...Just be good for goodness sake!

[Socrtease]

This whole thread is based on a logical fallacy. Relgion is the foundation of all morality (Which begs the question to begin with) therefore religious people are moral. Atheists are not religious therefore atheists are immoral. The last does not naturally flow from the first. Now Dixie will tell me that was not what he meant.

 

[Cancel3]

Didn't I read once that the Code of Hammarabi was the first set of written laws?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

One can 'believe' in those things easily, because they are real and you know they exist. It doesn't require faith to believe in your community or nation. And again, I will point out, I don't personally believe in a 'deity' of any kind. I believe in a spiritualist concept of something profoundly greater than man. My "God" doesn't care how I act or behave, my life can either be in harmony with the universe or out of harmony, it is my choice or 'free will' to determine that. It is, however, the foundational basis for me 'being good' or understanding 'good' from 'bad' and acting accordingly. Atheists have no such belief, we are merely living organisms in a universe controlled by chance. Nothing we do effects that chance, things just "are."

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.

We are not debating the existence of a Christian God. All the examples you gave, are essentially rooted in the principles of something greater than self.

Yes, and vice-versa. That's pretty much the point.

You've failed to make a point. You're basically saying, because people who claim to have faith in a higher power, often do bad things, that it proves having faith in a higher power is irrelevant. It doesn't.

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.

Without that foundation being rooted in faith of something greater than self, it is like the fat person's 'rules' on eating chocolate cake, or the store which operates on the 'honor system' or the 'self-incarcerating' prison. I agree, Atheists claim to have "morals and ethics" and they claim to base these on things other than faith in something greater than self, but that is an unrealistic expectation of human nature. There is no motivation or rationale for 'being good for goodness sake' when there is no consequence for being 'bad' or clearly defined criteria for what is 'good' and 'bad' to the individual.

Take Socrtease admissions that he shoplifted and knew it was wrong... he still did it anyway. A person who has a strong moral foundation rooted in the faith of something greater than self, would not have been as likely to 'do it anyway' in that circumstance. It's the very point I have been trying to illustrate here, Atheist people have no basis for their 'morality' it is simply a self-proclaimed standard that can change at any given moment. This is precisely why you see Atheistic people more prone to illicit behavior, immoral acts, unethical standards, than the typical person of faith. It is human nature.

 

[Onceler]

It's always kinda sad to me when Dixie admits that he wouldn't try to be good w/out the threat of punishment & eternal damnation. I can't relate to it.

 

[Socrtease]

Didn't I read once that the Code of Hammarabi was the first set of written laws?

You did.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's always kinda sad to me when Dixie admits that he wouldn't try to be good w/out the threat of punishment & eternal damnation. I can't relate to it.

Well, if you have read the thread, you realize my personal faith doesn't involve threat of punishment or damnation. I don't have to "try" to be good, perhaps that reveals the difference between myself, and someone who has faith in nothing greater than self?

Because of my spiritual foundation, I understand my positive energy influences the flow of energy surrounding me, and I prefer life with positive energy surrounding me as opposed to negative, therefore, I do good. I don't have to "try" it just comes natural to me, because of my foundational beliefs. I am still trying to gain understanding as to how Atheist people manage to maintain "good morals" and I think you may have stumbled upon a partial answer! I know you didn't realize it, but I think you just hit the nail on the head... Atheist people have to "try" to be good! I can see how that would be a problem, being that Atheists have no means of accountability if they are "bad" and nothing to base their standard of "good" upon, other than a self-defined and loose code of ethics, which they "try" to follow.

Thanks for your input Onzies, I think you just illustrated how the most profound revelations often come for the most simple minded!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Didn't I read once that the Code of Hammarabi was the first set of written laws?

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC – 1750 BC) believed that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."

Is that the Hammurabi you are referring to?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This whole thread is based on a logical fallacy. Relgion is the foundation of all morality (Which begs the question to begin with) therefore religious people are moral. Atheists are not religious therefore atheists are immoral. The last does not naturally flow from the first. Now Dixie will tell me that was not what he meant.

You are making the same mistake Mott made, trying to convert a question into a statement, and form an argument against the statement. This whole thread is based on an entirely legitimate philosophical question, which no one has answered sufficiently, including yourself.

I have gone to great lengths to disassociate my question with 'religion' and the 'anti-religious' continue to bring it up. The only thing 'religion' has to do with my question, is to demonstrate an example of how faith can be the basis for a foundation of belief in 'good' and 'bad', and nothing more. It's obvious that we all realize people who have faith in a religious belief, or people like myself, who have a spiritual faith, do indeed have a foundation for their beliefs of 'right and wrong' or 'good and bad' and it provides a guideline and criteria for that behavior, along with a consequence. The fundamental question I have repeatedly asked in this thread is, what is the foundational basis, guideline, and criteria, regarding Atheist 'morality', or is it even possible to have 'morality' without a foundational basis and consequences for failing to meet the standards set?

 

[Cancel3]

You are making the same mistake Mott made, trying to convert a question into a statement, and form an argument against the statement. This whole thread is based on an entirely legitimate philosophical question, which no one has answered sufficiently, including yourself.

I have gone to great lengths to disassociate my question with 'religion' and the 'anti-religious' continue to bring it up. The only thing 'religion' has to do with my question, is to demonstrate an example of how faith can be the basis for a foundation of belief in 'good' and 'bad', and nothing more. It's obvious that we all realize people who have faith in a religious belief, or people like myself, who have a spiritual faith, do indeed have a foundation for their beliefs of 'right and wrong' or 'good and bad' and it provides a guideline and criteria for that behavior, along with a consequence. The fundamental question I have repeatedly asked in this thread is, what is the foundational basis, guideline, and criteria, regarding Atheist 'morality', or is it even possible to have 'morality' without a foundational basis and consequences for failing to meet the standards set?

And I have answered that question. It is compassion and empathy for their fellow man.

 

[Jarod]

I follow some laws because I dislike the hassle if I am captured, not drinking at the beach, trying to drive close to the speed limit. Other laws I follow however because I have self respect, not taking drugs, public intox, that type of thing. Other laws I follow because I dont want to break, murder, rape, stealing, battery...

 

[Jarod]

Nope... Morality is not "natural" in any way. While there are some instances of behavior in nature we define as "animal morality" it is always found to be fundamentally based on self-preservation or need of the individual. A mountain lion has no "morality" regarding the 'murder' of a sheep, it doesn't consider the consequences, what will become of the sheep's family, or anything other than self-preservation. Nowhere in nature, other than humans, is the 'morality' we see in humans exhibited. Even in our closest ancestors, chimpanzees, there is no sense of morality, no concept of "right and wrong" which occurs naturally. Any behaviors they may exhibit, are behaviors they have been trained to exhibit, and not something that happened through nature.

You see Dixie, humans are different than Mountan Lions, importantly in that we have the ability to understand others and feel empathy. Not because of any outside power telling me so, but because of nature, I have no desire to rape. For me, the enjoyment of sex primarily comes from the consentual act that causes shared pleasure. I get off on getting a woman off! When a woman is about to climax, that makes me climax. The most sexually stimulating thing for me is to know I have caused an orgasm in a woman.

People who rape are defective in some way. Humans are not born with the desire or need to rape. Humans are born with the desire to woo a member of the opposit sex into the desire to copulate. Someone who rapes has been damaged in some way. If I were born in the wilderness, I would still not have a desire to rape.

 

[Jarod]

Nope... Morality is not "natural" in any way. While there are some instances of behavior in nature we define as "animal morality" it is always found to be fundamentally based on self-preservation or need of the individual. A mountain lion has no "morality" regarding the 'murder' of a sheep, it doesn't consider the consequences, what will become of the sheep's family, or anything other than self-preservation. Nowhere in nature, other than humans, is the 'morality' we see in humans exhibited. Even in our closest ancestors, chimpanzees, there is no sense of morality, no concept of "right and wrong" which occurs naturally. Any behaviors they may exhibit, are behaviors they have been trained to exhibit, and not something that happened through nature.

You see, humans are different than other animals in that we have a sense of morality based on our ability to empithyse.. We can understand that our actions affect others, animals dont.