Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I thought the point of this was wether or not atheists could be moral people, not Christians.

I thought the point of this was whether or not Atheists could be moral not if Christians were.

right and wrong are a matter of opinion. that's why there is such contrast for justice. what is logical and makes sense to me may not to you therefore we must reason. you don't need religion or a God to have morals/principal. Morals are simply how you distinguish between right and wrong. May have repeated myself there oops. ;) anyway here comes the truth this post is an excuse to get NemesisZ's attention: Hey look at my sig, i'm quoting you! Enjoy the debate everybody.

At 4/28/03 10:09 PM, TheShrike wrote:
AMEN, BROTHER!!!!

Word.

Damn you, Shrike!! I'm going to have to suffice with a...
*dramatic pause*
Double word.

At 4/29/03 01:38 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Damn you, Shrike!! I'm going to have to suffice with a...
*dramatic pause*
Double word.

Sorry, didn't mean to steal your *snicker* Word.
It was a tribute to you, though.

Much respect, PJ.

Yet another thread lost. (sigh) Ah well. (grin)

At 4/29/03 12:29 AM, Dark00Stir-fry wrote: right and wrong are a matter of opinion. that's why there is such contrast for justice. what is logical and makes sense to me may not to you therefore we must reason. you don't need religion or a God to have morals/principal. Morals are simply how you distinguish between right and wrong. May have repeated myself there oops. ;) anyway here comes the truth this post is an excuse to get NemesisZ's attention: Hey look at my sig, i'm quoting you! Enjoy the debate everybody.

I agree that atheist CAN have morals, but how do atheists regulate what those should be? Is it an eye for an eye, or is it forgiviness and pacisfism? Who determines which, because if different people can determine their own morals, then people can just choose to be IMmoral, and rob everyone else blind. Im not saying you need a God to do this, just an impartial organization of some type

At 4/29/03 12:18 PM, 13TOTENKOPF wrote: i think is atheism just only a stroy kid,i dont belive it whit atheism,i just belive whit they act and argument.

Huh? what is that in English? Pehen chode.

At 4/29/03 09:44 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 4/29/03 12:29 AM, Dark00Stir-fry wrote: right and wrong are a matter of opinion. that's why there is such contrast for justice. what is logical and makes sense to me may not to you therefore we must reason. you don't need religion or a God to have morals/principal. Morals are simply how you distinguish between right and wrong. May have repeated myself there oops. ;) anyway here comes the truth this post is an excuse to get NemesisZ's attention: Hey look at my sig, i'm quoting you! Enjoy the debate everybody.

I agree that atheist CAN have morals, but how do atheists regulate what those should be? Is it an eye for an eye, or is it forgiviness and pacisfism? Who determines which, because if different people can determine their own morals, then people can just choose to be IMmoral, and rob everyone else blind. Im not saying you need a God to do this, just an impartial organization of some type

It's one of those faith in humanity type of things. I've always said that in order to be a good atheist or anarchist you have to have a fundamental belief that humanity will choose to help each other rather than screw each other.

This is more of a debate of Natural Vs. Positive Law- Natural meaning that mankind is naturally inclined toward the structure of laws and morality, Positive believing that Mankind is naturally barabaric and cares not for other people or the law, and are only kept in check by threats.

After looking back on history, I wouldn't say you need a church to interpret morality for you. Some of the ideas that they preach for you to uphold, they do not uphold themselves. 2 words: child rapings. If you don't think the church has pulled other crap then this, think again. Going back to the 15th and 16th centuries, we should take a look at a man named Martin Luther. He was one of the biggest influencers during the Reformation, posting his 95 theses (wrongdoings in the Roman Catholic church). At that time, people paid the church to forgive their sins, something that Luther was strictly against. Luther was a man against the church who came up with his own moralities. Knowing this, it is possible for the general populous to pick out unmoral moralities in society and change them to something else they see moral. Would you all agree with me?

This is all true but should we hold the past transgressions against the current incarnation of the church. As far as the child molestation goes that is the action of individual poorly balanced priests and not something condoned by the church itself.

At 4/29/03 10:05 PM, Shih wrote: This is all true but should we hold the past transgressions against the current incarnation of the church. As far as the child molestation goes that is the action of individual poorly balanced priests and not something condoned by the church itself.

Ah, but the Church hasn't really done anything, have they? Lucky this war came about or they'd be forced to deal with the situation instead of sending the ill priests to other churches. Simple switching of priests and slapping on the wrists isn't going to help. Personally, on a completely un-fact backed note besides my own ears, I know plenty of Atheists that are far, FAR more moral than any Catholics.

At 4/29/03 12:29 AM, Dark00Stir-fry wrote: right and wrong are a matter of opinion. that's why there is such contrast for justice. what is logical and makes sense to me may not to you therefore we must reason. you don't need religion or a God to have morals/principal. Morals are simply how you distinguish between right and wrong. May have repeated myself there oops. ;) anyway here comes the truth this post is an excuse to get NemesisZ's attention: Hey look at my sig, i'm quoting you! Enjoy the debate everybody.

Sorry guys but the error eats me alive. Principle*
ah there much better. ;) thanks for reading/responding to my post.

At 4/29/03 11:55 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

Ah, but the Church hasn't really done anything, have they? Lucky this war came about or they'd be forced to deal with the situation instead of sending the ill priests to other churches. Simple switching of priests and slapping on the wrists isn't going to help. Personally, on a completely un-fact backed note besides my own ears, I know plenty of Atheists that are far, FAR more moral than any Catholics.

True that. But Catholics aren't the only brand of Christians much less relgion in general. Just because they've screwed up doesn't mean all stripes of Christianity have.

At 4/30/03 03:55 AM, Shih wrote: True that. But Catholics aren't the only brand of Christians much less relgion in general. Just because they've screwed up doesn't mean all stripes of Christianity have.

Please, lets remember, we are not talking about the organization of christianity, but the future organization of the atheist movement. There are many valid arguments against the current christian church, the idea is to form a nonbiased moral-determining organization for athiests to create an impartial standard of morals for all atheists to agree to, in order to maintain a standard for moral action. If atheists believe in free love, then adultery and fornication would not be immoral, but if atheists are commited lovers, then adultery is indeed immoral.

Everyone, no matter what affiliation they may be, lives by their own code of morals. You can't draft one general code and expect the entire world to follow it. You should know that.

At 4/30/03 10:54 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Everyone, no matter what affiliation they may be, lives by their own code of morals. You can't draft one general code and expect the entire world to follow it. You should know that.

But how do you stop people from taking advantage of the system, and being knowingly immoral? I know of at least one atheist that DOES NOT have a conscience. Now, I do not make that claim for all atheists, just this one. He justifies his lack of morals with atheism, thus giving the average atheist a bad name. In order for atheism to be a legitimate belief system, it has to have some core of morality that is standard among all atheists that they may be judged by. I hold to my argument that the government is too bound up in policy to do this. Laws and morals are not interchangeable, and there must be a graduated scale between regular atheist, good atheist, and bad atheist in order to maintain social order as we know it.

At 4/30/03 11:11 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 4/30/03 10:54 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Everyone, no matter what affiliation they may be, lives by their own code of morals. You can't draft one general code and expect the entire world to follow it. You should know that.

But how do you stop people from taking advantage of the system, and being knowingly immoral?

Taking advantage of the system is human will. There's no way to stop that. That's why communism wouldn't have worked in the long term.

I know of at least one atheist that DOES NOT have a conscience. Now, I do not make that claim for all atheists, just this one. He justifies his lack of morals with atheism, thus giving the average atheist a bad name.

Yes, I try not to support morons like this person.

Laws and morals are not interchangeable, and there must be a graduated scale between regular atheist, good atheist, and bad atheist in order to maintain social order as we know it.

The world isn't going to fall apart if a few atheists are immoral, just like everyone forgot when those few Catholic Priests were quite immoral.

At 4/28/03 02:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: How do atheists justify morality? if there is no god, and no judgement in the after life, why be a moral person? so what if you leave the world in total disarray, youre gonna be dead and in no shape to care, right?

Your questions just show how shallow your religion beliefs are... so you have a religion because it makes you a moral person? It seems like you have a religion to run away from the responsability of being the judge of your own actions... you shouldn't a "judging" god to make you behave!
And one more thing (and most important of all)... You generalize "religion" as a set of beliefs in which god is the big shot, and everyone is judged by him... study other religions and broaden your mind! Even morality is a pretty arguable (is there such word?) subject, in a philosophical and sociological point of view...

At 4/30/03 11:29 AM, Mjollnir wrote:

At 4/28/03 02:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: How do atheists justify morality? if there is no god, and no judgement in the after life, why be a moral person? so what if you leave the world in total disarray, youre gonna be dead and in no shape to care, right?

Your questions just show how shallow your religion beliefs are... so you have a religion because it makes you a moral person? It seems like you have a religion to run away from the responsability of being the judge of your own actions... you shouldn't a "judging" god to make you behave!
And one more thing (and most important of all)... You generalize "religion" as a set of beliefs in which god is the big shot, and everyone is judged by him... study other religions and broaden your mind! Even morality is a pretty arguable (is there such word?) subject, in a philosophical and sociological point of view...

Wow, I never said I supported religion, I said that theism (as opposed to a-theism) believes in a god, and has a system of belief that determines what morality is. I never claimed religious people were moral, only that they had a system of belief that determines morality. Also, in Budhism, we are all judged by the "over-soul" in order to gain acceptance through enlightenment. Those that are rejected are reincarnated. Most religions believe in a judgement for the dead as a major reason for morality in life.

I agree that morality is arguable, and that is why I wanted to know what atheists believe morality is, because they have no god or scriptures to guide them. I said they need a set of moral beliefs, not a god to give them those beliefs.

At 4/30/03 11:17 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 4/30/03 11:11 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Laws and morals are not interchangeable, and there must be a graduated scale between regular atheist, good atheist, and bad atheist in order to maintain social order as we know it.

The world isn't going to fall apart if a few atheists are immoral, just like everyone forgot when those few Catholic Priests were quite immoral.

But how do atheists discourage immorality without giving the government power over their personal lives? The Reformation was a reaction to hypocracy in the catholic church long before the current scandal. Religion does not make one moral, it only gives a standard to judge morality by. In ancient Rome, what those priests did would be considered perfectly acceptable! However, you do not consider it so. Rome was a relatively secular place, and atheism was evident by their grave markings (standard quote "he wasnt, he was, he wasnt"). Left to their own devices, morality as we know it became nonexistent. How do atheists stop this downward spiral towards immorality?

Morals don't have to be tied into an atheistic system of beliefs anymore than they do a religious one. A system of philosophical code can serve just as well. Bushido for example can have it's religious connotations removed and still suffice quite well as a stand alone philosophical code.

"A warrior must hold two things in his heart above all else, Duty and Compassion everything else he is flows from these two things."-The Hagakure

What else do you need to say no religion and a fairly straightforward set of rules that can deal with many situations.

It's simple as this: Atheists have their own standards of morality (like everyone else... cuz nobody has equal moral standards even if they are ruled by the same laws) based on their living environment (again... like everyone else... a christian there in America and a christian here in Brazil don't have the same moral standards, even though they are christians)... There are a few rebel atheists who are immoral... but they are immoral because they are rebel, and not because they are atheist! The same way there are good christians and bad christians, there are good atheists and bad atheists and so on (Damn... i hate to use the good vs. bad comparisons... oh well...). Ah... one more thing... i think we should draw a line in between i-mmoral and a-moral... Immoral is when something or someone goes against the moral standards of a specific society... Amoral is when someone or something just doesn't have the same moral standards of the society (not necessairly going against it). I really can't consider atheism immoral, moral, or amoral... i think in the end morality it has nothing to do with "theism" at all...

It's true. If you're a bad person, then you're a bad person. Religion won't stop that. Fear of the almighty might delay or stop your actions, but makes you no less immoral. By that same token, however, religion, with it's suppression of human instinct (ie chastity, not eating meat, etc, just to name a few), might just drive otherwise moral people off of the deep end into committing these heinous acts, such as child molestation, out of fear from a god if they had sex, for which they couldn't atone privately out of the public eye.

At 5/2/03 11:48 AM, PreacherJ wrote: It's true. If you're a bad person, then you're a bad person. Religion won't stop that. Fear of the almighty might delay or stop your actions, but makes you no less immoral. By that same token, however, religion, with it's suppression of human instinct (ie chastity, not eating meat, etc, just to name a few), might just drive otherwise moral people off of the deep end into committing these heinous acts, such as child molestation, out of fear from a god if they had sex, for which they couldn't atone privately out of the public eye.

I dont know, Im going to go with Shih on the whole "religion and morals are separate" side of things. Some christians (specifically the gnostics) believed that since Jesus died for their sins, they might as well take advantage of the amnesty. So really you can justify just about any moral code with any religion, and long as you are willing to twist things around a little bit (and most people are). I still stand by my idea of a non-religious morals-only organization but I no longer believe it should have any ties to a set of religious beliefs, be they traditional, agnostic, or atheist.

Well, good idea.

Morality and religion are not one in the same there is a code of man wich all men should understand is it ok for men to beat on women becuase he is an atheist and he knows that there is no repent or should he himself as a man see that there is just no right in that.Morality is a universal sense of structure sure it may be diffrent from one person to another but it still maintains a certain similarity amongst all. people know whats wrong wether you justify murder in the name of god or not it is wrong.Media shapes the morals of sex but not of war.Man has animal insticts we all cant deny that if your house were invaded you would kill to protect yourself or loved ones and people expect to be free of conscience when its all done.Just as we are animals in that sense we all have the instict of morality its universal.If we all let these feelings evolve in a sense of understanding and love to all with a high sense of morality in all man what goverment would we need to oppress us.

At 4/28/03 11:39 PM, Shih wrote: I thought the point of this was whether or not Atheists could be moral not if Christians were.

i myself and an atheist with high morals i dont hurt steal or kill from fellow man i take care of what i have to wether i do drugs or have wild sex or my music is nothing to do with morals...so i believe atheist can be moral