 |
Philippine Atheists Forum
Celebrate freedom from religion. A community of Filipino free spirits.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mister green
Belial
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 6
Location: Planet X
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As Richard Dawkins has often said Religion has appropriated man's sense of right and wrong for itself. God is not the source of morality, man is. Man is a learning animal. He learns from his mistakes. Before slavery is acceptable, now it's not. Similarly, anti-semitism was tolerated, now it's considered despicable. Both of these, by the way, was accepted by the Catholic Church. We continue to evolve our morality.
So where do we base our morality? Yes, from a consensus of civilized societies. For example, we have a Magna Carta of Human Rights from the United Nations not based on Judeo-Christian faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fountainhead
Astaroth
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 51
Location: Mindoro
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mister green wrote: | As Richard Dawkins has often said Religion has appropriated man's sense of right and wrong for itself. God is not the source of morality, man is. Man is a learning animal. He learns from his mistakes. Before slavery is acceptable, now it's not. Similarly, anti-semitism was tolerated, now it's considered despicable. Both of these, by the way, was accepted by the Catholic Church. We continue to evolve our morality.
So where do we base our morality? Yes, from a consensus of civilized societies. For example, we have a Magna Carta of Human Rights from the United Nations not based on Judeo-Christian faith. |
Yes, man is a learning animal. But how does he learn? He learns through his facultiy of cognition-thinking.
How did man learn from mistakes? How does he know that he commited a mistakes? What is the basis? How did man knows that slavery was a mistake or evil? Of course, there were individual who initiated the thinking and fought against slavery before it was accepted by the majority or what you call the consensus? The consensus at that time was slavery, wasn't it? It was the start of the individual thought or ideas before slavery was wiped out. Not the consensus you are talking about. The same thing with anti-semitism.
How does a society become civilized? Is it not by the initiation of individual thought and ideas? But that individual idea at the start is not accepted by the society immediately. That individual suffered persecution from the majority, from the society he is trying to make a civil one. History has lots of evidences.
CONSENSUS IS NOT THE BASIS OF MORALITY. YOU ARE WRONG TO SAY THAT.
No the Magna Carta of UN is still embedded with religious ideas. Analyzed it.
How come we still have wars betwen small nations, terrorism, etc. inspite of the fact of that we have the UN Magna Carta. To tell you the truth: the UN is useless. morally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mister green
Belial
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 6
Location: Planet X
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately man learns only when faced with a grim situation where he finds no option but to change his act or gets annihilated. It takes war and thousands and even millions of deaths to give up slavery, and anti-semitism. It takes climate change to really consider cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It takes recession to make people think twice of living beyond their means. And so on. The UN magna carta on human rights is itself a reaction to the atrocities in WWII. I'll bet it will take a horrific religious war for man to consider giving up on religions altogether, or at least making them taboo in public.
Admittedly, the magna carta is not as secular as people would want it to be but its a start. And it is useless, because people ignore it. But I see no other way than people to agree on what is meant to civilize and moral, and what is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isang Kaibigan
Belial
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 28
Location: The Philippines
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I affirm the dilemma that both fountainhead and mister green observe.
Anyway, it all proves that atheists can only be relatively good without god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kapanalig_sa_wala
Azazel
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Isang Kaibigan wrote: | I affirm the dilemma that both fountainhead and mister green observe.
Anyway, it all proves that atheists can only be relatively good without god. |
Without affirming that theists must fall under the same category? But we don't need to answer the obvious already - religions differ in morality - and so atheir morality becomes culturally relative. And if there is no god, the basis of morality by theists becomes false.
_________________
Pagkahaba-haba man daw ng prusisyon, wala pa ring diyos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isang Kaibigan
Belial
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 28
Location: The Philippines
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kapanalig_sa_wala wrote: | | Without affirming that theists must fall under the same category? But we don't need to answer the obvious already - religions differ in morality - and so atheir morality becomes culturally relative. |
No, that's not what I meant. You are correct that religious morality is quite diversified too. But there is no dilemma! Why? Because religious people do not defend religion as a whole. Religious people only defend their own religion. In fact, you can observe that different religions argue about this: who's religion is the correct one. Indeed, there is still an agreement among religions: that god exists. But which god? And how many? And what is he/are they like? Ha!
| kapanalig_sa_wala wrote: | | And if there is no god, the basis of morality by theists becomes false. |
That would be true assuming that the premise is also true. But of course, theists challenge the premise.
However, regardless of the disagreement among religions, it does not eliminate the dilemma for atheism: where should morality be grounded, if any? For some atheists, there is none at all. For some atheist, it should be on consensus. For some atheist, it should be on their version of atheism. And so on and so forth.
And the logical consequences would be devastating. For atheists who believe that their atheism permits genocide (like Hitler's), some atheists would strongly object that atheism as a whole absolutely does not permit genocide (like New Atheism).
Therefore, there is an argument among atheists on this matter. Maybe Filipino atheists in this forum are just afraid, shy, or too uneducated to argue about this matter against fellow atheists. Western atheists are bolder in challenging fellow atheists about the grounds of morality in atheism.
(Notice that religious people are very very vocal in refuting each other. I also wanna see passion from atheists here, taking the debate against on other atheists toe-to-toe, strongly arguing about this topic. I just don't see any here, unlike what I see among western atheists.)
_________________
I hope we can still be friends even when we disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kapanalig_sa_wala
Azazel
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isang Kaibigan wrote: | regardless of the disagreement among religions, it does not eliminate the dilemma for atheism: where should morality be grounded, if any? For some atheists, there is none at all. For some atheist, it should be on consensus. For some atheist, it should be on their version of atheism. And so on and so forth.
And the logical consequences would be devastating. For atheists who believe that their atheism permits genocide (like Hitler's), some atheists would strongly object that atheism as a whole absolutely does not permit genocide (like New Atheism).
Therefore, there is an argument among atheists on this matter. Maybe Filipino atheists in this forum are just afraid, shy, or too uneducated to argue about this matter against fellow atheists. Western atheists are bolder in challenging fellow atheists about the grounds of morality in atheism.
(Notice that religious people are very very vocal in refuting each other. I also wanna see passion from atheists here, taking the debate against on other atheists toe-to-toe, strongly arguing about this topic. I just don't see any here, unlike what I see among western atheists.) |
There is no dilemma. Look around you and your answer is right under your nose. If there is no god, the supposed source of absolute morality, then by your logic morality becomes relative - and you are correct. Atheists at least agree on one point, and that is that morality must not be absolute. This also explains why different religions, which are products of different cultures, have different concepts of right and wrong. This is almost a given. As for genocide and Hitler, it doesn't help your position at all because Hitler is Catholic and therefore, not an atheist. His concept of right and wrong is based on theistic grounds and clearly shows that morality is very much cultural or product of the environment.
_________________
Pagkahaba-haba man daw ng prusisyon, wala pa ring diyos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isang Kaibigan
Belial
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 28
Location: The Philippines
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: Do Moral Values Absolutely Exist? |
|
|
Hey Dude!
| kapanalig_sa_wala wrote: | | There is no dilemma. Look around you and your answer is right under your nose. If there is no god, the supposed source of absolute morality, then by your logic morality becomes relative - and you are correct. Atheists at least agree on one point, and that is that morality must not be absolute. This also explains why different religions, which are products of different cultures, have different concepts of right and wrong. This is almost a given. |
I'm pretty sure that your fellow atheist fountainhead will disagree with you. He firmly believes that Objective Moral Values actually exist independent of any person's opinion and must be discovered.
Atheist Philosopher Dr. Louise Anthony (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), editor of “Philosophers Without Gods,” believes that murder and stealing are wrong, whether you believe it or not. She believes that moral values objectively exist.
Honestly, I agree with you: that the logical outworking of atheism is that moral values are relative.
| kapanalig_sa_wala wrote: | | As for genocide and Hitler, it doesn't help your position at all because Hitler is Catholic and therefore, not an atheist. |
Oh, Hitler did not act as a Catholic when he tried to implement Nazism. (I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I am very familiar with the dogmatics of Catholicism.) It was Nietchze's influence on him that made him felt justified to enforce Nazism. Hitler may have Catholic roots, but his life did not practice Catholic teachings. (There are rumors that he had the Vatican's blessing for his Nazism. Regardless, that could be more of political rather than theological.)
| kapanalig_sa_wala wrote: | | [Hitler's] concept of right and wrong is based on theistic grounds and clearly shows that morality is very much cultural or product of the environment. |
1) You have to prove that Catholic morality is cultural, not objective. The fact is, Catholic morality is objective. The logical conclusion is that Hitler violated his Catholic beliefs.
2) If, as you claimed, Hitler's morality is culture-conditioned, then he acted atheistically, not Catholic. He did not have to claim that he is atheistic. He showed it with his actions. He obviously was not following Catholicism by his actions (maybe politically, I can't be sure).
Remember, you concurred with me that "If there is no god, the supposed source of absolute morality, then by your logic morality becomes relative - and you are correct."
_________________
I hope we can still be friends even when we disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fountainhead
Astaroth
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 51
Location: Mindoro
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we be good without God?
The answer is YES!
First we must know what is morality or ethics.
Morality or ethics is a set of code or principle that guides man's choices and actions.
How can we know those principles? By looking and observing reality or existence. By observing the nature of man.
Why do we need those principles? For human survival.
How can we know that a principle is fales or true?
It is frue if it good for human life; false if it threatend or eveil for human life.
If what is true then is it good? Yes.
If what is false then is it evil? Yes.
What is true? How do you define "truth"?
Is good related to what is true? Same with evil?
Anything that exist is true, absolutely true. Anything that contradict with what exist is false. Is absolutely false.
If they propose that God exist, then contradict with that term "existence" thus it is false. This falseness leads to evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
im2young
Belial
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Location: Tacloban City,Leyte
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we be good without God?
duhhh!!! humans have been good from the past,present and definitely in the future.. BUT there is no "God" from the beginning!
They only assume that there is a supreme being who created them because they can't comprehend their existence in this world we live in.. They provide themselves a false image,believing that someone has the power over everything and created the human race.. well in FACT,that we evolved from our ancient ancestors in the animal kingdom.. we were not created by an imaginary entity.. and thus like animals,we live and die.. to be continued! XD
hahah,my first post!! im looking forward..
_________________
sarang heyo..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JL Acosta
Belial
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
MY first post as well. I love the discussion.
I scratch your back and you scratch mine. If feels good to help needy people, specially if that same thought is not made with an agenda that there's karma. There is just no sense in helping others when all you want is a place in heaven.
The way I see things is that there is only equal trade and balance to any moral society. If people help others because of that place in heaven syndrome, I let them be. That's human nature in the first place. But when you give your daughter to drunken men just so they don't disturb a conversation with a priest, then that's called stupidity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
