Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[Angrboda]

[polymath257]

The point is that deities are not required for morality. It is possible to have goodness and there be no deities.

In fact, I would suggest that atheists are, in general, much more moral than theists. I've had way too many theists say that they would steal or kill if they didn't believe. That, in my mind, is evil. Evil suppressed, but still evil.

That you are arguing that atheists or theists are more moral, shows my point.

Although if you believe that morality is subjective, it is difficult to even make such a classification at , because morality is based on the subject.  You are not speaking to something external when talking about good or evil but your state of mind or your opinion.  Which may of course be different relative to the subject.  If people really believed that morality was subjective, then such statements are nonsense.

We are a social species. That is objective. Social species need rules to live by to preserve the social order. That is objective. Those rules tend to be preserved under evolution because they work. That is objective. Even other animal have a sense of compassion and fairness. That is objective.

Ultimately, morality boils down to rules for society that are based on compassion and a sense of fairness. Any other standard just leads to more misery and oppression. In this tendency, religion is one of the many forces that pushes away from fairness and compassion. It is far from the only one, but other dogmatic thought systems are also prone to this substitution for compassion for some other ideal.

Part of the issue is a precise definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'. Morality is ultimately about how humans live with other humans. That depends on the conditions under which they live. That makes morality subjective to some extent. On the other hand, there are certain rules that seem to be almost genetic. That points to an objective aspect: certain moral rules simply work and are selected for over time.

Almost every society is against killing members of that society for no reason. But almost every society is in favor of killing in self defense by at least some in the society. Every society encourages looking at motherhood as a positive thing (at least until recently, when overpopulation has become an issue). And every society also encourages responsibility to the young. ALL of these are simply aspects of being a social species. In that sense, those standards are objective: any social species is going to have them to some extent.

On the other hand, societies differ greatly on which aspects of behavior that harm nobody are regarded as immoral. So such rules tend to be subjective and dependent on specific societies and conditions.

[Mystic]

What Theists don't realize is that "good must be from God" comes together with goodness being realized to be from God, and if people deny the link of goodness with God and try to do away with it's reality and goal, and it's source to which it calls to, then they do so my embracing darkness and just clothing themselves with nice stuff from door of the light while being outside of it.

So it's Theists who say the argument doesn't entail that you can be good without recognizing God, that really don't understand, that we really can't be good without God is inherit in realizing goodness and God go together.

Yes, we can imagine any reality of goodness we want, but what it is, is what must be loved, not what we make of it through mythologies and theories.

And it's love of the family of revelation, the household of the reminder, and holding to God's beautiful names to carry us as Captains and Navigators of the ship as the tribulations surround us, that is the heart of what it means to be good, and it's these reminders that goodness stems from God through, and so hating it for what it is, whether denying God's favor upon us through these humans and envying the grace of God upon them, or accepting them but then relying on others regarding them rather then holding on to them, or denying it's Archetype that there is binding between God and humans (religion) all together, it's all the heart of envy and evil.

This is how the Torah manifests the image of God and it's enviers and haters, from Adam to now.

I use to argue on similar grounds. That it's linked to God but Atheists can still be good acting according to heedlessly, but realize the model the holy books provide, that turning away from it's representative in the outward world, in mortal form, stems from hate of what it is in inward form, and it's link to the creator, and envy resulting in disbelief in God's way and path and the leader and proof of the time, is a huge loss indeed.

We have to accept goodness for what it is, and accept love for what it ought to value and not attach ourselves to falsehood over the truth of God and his word of light brought to life.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

BORING.

[Belacqua]

Do you think this is a good statement to make? It seems to me like they are trying to prove themselves to religious people. Is it a response to religious people who think atheists are less moral? I would rather not dignify that. If you wanna address that argument then bring it to them but to use that as your motivation is low rent.

I think more than before, English speakers are using "I'm good" to mean "I'm fine" or "I'm satisfied." So if you ask if they need some more coffee, they'll say "I'm good thanks" to mean "no thanks, I'm fine without it." Or if you just say "how are you today?" they'll say "I'm good" to mean they're in good condition. 

My latent grammar Nazi dislikes this, but there's nothing I can do about it. 

If this is what people mean when they say "I'm good without God" I understand it. I don't need God to be satisfied or have a complete life.

On the other hand, if they mean "good" in the old fashioned way -- to say they are morally good people -- that seems like a big claim to me. Someone who is really a good person doesn't go around telling people he's good, any more than a handsome guy goes around telling people that he's better looking than others. 

Maybe better to refrain from making a personal claim -- that I specifically am morally good. So it doesn't seem to be boasting. Better to argue, as it's certainly possible to do, that people can be morally good without religion -- even if I personally can only manage to do my best, and may not always do very well at it.

[Seraphina]

Do you think this is a good statement to make? It seems to me like they are trying to prove themselves to religious people. Is it a response to religious people who think atheists are less moral? I would rather not dignify that. If you wanna address that argument then bring it to them but to use that as your motivation is low rent.

Announcing in a smug manner that you're a "good" person is something that I associate with the religious. Whether I'm good is surely an issue that those around me and society at large also have a say in.
Also, I don't trust people who make it a point to say they're "good" or "honest", etc. I've usually found the opposite is true with those types.

I do say, however, that "you can be good without god". In fact, that's my go-to phrase when I'm defacing hotel Bibles. I usually write that in there.

-Teresa

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that I mostly seem to see this in response to the moral argument for God. This type of response would indicate that they don't understand the moral argument; hence the incorrect response.

No. I'm pointing out that your sentence made absolutely no sense.. Hence I pointed it out.

That’s why I clarified my response!

---

That you are arguing that atheists or theists are more moral, shows my point.

Although if you believe that morality is subjective, it is difficult to even make such a classification at , because morality is based on the subject.  You are not speaking to something external when talking about good or evil but your state of mind or your opinion.  Which may of course be different relative to the subject.  If people really believed that morality was subjective, then such statements are nonsense.

We are a social species. That is objective. Social species need rules to live by to preserve the social order. That is objective. Those rules tend to be preserved under evolution because they work. That is objective. Even other animal have a sense of compassion and fairness. That is objective.

Ultimately, morality boils down to rules for society that are based on compassion and a sense of fairness. Any other standard just leads to more misery and oppression. In this tendency, religion is one of the many forces that pushes away from fairness and compassion. It is far from the only one, but other dogmatic thought systems are also prone to this substitution for compassion for some other ideal.

Part of the issue is a precise definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'. Morality is ultimately about how humans live with other humans. That depends on the conditions under which they live. That makes morality subjective to some extent. On the other hand, there are certain rules that seem to be almost genetic. That points to an objective aspect: certain moral rules simply work and are selected for over time.

Almost every society is against killing members of that society for no reason. But almost every society is in favor of killing in self defense by at least some in the society. Every society encourages looking at motherhood as a positive thing (at least until recently, when overpopulation has become an issue). And every society also encourages responsibility to the young. ALL of these are simply aspects of being a social species. In that sense, those standards are objective: any social species is going to have them to some extent.

On the other hand, societies differ greatly on which aspects of behavior that harm nobody are regarded as immoral. So such rules tend to be subjective and dependent on specific societies and conditions.

From what you have said here.   I don't think that you understand the moral argument.   And I do think that you should learn what is meant when talking about objective morality.   I won't be on much for a couple of days unfortunately.

[polymath257]

No. I'm pointing out that your sentence made absolutely no sense.. Hence I pointed it out.

That’s why I clarified my response!

---

We are a social species. That is objective. Social species need rules to live by to preserve the social order. That is objective. Those rules tend to be preserved under evolution because they work. That is objective. Even other animal have a sense of compassion and fairness. That is objective.

Ultimately, morality boils down to rules for society that are based on compassion and a sense of fairness. Any other standard just leads to more misery and oppression. In this tendency, religion is one of the many forces that pushes away from fairness and compassion. It is far from the only one, but other dogmatic thought systems are also prone to this substitution for compassion for some other ideal.

Part of the issue is a precise definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'. Morality is ultimately about how humans live with other humans. That depends on the conditions under which they live. That makes morality subjective to some extent. On the other hand, there are certain rules that seem to be almost genetic. That points to an objective aspect: certain moral rules simply work and are selected for over time.

Almost every society is against killing members of that society for no reason. But almost every society is in favor of killing in self defense by at least some in the society. Every society encourages looking at motherhood as a positive thing (at least until recently, when overpopulation has become an issue). And every society also encourages responsibility to the young. ALL of these are simply aspects of being a social species. In that sense, those standards are objective: any social species is going to have them to some extent.

On the other hand, societies differ greatly on which aspects of behavior that harm nobody are regarded as immoral. So such rules tend to be subjective and dependent on specific societies and conditions.

From what you have said here.   I don't think that you understand the moral argument.   And I do think that you should learn what is meant when talking about objective morality.   I won't be on much for a couple of days unfortunately.

I understand the moral argument: that all people have certain moral feelings and the claim that this requires a higher power that is identified with God.

My point is that this argument is deeply flawed. We have some common sensitivities because we are a moral species and have evolved to work together to some extent. Those aspects on which we agree are those that tend to evolve in social species; they are the rules that tends to keep social units functional. I point out that even other species have the basics of fairness and compassion. This shows that no 'higher power' is required, just the known aspects of how life evolves.

The objectivity of morality, such as it exists, is simply that some patterns of interaction are more likely to lead to survival in social species. Altruism is, to some extent, purely a matter of such evolution.

[RoadRunner79]

That’s why I clarified my response!

---

From what you have said here.   I don't think that you understand the moral argument.   And I do think that you should learn what is meant when talking about objective morality.   I won't be on much for a couple of days unfortunately.

I understand the moral argument: that all people have certain moral feelings and the claim that this requires a higher power that is identified with God.

My point is that this argument is deeply flawed. We have some common sensitivities because we are a moral species and have evolved to work together to some extent. Those aspects on which we agree are those that tend to evolve in social species; they are the rules that tends to keep social units functional. I point out that even other species have the basics of fairness and compassion. This shows that no 'higher power' is required, just the known aspects of how life evolves.

The objectivity of morality, such as it exists, is simply that some patterns of interaction are more likely to lead to survival in social species. Altruism is, to some extent, purely a matter of such evolution.

The argument isn't that people have moral feelings.  If they are just subjective feelings selected of a just so story, then there is no right and wrong, and morality could be entirely different.  The social conventions of those who believe black people are lesser humans and should be slaves, or that the unborn may be killed, or societal conventions of Nazi Germany is no more moral or immoral than a society that cares for the poor, and who believe in not harming another.    You can't call another society immoral and stay consistent within this framework.  I find that very few people can act as if morality is subjective, and those who do, we call sociopaths and question their mental health.  Under what you defined here, rape could be considered moral, as long as those who are preyed upon, don't interfere by killing the attacker or the child.   I can't agree to that.   I think that you can measure a society or a person as being more or less moral.   That it's not just based on the feelings or emotions, and that one that does have feelings that tend towards immorality are immoral.

[Fireball]

Zeus is much cooler than jebus.

Which one was the god of wine and spirits? I like that one.

Bacchus. Which reminds me that there are several unopened bottles of vino in the fridge.