Sure it is. I have atheist friends who are very moral people. Not all atheist are hedonists.
Sure it’s possible! Happens all the time. Now, I’d argue that without something numinous as a referent for good/evil, a moral atheist is … let’s just say, he’s arguably writing checks that his metaphysical bank account can’t really cover. But throughout history we’ve seen that a man can be better than his philosophy, and thank God for that.
I seem to remember you saying that your philosophy was “I don’t know.”
No. Because without God, we are cosmic dust, which means there are no consequences to our actions. In that scenario, morality as well as everything else becomes meaningless.
It is possible, however, whether the person realizes it or not; the source of morality is God.
The Lord Jesus Christ knows hearts; and everyone’s personal experience.
The atheist wouldn’t even exist without God; so the question doesn’t make sense,
except when in means, can a person with that view be moral.
However, the more deeply atheism is ingrained, the chance of lack of concern
for others at least in the broad sense. For example, distant starving, or the culture of death
painfully killing tens of thousands of children every single day.
Atheists tend to think these things are just arbitrary.
But it is possible. And it’s ironic that the person, if in their experience has from
God’s Impartial view mitigating circumstances for not realizing God exists and is the
source of all objective goodness and morality; the person will be eternally grateful
to God for Salvation.
We are all ‘unprofitable’ servants as Jesus Christ called us; but it is possible to believe
in goodness and morality for mitigating reasons; as a temporary substitute for God.
This is the case with all words though. Words are abstractions. They do not have absolute meanings and cannot have absolute meanings. Hence, it is important to enter into personal discussions with people, to get to the bottom of what you mean rather than to get hung up on whose definition of a particular word is most right.
The point is to communicate well, always to ask clarifying questions, and never to assume that because your vocabulary and sentence structure is the same, you agree, or to assume that because your vocabulary and sentence structure is different, you disagree.
Truth must eventually be understood wordlessly. It must be SEEN. The words are just arrows. When you’re talking to someone, you need to see where their arrows direct you before you start insisting the destination is wrong. And then once you figure out where their arrows are leading, you can better point out where you disagree.
In an ideal world, we’d all do this, listening to each other honestly, but often we just make hasty judgments, refuse to follow other people’s arrows, declaring them wrong, while getting mad at others for not following ours.
Wait, are you kidding? THAT, sir, is a historical fact. That western values have their root in Christianity is not up for debate.
What if the circumstances are, I feel like it because the kid has a different skin color than me? You can’t know for certain that’s wrong, so it’s not, apperently.
No, you lack a counterfactual. In other words you need to demonstrate that if the church hadn’t been there then the world would be a more immoral place. You can’t do that. So you can’t simply claim that it’s Christianity that’s the source of our morality. Is the rest of the world totally immoral? No. So your claim fails.
Do you ever have doubts about believing “I don’t know.”
(Someone once told me that if I have doubts about my belief then I may be wrong, and if I don’t have doubts about what I believe then I’m delusional.)
First. I’m not trying to convince you the world would be less moral without Christianity. (Although I do believe that)
What I’m saying is current western values come out of Catholic and Christian history. That’s a simple matter of fact.
Morality is totally possible without God. But it becomes subjective morality rather than objective morality.
Subjective morality is fine when trying to govern the moral environment of your home. But when trying to govern the moral environment of a nation, the law must be based on something that at least appears objective in order to facilitate it’s own function.
God and the associated morality might not actually exist after all, but humans require them nonetheless else every society on the planet wouldn’t have evolved religion in all its facets.
The only conundrum in realizing this is that it saps the objective, transcending power of the religious/moral schema. A delimma, to be sure. But the fact still remains that it’s easier to accept “X is wrong” because our ancestors and their prophets said so in the name of All-Mighty God rather than “Me and the boys were having beers down on 5th street and decided ‘X’ was wrong…”
I agree. Christianity is the pillar of western civilization.
Unsubstantiated??.. I don’t know what you consider history, but look at laws and values associated in our country today and many of them trace their roots straight back to catholic/Christian teaching and principles.
But sadly, like much of Israel did not recognize The Messiah Jesus Christ;
much of the West rejects Jesus Christ or tries to make Him in their image.
Instead of compassionate and forgiving --> strengthener to let Him help grow in virtue
and avoid sin; much of the West, have formed a forgiving and permissive false Christ.
This is only one facet of the ‘powerful delusion,’ spoken of by Paul The Apostle.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen warned it was taking hold before 1950; and most
will not recognize the Remnant Church surrounded by a larger Church that looks the
same to most.
Many things gave power to this fog of accepted evil - many times calling it good.
Partly the hypocrisy of hurtful Christians over history.
But The Holy Bible says God allowed this by our free will, and to see who will choose
the peace and harmony of God; or narcissistic self serving as ‘God.’ Which takes many
forms. Only Jesus Christ from an impartial view, knows hearts who are temporarily given
over; and those who will repent. But over all there is a massive apostasy.
One day The West will realize we were raise up for the very purpose of sharing The Gospel.
Only God knows the consequences of what has transpired.
I know that it’s really tempting to assert that, but there’s a degree to which Christianity simply codified an existing moral standard. And there’s a degree to which early Christian morals aren’t the same as our current Christian morals. Thus the best that you can do is to assert that some facets of our current morals arose out of Christianity, but those tend to be the more questionable moral standards. Things such as thou shalt not kill certainly predate Christianity, and things such as homosexual moral standards aren’t nearly as universal as they once were.
So it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Christianity gave western civilization its morals. It may have influenced them to some degree, but to suggest that without Christianity we wouldn’t have any morals is a bit silly.
Again, it depends upon the circumstances. Tell me the circumstances and I’ll tell you if it’s moral or not.
That’s true, but it doesn’t alter the fact that that’s what we have, a set of morals as determined by who knows whom, and then acquiesced to by the majority. To assume that the majority acquiesces to them because “God said so” may not be totally accurate. After all, even atheists tend to abide by a moral standard of some kind.
First we need the definition of “morality” from the official atheist dictionary. Since there is no atheist culture which is not a sub-set of a larger predominantly religious culture, they cannot claim to be free of influence by religion.
Reversing the question: If immorality is natural even with God, it is likely, almost certain, without Him.