Atheist students say good morals can ...

Atheist students say good morals can be practiced without a Bible

There are 1166 comments on the The Herald story from Oct 28, 2010, titled Atheist students say good morals can be practiced without a Bible. In it, The Herald reports that:

As its membership rapidly increases, the Secular Student Alliance of ASU, an atheist student organization, works to build a community of people to make Jonesboro a better place through charity work.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Herald.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#21 Oct 31, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
None. They were all theists. Even Hume had to admit that without the existence of God there would be no basis for morality.
Do you agree with that?

What about other religions with commendable morals? Many of which pre-date Christianity.

Or are you claiming that everything that is morally right is in the Christian religion?
EdSed

Glasgow, UK

#22 Oct 31, 2010
I think humanity is witnessing a natural progression. Religion made sense to many people who did not know the world was flat; or that it was not the centre of the universe. Maybe some Jesuits recognised the beginning of the end when they failed to prevent the Bible being translated into native languages, like English. Many people realised it was just another work of man, but it was illegal to say so.

Even in England & Wales, the blasphemy law was only repealed in 2008. The last imprisonment for blasphemy in mainland UK was in 1921. The last person charged was in 1925. Blasphemy as a concept is now redundant.(Call that evolution :-)

This sums up religious attitudes in one newly developed part of the world..
http://www.iheu.org/maldavian-faces-death-%E2...
To me, such a murderous reaction seems fear driven. Fear that Islam is nonsense perhaps?

What is very clear about religion is that it is largely parent given, not god-given.


People need to start looking where we are going more than where we have been. Ask on what morality can be based and how the people of Earth should be organised. Ask if religion is useful and if nations are the best political units for humanity. Nations may be the only practical unit of organisation for the foreseeable future, but what should ideally constitute a nation? Can we begin to evolve from competitive religions and nations towards a global structure that better serves our future and encourages mutual cooperation, rather than competition or dangerous rivalry?

Globalism and multi-culturalism are descriptions of the status quo, the natural consequences of modern technology, education and communications. We can only influence their nature and development. They are not options we might accept or reject. Nations should be developed as platforms for world-wide co-operation. Such divisions as Muslim or Jewish peoples and lands are historical legacies and problems, not competing cultures worthy of human sacrifices. There are only people and land. If people on Earth beat ourselves up, who cares?

Though very unlikely, Earth could be destroyed by a cosmic event during the next century. An event dangerous to humanity is likely to occur within a few hundred thousand years. These are the threats that humans face, not the extinction of religion. Religion is merely code for superstition. Our unity and ability to co-operate globally might determine our very existence in that time scale.

Belasrius

Since: Dec 09

United States

#23 Oct 31, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
None. They were all theists. Even Hume had to admit that without the existence of God there would be no basis for morality.
Then you should read about Bertrand Russell.
YEAHMAN

Trumann, AR

#24 Oct 31, 2010
EdSed wrote:
I think humanity is witnessing a natural progression. Religion made sense to many people who did not know the world was flat; or that it was not the centre of the universe. Maybe some Jesuits recognised the beginning of the end when they failed to prevent the Bible being translated into native languages, like English. Many people realised it was just another work of man, but it was illegal to say so.
Even in England & Wales, the blasphemy law was only repealed in 2008. The last imprisonment for blasphemy in mainland UK was in 1921. The last person charged was in 1925. Blasphemy as a concept is now redundant.(Call that evolution :-)
This sums up religious attitudes in one newly developed part of the world..
http://www.iheu.org/maldavian-faces-death-%E2...
To me, such a murderous reaction seems fear driven. Fear that Islam is nonsense perhaps?
What is very clear about religion is that it is largely parent given, not god-given. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =ijqkp9rDMscXX
People need to start looking where we are going more than where we have been. Ask on what morality can be based and how the people of Earth should be organised. Ask if religion is useful and if nations are the best political units for humanity. Nations may be the only practical unit of organisation for the foreseeable future, but what should ideally constitute a nation? Can we begin to evolve from competitive religions and nations towards a global structure that better serves our future and encourages mutual cooperation, rather than competition or dangerous rivalry?
Globalism and multi-culturalism are descriptions of the status quo, the natural consequences of modern technology, education and communications. We can only influence their nature and development. They are not options we might accept or reject. Nations should be developed as platforms for world-wide co-operation. Such divisions as Muslim or Jewish peoples and lands are historical legacies and problems, not competing cultures worthy of human sacrifices. There are only people and land. If people on Earth beat ourselves up, who cares?
Though very unlikely, Earth could be destroyed by a cosmic event during the next century. An event dangerous to humanity is likely to occur within a few hundred thousand years. These are the threats that humans face, not the extinction of religion. Religion is merely code for superstition. Our unity and ability to co-operate globally might determine our very existence in that time scale.
I might add that it's a well known fact that your country has become basically,a Godless nation.No wonder you're full of that new age BS.
me sayz

Trumann, AR

#25 Oct 31, 2010
Harold Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny, seems the mess our society proves just the opposite. The atheist push to ban bible teaching in schools, no prayer before municipal meetings, ballgames, and other events, no display of 10 cmdmts, all has led to an increase in every crime category, especially school and mall shootings.
Atheists are proving themselves wrong each day.
use a little common sense, it is not just atheists pushing to stop bible teaching in schools and prayers in public forums, even some christians do too.

Why - if you teach one religion, you must teach them all. If you let one religion or denomination pray you must let them all. Think of the chaos it could cause. American is not the land of just one religion but many, whether you agree with those religions or not.

you cannot blame the mess in our society for the lack of religion - it is there and always available - ask yourself whey don't parents teach it to their kids, why are they not in church every time the door is open? A person can pray anytime they want. Why should they need someone to lead them. A person can read the bible just about any time they want - so why dont they? Maybe its the parents fault for not teaching their kids properly and that is causing the mess in today's society.

If you have kids, when was the last time you spend time with your kid reading and discussing the bible?
EdSed

Glasgow, UK

#26 Oct 31, 2010
YEAHMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I might add that it's a well known fact that your country has become basically,a Godless nation.
In part, we have the Bible to thank for that. Ironic eh?:-)
YEAHMAN wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder you're full of that new age BS.
Religion isn't BS? Isn't paganism new age, rather than anything I have posted? Ideas and societies evolve too.:-)

By the way, the 2nd sentence should have read: Religion made sense to many people who thought the world was flat; or Earth was the centre of the universe.(post 22)
guest

Mayflower, AR

#27 Oct 31, 2010
Andie J wrote:
I just found a list of 86 philosophers who are (or were) atheist. It sounds like you didn't cover too many.
The question was how many of the GREAT philosophers were atheists. I contend that all of the great ones believed in a higher power.
Morality comes from within the brain. Intelligent people know the difference between right & wrong.
What makes your idea of right and wrong any better than say Adolf Hitler? If there is no basis for morality, then there is no such thing as morality.
guest

Mayflower, AR

#28 Oct 31, 2010
Khatru wrote:
Do you agree with that?
What about other religions with commendable morals? Many of which pre-date Christianity.
Or are you claiming that everything that is morally right is in the Christian religion?
My statement was that all of the great philosophers were theists. Christianity is not the only theistic religion. You act as if you don't understand the definition of theism.
Guest

Salem, AR

#29 Oct 31, 2010
Belasrius wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to understand it's meaning and realize that there's more to a language than verbatim.
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Cl...
You tend to forget that the "separation of church and state" was in a letter that Jefferson wrote.
mom

United States

#30 Oct 31, 2010
Genius wrote:
How many of the great philosophers you study in college and high school were atheists? Did they advocate doing evil? Nah. Bibles aren't required to do good. In fact, many more people hide behind their Bible to avoid helping mankind than actually get out and help someone in need. Kind of sad, really since Jesus's entire life and philosophy was based on helping those in need.
my daughter is having a really hard time right now,so she went to a well known church to ask for food.first time and she dont get food stamps.they gave her a small bag of dated food. thanks christian.....

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#31 Oct 31, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The question was how many of the GREAT philosophers were atheists. I contend that all of the great ones believed in a higher power.
<quoted text>
What makes your idea of right and wrong any better than say Adolf Hitler? If there is no basis for morality, then there is no such thing as morality.
See, this is the entire problem with you hopeless fundies. You would rather stand behind an incredibly weak, vapid defense of theism and morality than apply a little common sense. His idea of right and wrong is better than Hitler's because he doesn't think you should kill countless people because of their race, to put it extremely simply.

I feel like living your life while not interfering with others is the best way to live. In that sense I stick by the principles of Laveyan Satanism, if a man is in your way, politely ask him to move. If he doesn't, destroy him.

Life is so much nicer when you're not looking for reasons to judge people.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#32 Nov 1, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The question was how many of the GREAT philosophers were atheists. I contend that all of the great ones believed in a higher power.
There was a time when most people believed the world was flat. Didn't make it true.

And, you should do a little research before making blanket statements likw you just did. A partial list of atheist philosophers can be found at " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists... (philosophy)", while a more complete list of atheist across a number of professions can be found at " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists... ;.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes your idea of right and wrong any better than say Adolf Hitler? If there is no basis for morality, then there is no such thing as morality.
Hitler claimed to be doing god's work in ridding the world of the Jews, so his "morals" were based on the bible.

Your bible tells you that god commands you to kill witches, stone children who sass, etc. Do you follow these moral commandments or do you filter what the bible tells you with a more modern sense of right and wrong?
guest

Maumelle, AR

#33 Nov 1, 2010
DeltaNineKine wrote:
See, this is the entire problem with you hopeless fundies. You would rather stand behind an incredibly weak, vapid defense of theism and morality than apply a little common sense. His idea of right and wrong is better than Hitler's because he doesn't think you should kill countless people because of their race, to put it extremely simply.
First of all dickhead, I'm not a hopeless fundie and I didn't present a defense of theism. I merely answered a question that someone else had asked.

My question was what makes one person's definition for morality any better than the next if morality comes from our own minds. The fact is that if there is no basis for morality, then no one's idea of right and wrong is any more valid than anyone else's.
Life is so much nicer when you're not looking for reasons to judge people.
Look in the mirror jackass.
General Franco

Lebanon, TN

#34 Nov 1, 2010
Guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You tend to forget that the "separation of church and state" was in a letter that Jefferson wrote.
Exactly, it is not in the first amendment. It just isn't there.
guest

Maumelle, AR

#35 Nov 1, 2010
Hedonist wrote:
Hitler claimed to be doing god's work in ridding the world of the Jews, so his "morals" were based on the bible.
Your bible tells you that god commands you to kill witches, stone children who sass, etc. Do you follow these moral commandments or do you filter what the bible tells you with a more modern sense of right and wrong?
If there is no basis for morality, it doesn't matter what Hitler beleived, his definition of morality is just as good as yours or mine.

I didn't bring up the bible at all. Funny that you atheists always squirm when someone asks the right question. In this case that question is why one person's definition of morality is any better than the next person's if there is no basis for morality.

I've exposed the irrationality of your position.

“Snow days!”

Since: Nov 08

A winter wonderland

#36 Nov 1, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The question was how many of the GREAT philosophers were atheists. I contend that all of the great ones believed in a higher power.
<quoted text>
What makes your idea of right and wrong any better than say Adolf Hitler? If there is no basis for morality, then there is no such thing as morality.
Geez-o-Pete, leave the Hitler discussion for another day. Hitler was an avowed Christian. Look it up if you don't believe me. Now drop it. It's gotten too old, too fast.

My ideas of right & wrong are, in all likelihood, scarily similar to yours. I don't need some priest or minister or rabbi or really old book telling me what is right & what is wrong. Morality's basis comes from the human brain maturing & learning what society expects.

Moral- treating those less fortunate than us kindly
Moral- not deliberately hurting others in any way (this covers a lot of stuff)
Moral- obeying the secular laws
Moral -providing well for our children
guest

Maumelle, AR

#37 Nov 1, 2010
Andie J wrote:
Morality's basis comes from the human brain
Again I ask you, if the basis of morality is the human brain, what makes your definition of morality any better or worse than Hitler's?

“Snow days!”

Since: Nov 08

A winter wonderland

#38 Nov 1, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Again I ask you, if the basis of morality is the human brain, what makes your definition of morality any better or worse than Hitler's?
It makes it different. How is your morality better or worse than Hitler's? Hitler read the bible. I presume you do, as well. If you get your morals from the bible, you're getting the from the same place Hitler did.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#39 Nov 1, 2010
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no basis for morality, it doesn't matter what Hitler beleived, his definition of morality is just as good as yours or mine.
I didn't bring up the bible at all. Funny that you atheists always squirm when someone asks the right question. In this case that question is why one person's definition of morality is any better than the next person's if there is no basis for morality.
I've exposed the irrationality of your position.
There is no reason to get personal.

Your question was what is the basis for morality. My response was that it can easily be shown that it does NOT come from religion -- any religion.

Your next question is the idea that morals might be "relative". Although a lot of philosophers seem to argue that way, I do NOT subscribe to that line of thought. I think that humans can make some objective statements about what is "moral" that transcend cultural, tribal, or religious considerations.

HOWEVER, morals are a also a multi-faceted, and sometimes paradoxical, aspect of human interactions with themselves, other humans, and the world around them.

“Snow days!”

Since: Nov 08

A winter wonderland

#40 Nov 1, 2010
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>

HOWEVER, morals are a also a multi-faceted, and sometimes paradoxical, aspect of human interactions with themselves, other humans, and the world around them.
Well said. The morals that Americans might follow are not necessarily the same as the morals of, say, a Sudanese person.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 min Rose_NoHo 5,017
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 85,655
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 5 hr Eagle 12 - 115
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web