Many people define having good morals as not swearing, not drinking or going to church.. Unlike in tscc, characteristics that define morals vary between people. I notice that a lot of people even on rfm define moral issues as I did as a tbm. I was such a tbm ass, but I no longer see WoW stuff, church attendance, belief in God... Related to how moral a person is. I love being different than I was. I swear like a lumberjack now, I would drink alcohol just don't like the taste, don't attend any church. What I'm trying to say is I sometimes feel bad when people, some even on rfm connect moral issues with the above issues I mentioned. I suppose I don't like that someone would think I'm an immoral person because I swear or don't attend church. Morality to me should be about being honest, treating people with respect, honoring and enjoying diverse cultures and beliefs,... I was an anal, oppressive, miserable,never-good-enough,tbm. I am developing my definition of what is good and bad, moral and immoral, acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It appears that my new world view is becoming very liberal and I believe I will still be a good (sometimes great) wife,mother and Grandma. Do others feel like this sometimes?

I get what you are saying and feel that way sometimes too. In another thread someone said something like "moral atheists rock" as if theism is the dividing line between morals or lack of, and the "moral" variety of atheist are a rare breed to be rewarded as long as their motivation is being good to humanity and not fear of jail (being a good person does not require fearing punishment and I think some religious people can not fathom the ability to regulate ones actions autonomously).

I agree with your definitions of morality. I also think that ethics are important as well. Being a good person is important, not lying, cheating, stealing, not hurting others (physically or emotionally), being conscious of the world around you and trying to be a good world citizen is important.

I think that people who think they have morals just by virtue of having faith in god and attending church/temple/mosque/whatever, they need to take a step back and reexamine what morals are, and hopefully they'll realize what morals really are, and they they have them in addition to their faith, not because of it.

I was the one who said that "moral athiests rock". You misinterpreted my point. We are saying the same thing! I get frustrated at "believers" for thinking morality is tied to god/gods. My point is that morality should stand on it's own, and that atheists have an easier time showing integrity because they don't have a fear of gods wrath to spur them on...

But I wanted to cover my bases and state that there are probably some atheists who are motivated to act right due to fear of legal consequences.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. Though I don't think atheists are any more fearful than religious people of breaking the law, or use the law as a moral/ethical guidepost. I think most people, believers or not, have their moral compasses pointing to the common good. After all, 7 of the 10 commandments are about being good and civilized humans and have nothing to do with believing in/following god. For instance, stealing is not wrong because god says so, it's not wrong because the law says so, it's just wrong to take things that don't belong to you, it's wrong to make someone else incur the expense or inconvenience of replacement or loss. You get the idea.

I do consider myself to be a christian, however as stating earlier my high morals came w/my upbringing. Not anything with being a christian or not. These morals and values were shown by example as well as taught by our parents.

I think the point was that the determination of whether someone believes they have morals should not require an "I am/was raised [insert religion] and go/was raised going to [insert house of worship" qualifier. Ideally, they should be separate concepts, and identifying with a religion should have no more value in a discussion about morals than the state one was raised in or any similar background info.

By the way, this isn't about you specifically, and your mention about being christian in the other post was relevant to the topic. However, the other post (or at least the article linked) was more about ethical behavior determined by the particular religious doctrine one subscribed to, their view of god (someone who believes in a vengeful god is no more/less religious than someone who subscribes to a doctrine that portrays a compassionate god), morals being related to whether or not someone believes in god was sort of tangential in terms of the findings, so the subject line was a little misleading.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2011 02:15AM by wittyname.

Deb, I enjoy your posts and don't want to be antagonistic, but must say even defining morals as "high morals" suggests your high morals supercede my plain moral judgments. Granted there are some things that are worse behaviors than others, but it just seems like too many behaviors and/or beliefs are judged to be good or bad when they shouldn't have a label at all. Coffee is a good mormon example. It shouldn't be labeled good or bad. Things that people do, what they say, how they dress, who they love, how rich or poor are all often attached to one's morality inappropriately IMO.

Tawanda, I'm sorry if it may have came across wrong or if my wording was slightly wrong. I'm not now and have never been a judgemental person. I take from this board LDS church is very judgemental. I just stated high morals but probably meant good morals. (which i'm certain all or most have) I would never offend anyone intentionally. Again, I may have worded this wrong.

longer had any concept of what 'sin' meant in my life.

There are actions that are more productive and useful than others, or that have more or less impact on others. That's the only thing I care about.

What's wrong with anarchy?
Why, if there is no God (or god, as one sees fit) would there really be any need for morals?
What is the virtue in being nice to someone else?
What is the point of "virtue" anyway?
When students are in school they are held to account by their teachers and their parents.
What happens in school when there is no-one in charge?
Why is it that parents of teens (generally) do not go on vacation and leave their teens home alone with no chaperones?
Anyone read Animal Farm?
If this cosmos is a big gas fart then why do people get hung up on doing the right thing?
Who's to say what's the right thing anyway?
Darwin taught "survival of the fittest" as the basis of evolution. So wouldn't it be more "correct" to stand tall and weed out the "unfit"?
But whose definition of "fit" or "unfit" is most appropriate?
Whose definition of "moral" would you stand by?

As humans we have evolved socially over time. We have certain moral standards as a sort of glue that holds civilization together. Along the way we rejected certain things that once were thought of as acceptable: slavery, women as property, divine right of kings, etc. We found by experience that certain things worked better. The idea of a social contract for example.

Rousseau said,"The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole..."

You don't smash my windows out and steal my stuff and I won't call the police. You behave this way, you get this reward. You misbehave....you get a small cell and a long time to think about it.

To say "Why, if there is no God (or god, as one sees fit) would there really be any need for morals?" begs the question why would anyone in their sane mind follow the "morals" of any god of human creation? Is it moral to go on killing sprees like Yaweh did in the Old Testament?

We as humans test things out. If it works (democratic form of government), we keep it. If it does not (Nazi Germany) we throw it out.