Our server costs ~$33 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 19th January 2017, 00:32

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moral Acts
#11
RE: Moral Acts
I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
#12
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 09:36)Alasdair Ham Wrote:
(10th January 2017, 09:03)mh.brewer Wrote: Guilt free masturbation?
you got that backwards lol

Well, I can't say "guilt filled" if I'm successful.
God(s) and religions are man made and the bane of humanity. 

Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. Ozzy or Twain/take your pick
Reply
#13
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 12:29)Aegon Wrote: I think the argument from the other side is more along the lines of, "you can act moral but you can't actually be moral without religion." If you don't believe in God, then the religious will question your motivations, since any proper God-fearing citizen has that to motivate them to do good. Atheists don't have a standard to be judged by. But there's no specific thing you can't do without religion; it's all about intention and motivation.

I disagree with all that, obviously.

For the record, that certainly isn't my argument at all lol. 

In fact, I think it's actually less moral to only act moral because you think you'll be "punished" if you don't.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
#14
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 12:29)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.

That's so weird to me. If you think Jesus will be upset if you bang before marriage, fine, but what other reason could you have for waiting? We're animals. We like sex.

(10th January 2017, 12:31)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(10th January 2017, 12:29)Aegon Wrote: I think the argument from the other side is more along the lines of, "you can act moral but you can't actually be moral without religion." If you don't believe in God, then the religious will question your motivations, since any proper God-fearing citizen has that to motivate them to do good. Atheists don't have a standard to be judged by. But there's no specific thing you can't do without religion; it's all about intention and motivation.

I disagree with all that, obviously.

For the record, that certainly isn't my argument at all lol. 

In fact, I think it's actually less moral to only act moral because you think you'll be "punished" if you don't.

I was certainly painting a broad brush with my post. I've seen that argument plenty of times, especially from Catholics (though I was exposed mostly only to Catholicism when I was younger.)
"When life begins, we are tender and weak.
When life ends, we are stiff and rigid.
All things, including the grass and the trees,
Are soft and pliable in life, dry and brittle in death.
So the soft and supple are the companions of life,
Whilst the stiff and unyielding are the companions of death.
An army that cannot yield will be defeated.
A tree that cannot bend will crack in the wind.
Thus, by nature's own decree,
The hard and strong are defeated,
Whilst the soft and gentle are triumphant."
                                                           
                                                           -Lao-tzu


Reply
#15
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 12:37)Aegon Wrote:
(10th January 2017, 12:29)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see why there would be any? A person can always act morally, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.

I will say though that there are a few things that I consider immoral that the vast majority of atheists think is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean they are incapable of it. I've personally known an atheist woman who was of the opinion that premarital sex was immoral and so her and her husband waited until their wedding night. If finding an atheist like that is possible, anything is lol.

That's so weird to me. If you think Jesus will be upset if you bang before marriage, fine, but what other reason could you have for waiting? We're animals. We like sex.

Yes, but we like lots of sugar and salt and grease as well lol. Liking something doesn't necessarily mean those things are good for us. Or at least good for us outside of their proper context.

But to answer your question, I can definitely see the benefits of waiting for sex without bringing God into the picture. There is 0% chance of contracting or spreading STDs. There is 0% chance of getting pregnant unintentionally and out of wedlock. Contraceptives reduce the risk of both those things, but doesn't take them away completely. One could argue that it isn't very loving to put another person at risk for either of those life changing things. Also, you're saving that part of yourself to give to the person whom you've promise to spend the rest of your life with. Saving this and treating it as an exclusive "gift" to give to a life partner as an expression of your love, commitment, and exclusivity to this person is a very loving and special thing to do, imho.

(10th January 2017, 12:37)Aegon Wrote: I was certainly painting a broad brush with my post. I've seen that argument plenty of times, especially from Catholics (though I was exposed mostly only to Catholicism when I was younger.)

Wow, that's very much surprising. I've been taught the opposite of that.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
#16
RE: Moral Acts
The thing is.... you can wait and take all the precautions without actually getting married. The ring and the ceremony doesn't reduce risk of STDs or provide any other health benefits. It's just a ring and a ceremony.

It's what's inside that counts. I'd certainly rather be fully dedicated to someone without marriage than get married without the dedication. If given the choice.

Basically CL, the benefits you listed comes about via the dedication to the partner rather than the making it official Smile

Signed,

Yours Truly,

A.K.A. Non-Boru TheTurtleDudeWhoAlsoComesInTheFormOfASquirrel
(12th January 2017, 11:33)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(12th January 2017, 11:16)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags.
True that, at least the Tooth Fairy gives you something in return for your belief and sacrifical offerings. When was the last time god ever did anything for anyone?
"You don't change the world by staying at home and being good" - Mooney
"I reserve the right to be irrational"
― Gemini
Reply
#17
RE: Moral Acts
Well marriage is suppose to be the intention of dedication and life long commitment. If someone goes into a marriage without those intentions, then I would argue it's not a real marriage to begin with... regardless of ring/ceremony. 

As for STD's, you can't really contract them/give them if you only have sex with one person who's only had sex with you lol.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
#18
RE: Moral Acts
Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage Smile

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too Smile
(12th January 2017, 11:33)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(12th January 2017, 11:16)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags.
True that, at least the Tooth Fairy gives you something in return for your belief and sacrifical offerings. When was the last time god ever did anything for anyone?
"You don't change the world by staying at home and being good" - Mooney
"I reserve the right to be irrational"
― Gemini
Reply
#19
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 13:30)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage Smile

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too Smile

Very true. You can make the commitment to stay with someone for life without signing any sort of legal documentation, but then I'd question what their reservation was to making is "official" if their intention is to be with someone for the rest of their life. 

But yeah, if a couple makes the promise and commitment to be together for life, and they are being genuine in their intentions, then I would say it would work the same way.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
Reply
#20
RE: Moral Acts
(10th January 2017, 13:33)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(10th January 2017, 13:30)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Yeah but you can be 100% faithful without marriage Smile

I agree that marriage really implies marrying yourself to someone in the abstract sense too Smile

Very true. You can make the commitment to stay with someone for life without signing any sort of legal documentation, but then I'd question what their reservation was to making is "official" if their intention is to be with someone for the rest of their life. 

But yeah, if a couple makes the promise and commitment to be together for life, and they are being genuine in their intentions, then I would say it would work the same way.

I agree with all that.

And actually, funnily enough, I just HAPPEN to be talking to you and I really need to actually go for a genuine full on poop out of my butt right now. What are the chances? We clearly have some kind of metaphysical connection. Be back relatively soon.
(12th January 2017, 11:33)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(12th January 2017, 11:16)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Those who compare God to the tooth fairy are douchebags.
True that, at least the Tooth Fairy gives you something in return for your belief and sacrifical offerings. When was the last time god ever did anything for anyone?
"You don't change the world by staying at home and being good" - Mooney
"I reserve the right to be irrational"
― Gemini
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  On Moral Authorities FallentoReason 266 3768 21st November 2016, 00:54
Last Post: theologian
  Your moral compass mcolafson 58 1556 11th October 2016, 06:39
Last Post: robvalue
  Moral realism vs moral anti-realism debate is a moot point Pizza 1 467 7th March 2015, 20:13
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Moral law in Humans and other animals The Reality Salesman 13 1394 28th February 2015, 01:32
Last Post: The Reality Salesman
  Why 'should' atheists be moral? vincent150 119 7918 4th January 2015, 13:13
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Moral Dilemma EgoRaptor 98 8122 20th February 2014, 18:22
Last Post: FlyingNarwhal
  Moral Principles: 10 Myths Rahul 8 1627 14th February 2014, 00:20
Last Post: bennyboy
  Not Convinced Determinism Makes Sense of Moral Responsibility. Convince Me It Does Mudhammam 44 5245 17th December 2013, 00:47
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  Moral Argument for God's Existence MindForgedManacle 34 5893 25th October 2013, 09:47
Last Post: bennyboy
  Can anyone give me a example of how religous moral is superior to secular morality Lemonvariable72 29 4958 9th September 2013, 12:44
Last Post: MindForgedManacle



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)