Our server costs ~$56 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: March 29, 2024, 6:51 am

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
(January 10, 2017 at 9:36 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:
(January 10, 2017 at 9:03 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Guilt free masturbation?
you got that backwards lol

Well, I can't say "guilt filled" if I'm successful.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#13
RE: Moral Acts
(January 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm)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
(January 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm)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.

(January 10, 2017 at 12:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(January 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm)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.)
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]
Reply
#15
RE: Moral Acts
(January 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm)Aegon Wrote:
(January 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm)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.

(January 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm)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
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
Reply
#19
RE: Moral Acts
(January 10, 2017 at 1:30 pm)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
(January 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(January 10, 2017 at 1:30 pm)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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Maximizing Moral Virtue h311inac311 191 12787 December 17, 2022 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Objectivist
  As a nonreligious person, where do you get your moral guidance? Gentle_Idiot 79 6403 November 26, 2022 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war? Macoleco 184 6576 August 19, 2022 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values? Pnerd 37 3091 May 24, 2022 at 11:49 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Can we trust our Moral Intuitions? vulcanlogician 72 3618 November 7, 2021 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Alan V
  Any Moral Relativists in the House? vulcanlogician 72 4589 June 21, 2021 at 9:09 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  [Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds Neo-Scholastic 93 5299 May 23, 2021 at 1:43 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  A Moral Reality Acrobat 29 3185 September 12, 2019 at 8:09 pm
Last Post: brewer
  In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order Acrobat 84 6906 August 30, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: LastPoet
  Moral Oughts Acrobat 109 7518 August 30, 2019 at 4:24 am
Last Post: Acrobat



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)