Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

In a society that is 100% Atheist and Secular, from where is its morality and ethics, if any, derived?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 165 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 14 Jun 2014 15:09:43 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2014 15:47:43 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 14 Jun 2014 17:28:25 BDT
Not from holy books.

Dur.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2014 18:03:25 BDT
Why can't an atheist secular society have morals? Theistic morals are stuck in the bronze age mostly, with the potential to endorse misogyny, racism, genocide, slavery, rapine, murder, child sacrifice, homophobia.

It's hardly a compelling argument for dismissing secular morals that advocate tolerance and equal rights, is it?

Posted on 15 Jun 2014 21:21:11 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2014 21:29:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2014 21:30:06 BDT
TomC says:
Another explanation is that since you are - as you have demonstrated many times - a pompous ignorant fool who only wants to preach, and has no interest in or aptitude for genuine discussion, they don't think you're worth their time.

That's far more credible.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2014 22:22:33 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2014 22:27:33 BDT
By having laws that are agreed on by the majority.
Next stupid question.

Posted on 15 Jun 2014 22:30:13 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2014 22:42:42 BDT
You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
That you resort to pettiness shows you have nothing to offer on the subject. That you don't believe in morality shows more of your comical persistence in trying to belittle something you have no experience of - to use your own arguments against you.

Try this:
And how does an agnostic person justify having a morality and ethics? Where are they derived from?

Providing answers to your attempts to blow atheists out of the water is boring. You can't even answer your own questions let alone others. Your diatribe against atheists is pitiful and childlike.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 00:11:57 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 08:33:59 BDT
Spin,

Why should I justify anything to you? I'm perfectly happy to justify anything to anyone but not to some keyboard warrior who constantly demands answers while providing none of his own. You are trying to take the moral high ground by asking difficult questions and then asserting moral superiority when you retort to answers. A little like a quizmaster appearing to be more intelligent than the competitors. However, if you will not answer your own questions I don't see why I should play your little game either.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 08:59:34 BDT
To be fair Rev when I saw that the first two posts were from the Amazon equivalent of the chuckle brothers I didn't hope for much from this thread. As you say Spin asks what seems like a superficial question then immediately proceeds to supercilious point scoring, it's an all too familiar pattern.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 14:52:14 BDT
"From where is your morality and ethics derived?"

Not from holy books. They're rather violent, and full of things like sacrificing your children, hating your families and obeying violent edicts blindly.

"And what justification have you for your belief in that morality?"

A triumvirate of the law, reason, and individual conscience.

"but do not attempt to justify your opinion by refusing to defend it."

Curious thing to say another, given your reluctance to do the same yourself.

I'd be interested to see if you actually can.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 16:16:45 BDT
G. Heron says:
Spin

As a social species we have evolved a basic set of morals. We are all members of the species and as such we have a basis for treating each member as an equal. We have the ability to empathise with our fellow humans and this is the basis for the golden rule ( which predates Christianity).

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 16:46:37 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 16:59:38 BDT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"Morality changes over time and differs amongst humans and human societies."

Can you show me a society where it is okay to steal from your neighbor?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 17:44:03 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2014 17:50:52 BDT
"Morality changes over time and differs amongst humans and human societies"

Thus making the attempt of religion to artificially impose a fixed, one-size-fits-all morality on the human race inherently futile.

Thanks for the agreement.

"Instinct does not change and does not differ in humans."

Instinct is a product of genetics and upbringing. You'll find it differs extensively, which is why some people are far more altruistic, noble and decent than others.

"Therefore, morality is not instinctive."

Morality is the ongoing result of a truckload of decisions. Breaking the law is wrong, unless the laws being enforced are racist and faulty. As Martin Luther King pointed out, civil disobedience was illegal, yet everything Hitler did was enshrined in German law. We agree killing is wrong, unless we're being invaded by the troops of a foreign state, in which case it becomes right very quickly.

Your response, please.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 17:49:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jun 2014 17:49:54 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 16 Jun 2014 17:54:43 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 18:16:36 BDT
"There are occasions when ones morality opposes instinct "

Of course it does, as it's a derivative of the human intellect, so you've answered your own question, thread over QED. Atheists use the same intellect as theists for their morals, but don't tie themselves in knots trying to live by the moral code of a bronze age male dominated society, hopelessly trying to rationalise things they know are reprehensible and morally repugnant.

Posted on 16 Jun 2014 19:37:07 BDT
Sometime today, Spin...

Posted on 16 Jun 2014 19:57:32 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2014 20:07:20 BDT
Spin says:
If you or your family are starving, homeless or in need of medical care, would you consider stealing to be either "morally wrong" or against human instinct?

No, it's almost as if morals are relative isn't it.

GET THERE FASTER PLEASE......

Posted on 16 Jun 2014 20:10:39 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  165
Initial post:  14 Jun 2014
Latest post:  3 Jul 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions