Are we (The United States) a Rogue State?

[phyllo]

Just as I thought.

[Iwannaplato]

My post was prompted my repeated statements like this :

An Atheist isn't morally obligated to be anything at all. He has no moral obligations...or so he hopes.

But what if he does, but isn't actually meeting any of his moral obligations? What if pretending moral obligations don't exist isn't an effective way of getting rid of moral obligations? Has he considered that? Or is that too disturbing to his comforting indifference?

Yes, that's pretty silly. First, we can accrue obligations from other humans, the law, society, within familes,etc. And many of these can and are moral. I mean, I know the argument behind this, but without it sitting directly in that argument it's off. Also, the mind reading in 'or so he hopes' is off. He may have had horrible experiences with atheists, but most of us have worked with, for example, atheists, who meet their obligations, moral and otherwise. I suppose he knows that they really don't want to. And there's more mindreading going on there.

The fact is that nobody is obligated to do anything.

Neither gods nor a moral code' that supposedly comes from the gods, prevents you from acting in any way that you wish.

Especially if you believe in free will.

I see no advantage of a 'divine'(?) moral code over a secular moral code.

I see no reason to comply to a 'divine' moral code if it makes no sense.

This is an area I have often felt and thought into. If God say it is moral to do X and you thought it was immoral, would you follow God there (like Abraham was on the way to doing). This would mean that you go against your own urge, values if God say do X. It seems to me a loving God would be proud of a human who said no, that feels wrong to me. Once you add Hell to the equation, we are not talking about morality but obedience.

And the structure parallels the apologists for dictators. we can have sympathy for someone who justifies dictator rules or rats out neighbors because it would be so scary to even in private go against certain dictators, but we shouldn't conflate this with morality.

Furthermore, if you are dealing with parties who come from various religious beliefs or no religious beliefs, then you will have to make agreements and laws which satisfy them all. These would be secular agreements.

And secular obligations, including secular moral ones.

It reminds me of the old conservative move to say that liberals have no values, rather than managing to say they have different values.

[Immanuel Can]

What does it mean to be obligated to follow the moral standard?

Apparently one has the free-will not to follow it.

I'm not sure what free will is worth if the options lead to eternal joy or eternal torture.

Well, it would depend, first of all, on how good "eternal joy" is. But secondly, "torture" is the wrong word to describe a lost eternity. A better term is "separation." It's what follows when one rejects the Source of all goodness, health, light, truth and life, and chooses instead all the opposite -- and that choice is honoured, because you're a free human being with a will of your own and a God-granted right to choose your relationships. "Hell" is simply a word we use to refer to choosing "not-God."

As C.S. Lewis so poignantly put it -- "all who are in Hell choose it."

Is someone suggesting countries have free will?

Well, "country" is essentially a collective noun, in this case. And collective nouns identify collections of individual people. People make choices; and when their choices aggregate around a singular objective, we have a "mass movement" of some kind, or a "will of the country" kind of situation.

In that limited sense, we speak of a country having free will. But it's really entirely derivative of the individual will.

[Impenitent]

the moral standard one chooses is just that- a choice

So one can simply choose to be Hitler, and it's no "better" than being Florence NIghtingale?

EXACTLY... the difference is the standard

obliged to follow is a different proposition entirely...

The "obligation" comes only when something is objectively moral. And it comes from the desire to be good person, or do the right thing, rather than the desire to be a bad one, or do the wrong thing. Some people want to do the wrong thing: that doesn't mean they aren't morally obligated to do differently; it's just that they're refusing their obligation.

But Atheism holds that NOTHING is objectively moral. So there are no obligations.

no, atheism holds that there is no god

-Imp

https://biblehub.com/q/can_atheists_have_morals.htm

Conclusion

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

[Impenitent]

C'mon guys: prove me wrong. Show that an Atheist owes it to follow a single moral precept. Go ahead.

ethical egoism

-Imp

Life would have to be the measure of a moral precept, for an atheist. For example, positioning oneself upwind from prey could be made into a moral breech in a culture where survival depended on a kill. However, an atheistic primitive culture could be an oxymoron.

shoulda woulda coulda...

the ends are in flux

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

the moral standard one chooses is just that- a choice

So one can simply choose to be Hitler, and it's no "better" than being Florence NIghtingale?

EXACTLY... the difference is the standard

obliged to follow is a different proposition entirely...

The "obligation" comes only when something is objectively moral. And it comes from the desire to be good person, or do the right thing, rather than the desire to be a bad one, or do the wrong thing. Some people want to do the wrong thing: that doesn't mean they aren't morally obligated to do differently; it's just that they're refusing their obligation.

But Atheism holds that NOTHING is objectively moral. So there are no obligations.

no, atheism holds that there is no god

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

[Gary Childress]

So one can simply choose to be Hitler, and it's no "better" than being Florence NIghtingale?

EXACTLY... the difference is the standard

The "obligation" comes only when something is objectively moral. And it comes from the desire to be good person, or do the right thing, rather than the desire to be a bad one, or do the wrong thing. Some people want to do the wrong thing: that doesn't mean they aren't morally obligated to do differently; it's just that they're refusing their obligation.

But Atheism holds that NOTHING is objectively moral. So there are no obligations.

no, atheism holds that there is no god

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

The only "ground" you have is God said so. Which begs the question, what does God truly say about morality.

You choose to follow the alleged rules of God given in the Bible which was the tribal holy book of the Hebrews, who happened to commit genocide against another tribe (God told them to) and disapprove of sexual deviance (God hates gays and "sodomites"). Maybe the Hebrews got it wrong and God doesn't mind consensual sexual deviance since he obviously created some with such desires. However, genocide is easy for anyone (atheist or theist) to identify as immoral because we wouldn't want something like that done to us and therefore, we want others to respect our wishes, so we have to respect theirs in return. The basis of morality is mutual trust and agreement to protect us from each other so that we can all thrive better in society. Not sure why that is so difficult for you to comprehend or why you think we need God to tell us that.

[Immanuel Can]

no, atheism holds that there is no god

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

The only "ground" you have is God said so.

That'll do it.

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct. But for the moment, the point that it makes sense in terms of that view of reality is what matters.

But as for Atheism, even if Atheism were true, it wouldn't make morality exist, or make sense. To be a moralizing Atheist would still be irrational, since your worldview denies that any moral precept can have any reality.

[Gary Childress]

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?


That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

The only "ground" you have is God said so.

That'll do it.

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct. But for the moment, the point that it makes sense in terms of that view of reality is what matters.

But as for Atheism, even if Atheism were true, it wouldn't make morality exist, or make sense. To be a moralizing Atheist would still be irrational, since your worldview denies that any moral precept can have any reality.

What if there is a God but the Bible isn't the authoritative voice on matters. What if you have it wrong? What if you've been thinking poorly of "sodomites" all these years because the Israelites were prejudiced against them and therefore put it in writing in the Bible--but it's wrong to be prejudiced against them?

[Immanuel Can]

The only "ground" you have is God said so.

That'll do it.

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct. But for the moment, the point that it makes sense in terms of that view of reality is what matters.

But as for Atheism, even if Atheism were true, it wouldn't make morality exist, or make sense. To be a moralizing Atheist would still be irrational, since your worldview denies that any moral precept can have any reality.

What if there is a God but the Bible isn't the authoritative voice on matters.

Well, you'd better find out if it is, then. See if it leads you to a relationship with God.

[Gary Childress]

That'll do it.

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct. But for the moment, the point that it makes sense in terms of that view of reality is what matters.

But as for Atheism, even if Atheism were true, it wouldn't make morality exist, or make sense. To be a moralizing Atheist would still be irrational, since your worldview denies that any moral precept can have any reality.

What if there is a God but the Bible isn't the authoritative voice on matters.

Well, you'd better find out if it is, then. See if it leads you to a relationship with God.

Do you have a "relationship" with God other than what is written in the Bible? Do you know for a fact that God approves of your views on "sodomites"? Has God actually spoken to you outside of what is written in the Bible?

[phyllo]

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct.

[Gary Childress]

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct.

I wonder if that works for Muslims too. Let's try it:

If there is a God, then Sharia law is virtuous.

[Immanuel Can]

The important point is simply this. If there's a God, then Christian morality is rational. It would also turn out to be correct.

I wonder if that works for Muslims too. Let's try it:

If there is a God, then Sharia law is virtuous.

If the god were Allah, that would be right, of course. You can say that Islamists are radical, vicious, mean...anything you like. But they're not irrational: because what they believe and what they do in the moral realm are consistent with one another. They believe Allah says, "Kill the infidels." So when they kill infidels, they are being rationally consistent.

But Atheists, them you have to recognize as being irrational. They may behave well or badly, be conventionally "good" or somebody's version of "evil." But the one thing you cannot accuse them of being is reasonable. For their own beliefs about what exists deny them any basis for believing in any morality at all -- so if they do, they are contradicting their own belief system.

[Impenitent]

So one can simply choose to be Hitler, and it's no "better" than being Florence NIghtingale?

EXACTLY... the difference is the standard

The "obligation" comes only when something is objectively moral. And it comes from the desire to be good person, or do the right thing, rather than the desire to be a bad one, or do the wrong thing. Some people want to do the wrong thing: that doesn't mean they aren't morally obligated to do differently; it's just that they're refusing their obligation.

But Atheism holds that NOTHING is objectively moral. So there are no obligations.

no, atheism holds that there is no god

Right. But that also entails no grounds for morality.

If you think I'm wrong, all you have to do is provide one moral precept you think every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. And if you haven't got one, then I think the case is obvious, don't you?

No, there is no ONE moral precept that EVERY individual is obligated to follow. period

Atheists can and do possess and practice moral values.

That's not what I said. Atheist might choose to do many things, good or bad. But what they lack is any grounds in their Atheism for establishing what "good" and "bad" are.

In other words, the problem is not what any particular set of people might do, but what the creed Atheism can warrant.

no, the grounds for establishing what is good or bad are as varied as there are individuals...

there is no transcendent "taste" to which all members of groups must adhere...

-Imp