5 ms·

As more people lose faith, you have higher numbers of people that have faith in only themselves. What replaces morality? I haven't seen a large movement to repl

As more people lose faith, you have higher numbers of people that have faith in only themselves. What replaces morality? I haven't seen a large movement to replace it.

krapp 5y ago
Morality doesn't presuppose religion, faith or belief in the supernatural. The religious can be amoral and selfish, atheists can be moral and selfless.
- azth 5y ago
  You can't have morality without religion, it's a senseless question to pose.
  - nkmnz 5y ago
    You can have religion without esotericism, mythicism and spirituality - then it’s called morality.
    - azth 5y ago
      Without an ultimate authority (God), it doesn't make sense.
      - nkmnz 5y ago
        It doesn’t make sense _to you_. You’re welcome.
        azth 5y ago
        No, it's objective. See my reply here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28977485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28977485
        nkmnz 5y ago
        Thank God he staffed you with all the objectivity he had left after creating the objective universe so that you can enlighten us with such third grader logic.
        azth 5y ago
        Give me a moral basis on why we can't destroy Earth when at the end of the day, from an atheistic materialistic point of view, nothing matters since we're all "chemical scum". Suffering or pleasure, it doesn't matter one bit. This isn't controversial, this is what atheist heads and philosophers say because it's the only logical conclusion to arrive at from their world view: https://youtu.be/EqK_JPts26k?t=183 https://youtu.be/EqK_JPts26k?t=183
        nkmnz 5y ago
        Is it you or your God who thinks other people think of other people as „chemical scum“? What if that same God that allows you to think of other people as people who think of other people as „chemical scum“ also allows for subjective morality rather than your objective version of it? What if I told you God himself has sent me to bring you this very message? Would it confuse you?
        azth 5y ago
        I think you're not understanding the point. Stephen Hawking is on record for saying that humans are "a chemical scum on a moderately sized planet". From the atheistic materialistic point of view, that's the only logical conclusion to reach. If you're claiming that God sent you with a message, you're going to have to bring evidence, claiming is not enough.
        krapp 5y ago
        >If you're claiming that God sent you with a message, you're going to have to bring evidence, claiming is not enough. You're the one making that claim, you bring the evidence, since you ignored mine. You can start by proving, objectively, the existence of your God.
  - krapp 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality https://theconversation.com/religion-does-not-determine-your-morality-97895 https://theconversation.com/religion-does-not-determine-your... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201204/morality-exists-despite-religion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/20...
    - azth 5y ago
      It's very straightforward to debunk the above: atheists don't believe in God. The implication is that everyone is "chemical scum", that there is no purpose to life, and that ultimately nothing matters. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we blow up the entire world, or make everyone suffer to please a handful of people, there are no consequences and nothing matters at the end of the day.
      - recursiveturtle 5y ago
        Then I suppose we're lucky the entirety of secular history and also the natural world -- godless as it is -- has not played this Two Shell Monte.
        azth 5y ago
        [flagged]
sammalloy 5y ago
Morality is entirely a subjective endeavor that feels objective only because large groups agree upon certain standards of behavior. The idea that you need religion to have morality is an old one based on tradition, but has never been true at any time in history. In fact, when we look at religious morality through history with the eyes of modernity, we see what we can only describe as a vast chasm of immorality. Sure, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and once in a while, religious morals get it right. It’s often said by atheists like myself, if you want to become an atheist, simply read the religious books of any major religion. The problem is that most religious adherents have no idea what their books actually say, and take most of their beliefs on faith from authority. But when you really read the books, you realize that this is not a paragon of morality by any stretch of the imagination.

As more people lose faith, you have higher numbers of people that have faith in only themselves. What replaces morality? I haven't seen a large movement to replace it.

krapp 5y ago

Morality doesn't presuppose religion, faith or belief in the supernatural. The religious can be amoral and selfish, atheists can be moral and selfless.

azth 5y ago
You can't have morality without religion, it's a senseless question to pose.
- nkmnz 5y ago
  You can have religion without esotericism, mythicism and spirituality - then it’s called morality.
  - azth 5y ago
    Without an ultimate authority (God), it doesn't make sense.
    - nkmnz 5y ago
      It doesn’t make sense _to you_. You’re welcome.
      - azth 5y ago
        No, it's objective. See my reply here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28977485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28977485
        nkmnz 5y ago
        Thank God he staffed you with all the objectivity he had left after creating the objective universe so that you can enlighten us with such third grader logic.
        azth 5y ago
        Give me a moral basis on why we can't destroy Earth when at the end of the day, from an atheistic materialistic point of view, nothing matters since we're all "chemical scum". Suffering or pleasure, it doesn't matter one bit. This isn't controversial, this is what atheist heads and philosophers say because it's the only logical conclusion to arrive at from their world view: https://youtu.be/EqK_JPts26k?t=183 https://youtu.be/EqK_JPts26k?t=183
        nkmnz 5y ago
        Is it you or your God who thinks other people think of other people as „chemical scum“? What if that same God that allows you to think of other people as people who think of other people as „chemical scum“ also allows for subjective morality rather than your objective version of it? What if I told you God himself has sent me to bring you this very message? Would it confuse you?
        azth 5y ago
        I think you're not understanding the point. Stephen Hawking is on record for saying that humans are "a chemical scum on a moderately sized planet". From the atheistic materialistic point of view, that's the only logical conclusion to reach. If you're claiming that God sent you with a message, you're going to have to bring evidence, claiming is not enough.
        krapp 5y ago
        >If you're claiming that God sent you with a message, you're going to have to bring evidence, claiming is not enough. You're the one making that claim, you bring the evidence, since you ignored mine. You can start by proving, objectively, the existence of your God.
- krapp 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality https://theconversation.com/religion-does-not-determine-your-morality-97895 https://theconversation.com/religion-does-not-determine-your... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201204/morality-exists-despite-religion https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/20...
  - azth 5y ago
    It's very straightforward to debunk the above: atheists don't believe in God. The implication is that everyone is "chemical scum", that there is no purpose to life, and that ultimately nothing matters. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we blow up the entire world, or make everyone suffer to please a handful of people, there are no consequences and nothing matters at the end of the day.
    - recursiveturtle 5y ago
      Then I suppose we're lucky the entirety of secular history and also the natural world -- godless as it is -- has not played this Two Shell Monte.
      - azth 5y ago
        [flagged]

sammalloy 5y ago

Morality is entirely a subjective endeavor that feels objective only because large groups agree upon certain standards of behavior. The idea that you need religion to have morality is an old one based on tradition, but has never been true at any time in history. In fact, when we look at religious morality through history with the eyes of modernity, we see what we can only describe as a vast chasm of immorality. Sure, a stopped clock is right twice a day, and once in a while, religious morals get it right. It’s often said by atheists like myself, if you want to become an atheist, simply read the religious books of any major religion. The problem is that most religious adherents have no idea what their books actually say, and take most of their beliefs on faith from authority. But when you really read the books, you realize that this is not a paragon of morality by any stretch of the imagination.