Only the ones who really want kinky surgery. The other ones can just buy a ticket. Apparently it's free to become a woman.
...Just be good for goodness sake!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's kinda the whole point of this thread.... Moral Relativism vs. Faith-Based Morality. Without a foundational basis for "good" and "bad" it is merely left up to the individual self to determine. In the case of an Atheist, who believes in nothing greater than self, it seems impossible to imagine how tentative morals can be established and what the justification would be to follow them. I can only relate to faith-based morals, because that is what I know and understand. So, I posed this question to the board, since we seem to have an abundance of Atheists here, in hopes they could shed some light on the subject for me. Unfortunately, all I have heard is retorts of how Atheists follow moral ethics because they feel like it, or because they just want to. That doesn't really answer my question.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
You have to pay extra for the kidnapping bit though. Either that or be Saudi Arabian, but not a bin Laden.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No. Rational is the ability to reason and think critically and objectively.
But first, let us be clear on what we mean by morals and ethics.
Morals are the priciples and rules of what is right conduct and the distinctions between right and wrong.
Ethics are a formal system of moral values applied to groups or individuals. Often ethics are codified into what we call laws.
To state that lack of personal faith in a religeous faith is mutually exclusive (or as you state, lack a foundation) with morality is obviously absurd.
Religion is just one system of ethics of many and like all systems of ethics, the morals they support have a cultural context.
For example, in our culture patricide is immoral. Having multiple wives is immoral. Marrying your first cousin is immoral. However, in other cultures they are not. This would not imply that those cultures are with out morals or ethics but that their systems of ethics have a differant cultural context for their system of ethics and the morals they are based upon.
Ulitmately, however, any system of ethics and the morals they support depend upon individuals to practice those moral values and ethical systems.
Prisons are absolutely loaded with people who are religeous true believers but fall short on their morals and ethics, where as, many atheist walk the street that practice a rigerous understanding of morals and ethics. Of course, the reverse is also true.
So to say that one cannot have a moral foundation without sharing a personal faith, really flies in the face of the facts.
BTW, this is definately one of your better sigs Dixie. I enjoy this philosophical discusion.
evince
Truthmatters
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
That is a distinct possibility. I may very well go to bed tonight dreaming about my brand new titties and spectacular mangina.
uscitizen
Villified User
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But there are billions of examples of people who "think critically and objectively" that are not "rational" or "moral" in their thought process. So, "morality" simply can't be based on "rational objective thought" or this wouldn't be the case.
I understand what they are, I am asking, how can you "follow a rule" if there is no means of enforcement and no one to hold you accountable? Is "morality" merely the same thing as "following the law," in your thinking?
Well first of all, I didn't STATE it, I asked a question about it. Furthermore, I am not "religious" and have no "religious" faith. Still, I have a foundational basis for my moral beliefs. I have a reason to behave "good" and it's more than for the sake of goodness. Perhaps my question is absurd, but you are failing to demonstrate that.
Agreed, however, we are not talking about specific ethics. Religion, like my spirituality, gives a person a foundation for their beliefs. It gives a 'guide' as to what is right and wrong, and lays out the consequences and/or benefits of both behaviors. Atheists have no guide other than their conscience, and no means of consequence for 'breaking the rules' if they do. Kind of like a fat person having a 'rule' against eating chocolate cake.
Right, but these cultures generally have a foundational basis for their beliefs. Radical Islamics apparently feel it is "moral" to kill Infidels and Jews, and flying planes into buildings is a "good" thing, not a "bad" thing. But they have a foundational basis for this belief, it is not determined by self.
This is obvious, but how can one practice these moral values with no accountability or consequence? You can't simply say Atheists behave "good" for the sake of being good, or that they exhibit "good morals" if there is nothing to define the morals and no foundational support for a system of consequence to their actions. It seems to completely defy reason, in my opinion.
Let's use your example of prison to illustrate my point. If there were no courts to hold people accountable, yet we had prisons for those who did "bad" things, how many people would voluntarily be in those prisons because they did something "bad?" My guess is, none. Does this mean that no one was "bad" and everyone was "good", or does it mean, without a foundational means of accountability, humans can't maintain self-accountability?
I didn't SAY that, I asked how it could be! Do you understand and comprehend the difference between asking a question and making a statement? You've not answered my question! You have attempted to refute a statement I didn't make, and you continue to give blanket refutation of something without any substantive basis. I wish I could accept that Atheists "just know" what is "good and bad" and can maintain self-accountability for their actions, but this seems to fly in the face of human nature. I can only relate to spiritual-based foundations of "good and bad" and the understanding of consequence, which gives a basis for my behavior. I can't understand how an Atheist, who has no belief in anything greater than self, would have any such foundations. I am still waiting for an explanation.
uscitizen
Villified User
Morals and definitions of right and wrong vary widely depending on the current society.
It used to be moreally right to put people thru the inquisition. Murder children, etc. It is still moreally right to cut of peoples heads in some parts of the world, to execute criminals, etc.
Indivividual morals and government morals often vary as well within the same country. Waterboarding for example?
Death penalty, abortion. prision for victimless crimes, etc.
Moral people want to cut off aid to the poor?
Not to give all citizens decent health care?
to kill a hundred thousand for a lie or at best bad mistake? And still support it?
These are all good morals to some.
I am glad I do not have the faith.
It used to be moreally right to put people thru the inquisition. Murder children, etc. It is still moreally right to cut of peoples heads in some parts of the world, to execute criminals, etc.
Indivividual morals and government morals often vary as well within the same country. Waterboarding for example?
Death penalty, abortion. prision for victimless crimes, etc.
Moral people want to cut off aid to the poor?
Not to give all citizens decent health care?
to kill a hundred thousand for a lie or at best bad mistake? And still support it?
These are all good morals to some.
I am glad I do not have the faith.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
We are not debating what "morals" are or how they should be the same for all people. Apparently you are having some reading comprehension problems today, if that is the meaning you are getting.
The question is, without some foundational basis for what is "good and bad" and some fundamental system of accountability or consequence for your "good and bad" actions, how can you maintain them?
For the record, I do think you have faith in something, going strictly by what you have posted. I think you are just angry at 'religion' or what you perceive 'religion' to be. What you lack is understanding of faith, and why it's important to the human condition.
uscitizen
Villified User
Dearest Dixie,
Ohh I have faith in some people to be good some to be bad and have no idea what some will do. I also have faith that you will be wrong 90% of the time.
I do not believe in any afterlife or supreme being, etc. So my faith in any of that stuff is non existant.
Ohh I have faith in some people to be good some to be bad and have no idea what some will do. I also have faith that you will be wrong 90% of the time.
I do not believe in any afterlife or supreme being, etc. So my faith in any of that stuff is non existant.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, I probably don't believe in what your concepts are of "afterlife" and "supreme beings" either. I do have faith in some power greater than myself. It is the foundation of my motivation to do good things and avoid bad things. As I have said in this thread, I don't understand how people who have no foundational basis in what defines 'good and bad' or any fundamental motivation to do 'good' as opposed to 'bad', can maintain any level or standard of morals and ethics, other than a personal 'honor system' style of morality and ethics. I've given every opportunity for someone to explain that to me, and they have yet to do so.
I'm not making a statement to be refuted, I am asking a fundamental question, and can't seem to get an honest answer. Perhaps this is because there isn't really an honest answer. I won't cast judgment on you, but as I said, based on your past comments, you certainly do have faith in something, it is your basis for what you consider 'moral' behavior. Whether is is something ingrained in you from childhood, through some 'religious' experience you encountered at some point in your life, or through the profound understanding that you are not the greatest power in the universe, I don't know, I can't say... but you do indeed have faith in something. That isn't an insult, you don't have to 'refute' it, I am merely making an observation based on things you've said.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It might be a matter of point of view about right or wrong but if you are making a distinction between what is right and what is wrong, you are practicing morals.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yes it can. Just as it can be based upon religeous, spiritual or other foundational beliefs. It is true that there are examples of rational, thinking people who are immoral and unethical in their behavior. But the reverse is also true of those who base their ethic on religeous/spiritual/Foundational Belief in Faith, etc.
No. Following the law would be practicing a particular system of ethics. Following your spiritual/religeous/faith or other "foundational beliefs" would be practicing an other form of ethics. They are not mutually exclusive systems is my point. Most people do adhere to some form of self accountability. We all fall short but we try and it's important to us or we would not practice morals via a systems of ethics. The fact that some fall way short and must be coerced (and if you think about it we all are to some degree) and/or held accountable by society does not mean all individuals cannot hold themselves accountable at some or most times.
I stand corrected. You did pose this as a philisophical question.
That's not true. An athiest can have civil law as their guide. There are many philosphical systems of ethics that they can draw from to provide them a foundation for their beliefs.
Some have practical reasons for their beliefs too (at least the one's I mentioned) but that's a different discussion. An athiest can have a foundational belief that is not based on self. They must have or they would not be able to even function within a community or the society at large.
Again, I think this is a false premise. An Atheist can have a foundational belief in many other ethical and philosophical systems which are not based upon self. Nor are athiest owners of rationality or irrationality if you see my point that there are many foundational belief systems we call ethics and they are by no means mutually exclusive systems.
But Dixie, that is what ethical sysetms are for. To provide those foundational rules of behavior and accountability. I disagree that an athiest cannot have a foundational belief system because systems of ethics are not mutually exclusive systems.
Again I stand corrected, you did phrase this as a question. Where I disagree with the premise of your question is that an athiest cannot hold a belief in something greater than self. I think that's a generalization that cannot be applied to all athiest.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I would say, the belief and faith in something greater than self, is a theological concept.
Most civil law has basis and foundation in religious faith.
So we have come around full circle with the logic here. When I proved you point invalid, and you had to eventually admit it, you turn the argument into a comparative example. We all define "rational" in a different way, and objective thinking people are no more inclined to practice "moral" or "ethical" behavior than those with religious faith. That was your original premise, and it has been shown to be lacking in credibility. We also can't assume that all rational critical thinkers are atheistic in their beliefs, nor can we conclude that all 'religious' people think rationally and critically.
The foundational basis for morality is not found through "critical thought" or "rational thinking" at all, and to argue this point, is to say that you really don't have an answer to my question. It is more of the same skirting of the issue, and attempting to answer the question with a platitude.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I wouldn't say that. One can believe in family, community and/or society, tribe, nation, etc. Those are all things greater than one self and one can believe in those and other things greater than self without believing in a diety.
.
But it's not the soul foundation. Our system of law has, of course, been greatly influenced by the Christian religion. However, you can't discount the contributions of English and Roman common law. Particularly the Roman and Greek influence on law, as it even predates Christianity.
Yes, and vice-versa. That's pretty much the point.
Well, it's just that I think you're mutually excluding all atheist and that you are making a generalization about them that's not true. An atheist may have a number of other ethical systems they adhere to for foundational moral beliefs and a system of ethics.
So, yea. You can be good for goodness sakes.
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
BTW, Merry X-mas Dixie.
Socrtease
Verified User
I have never believed in God. Never, not once, went to church in High School cause I wanted to bed a girl that went to that church and Sundays were good days to see her. I have NEVER needed God and Satan, Heaven and Hell to be good, or in the cases that I have, to behave poorly. I have in the past as a child shoplifted and KNEW at the time that it was wrong. I have, as a teenager, participated in joy riding, including once in an old Ferrari, and knew when I was doing it it was wrong. I have also given to people less fortunate than myself, represented people in court who never paid me a dime because their cause was just, or I KNEW they were innocent. I didn't need Relgious beliefs for any of this. I would say that on the whole, I have lived a pretty moral life. All without god. WOnder how I did that?