Freddy]

Elf01:

Assuming I don’t know the child why would I, as an atheist?

Wow. You really have a low opinion of atheists!

To be fair, Elf wasn’t saying that he thought we wouldn’t. I’m certain that he’d think we would. But he’s doing the ol’ bag of chemicals (boc) dance and saying that if we believe what he thinks we believe (we’re all just boc’s) then we’d have no reason to save her.

What I am trying to do (and it’s like pulling teeth) is get common agreement on why anyone would save her whatever that person’s belief. Atheist and Christian alike.

 

[Elf01]

The last reason that we had for saving her that was agreed by all parties (me and Harry) was that we understood the anguish her parents would go through if they knew she could have been saved but wasn’t. And getting your suit damaged would seem a lot less of a reason then preventing such anguish.

I agree about the anguish her parents would go through, but again if I don’t know them don’t see why I would care.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The last reason that we had for saving her that was agreed by all parties (me and Harry) was that we understood the anguish her parents would go through if they knew she could have been saved but wasn’t. And getting your suit damaged would seem a lot less of a reason then preventing such anguish.

I agree about the anguish her parents would go through, but again if I don’t know them don’t see why I would care.

But you know they would be anguished. And I presume that you would describe anguish as a bad thing. So would you prefer to prevent that anguish if it was within your power. I don’t know why you would care or not. I just want to know if you would save her. All it’s going to cost you is a wet suit. Versus a life lost and two lives destroyed.

The nitty gritty is: What would be important to you? A young girl’s life or your suit? What do you think every sane person would do?

 

[Elf01]

The nitty gritty is: What would be important to you a young girl’s life or your suit? What do you think every sane person would do?

I think I would save her, but I’m a cradle Catholic and don’t know how much that may influence my instincts.

I do also think you, and most atheists, would but back to it.

But you know they would be anguished. And I presume that you would describe anguish as a bad thing. So would you prefer to prevent that anguish if it was within your power.

I would think it good that the anguish was prevented but that is not enough for me to prevent it.

 

[Bird_lover]

Is crime really on the increase or are we just more aware of it due to instant online media? And maybe people report crimes more now (think of the MeToo movement), so more makes its way into the media, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is more crime being committed.

None of us live in bubbles anymore; we have access to more than the local news.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The nitty gritty is: What would be important to you a young girl’s life or your suit? What do you think every sane person would do?

I think I would save her, but I’m a cradle Catholic and don’t know how much that may influence my instincts.

I do also think you, and most atheists, would…

Great. That’s all we need. People would value the girl’s life over the value of a suit. It almost seems like a ridiculous question but it needs to be asked in this context. @upant and @HarryStotle can answer as they see fit.

 

[HarryStotle]

Not ‘what is popularly supported’. You are held to account by the common morality of your peers. That’s something a little more substantial than whatever happens to be popular at the time.

I guess you missed the fact that moral relativism is all the rage in western societies these days? The claim is that no one ought to impose their standards on others. Where have you been?

I think what you are hinting at is that there is a move to crush anyone who shows any kind of preference for a higher moral standard than the perfidy that passes for political correctness these days. True, you will be pilloried for “judging” anyone according to any moral standard, or if you try to argue against the politically correct views of the “woke” or “cancel” cultures.

 

[upant]

How else would you like to see him suffer?

He suffers spiritually, he may not suffer socially at all.

What I am trying to do (and it’s like pulling teeth) is get common agreement on why anyone would save her whatever that person’s belief. Atheist and Christian alike.

You’re trying to discuss the topic on your terms but won’t answer why anyone has-to-play the game, especially on your terms.

Even though you insist they have to play, you can’t make someone play the game who doesn’t want to? Being a BOC means you can refuse to play the game.

When there is disagreement, everybody considers themselves equally moral, so who cares what anybody else thinks? A person can do what they want and that means they do not have to assist when someone else is in danger. look around you it happens frequently in the secular world.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you think that a fear of further punishment is sufficient to keep people on the straight and narrow then that seems not to work. Why should I therefore grant it any credibility?

I would suggest that social ostracism, doxxing, media attacks, and a host of other tricks being used by the PC activists is causing many to kowtow to the latest demands from the left.