Home » The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints » Current Church Doctrine » Can an Atheist be Moral?
| Can an Atheist be Moral? [message #296] |
Wed, 20 April 2011 22:16  |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quote:One cannot, therefore, be a moral person if one is an atheist. For someone who believes our country is founded on Natural Law, an atheist cannot take any government office, or even testify in a trial, because he is not answerable to any God.
I have a hard time with this because I can see that it is true from one view point but not from another. For example, if moral means to obey God's laws which requires a belief in God, then a person can't be moral without a belief in God.
A Christian might obey the natural laws for fear of punishment and for the sake of a promised reward from a great and powerful GOD, but in his heart wish to break them and complain about the laws because he has to treat others as equals.
An Atheist might obey the natural laws because they are obviously a better way to live and if everyone lived that way there would be love and peace which they want for all mankind.
When the actions of both are the same, but the reasons for those acts is different in that one believes in a God and the other does not, which of the two is more moral?
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #301 is a reply to message #296] |
Thu, 21 April 2011 22:48  |
 |
Dragon
Messages: 499
Registered: June 2010
Location: Earth
|
Senior Member |
|
|
What is the first great commandment? Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength. And the second law is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
These are two commandments which cannot be done in a begrudging manner. They are laws of intention, not laws of wrote action. And the first requires a belief in God. The founding fathers would argue that all morality is based on how well we live by these two laws. Thus, while an atheist may be a good person, and a kind person who loves his neighbors, he does not love God. And the counter point of a Christian who claims to love his God, but does not really love his neighbors, I would say that person does not understand God. Neither are moral people. They might have decent actions, and be good citizens, but lack in the morals department.
- Dragon
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #306 is a reply to message #301] |
Mon, 25 April 2011 17:57 |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Good comments and well expressed.
In the dictionary I looked up "moral" and found that none of the definitions for "moral" include God. But they include thing like:
Quote:of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral
I looked up immoral and found the God was not mentioned there either. I found things like:
Quote:violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immoral
This leads me to conclude that the founding fathers who say that morality requires a belief in God would say that morality or Right and wrong is determined by God. And that without God, morality cannot exist.
Morality, (distinction between right and wrong), must be defined by someone, either society or God or ???.
If you say only God can tell us what is moral then we have to ask who determines what God says. Many murders, inquisitions and holy wars have been accomplished by those claiming to teach God's morality. So, if morality, (distinction between right and wrong), is determined by God, then no one knows what is moral except for what God has told them in personal revelation, not through man. And to believe a man without God telling you what is moral is to believe in a man and not in God and so is immoral.
This personal revelation by which the believer received his morality is the same way that an Atheist comes to understand truth as well except that he calls it intuition, understanding conclusions or some other form self realization which negates the source of the information but recognizes the validity, power and correctness of the information.
So, what if morality was defined by natural laws that existed from the beginning and were discovered by our God or taught to our God by someone greater or more progressed?
What if the natural unbreakable laws which define true morality could be discovered by observation and contemplation? Could someone conclude the moral law based on natural laws while at the same time be sickened by the corrupt morality being taught and followed by every God fearing church that has ever existed on the earth?
Regarding the atheist who is immoral only in that he has no knowledge of a God but live the Godly life as inspired by God, Does God reject him or accept him?
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #313 is a reply to message #309] |
Wed, 27 April 2011 19:36 |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quote:He is the perfect guide as He knows more of what is Self Evident than any of us.
I agree, because we have all sorts of mental issues that prevent us from seeing what is "self evident", for example, as you mentioned, prejudice.
Quote:It may be through clever deception or a lack of Faith, but the process of becoming an Atheist, by necessity, removes the possibility of the person being accepted by God.
This doesn't sit right with me. It would seem that if we reject God, then God would reject us. But I don't think God would require someone to believe in him to be part of his society.
If he did, then he would likely be concerned that you believe in the right God, with the right name, and the right church, and the right doctrines, etc. It is the same line of logic the modern churches use to say, "If you don't do it our way, then you go to hell or a lower kingdom."
But we know that much of that doesn't matter because little children that are too old to remember and too young to know go to the Celestial kingdom when if they die before the age of accountability. And those who aren't accountable because they don't know, haven't been taught or haven't received a witness from the Holy Ghost also go to the Celestial Kingdom if they live according to the natural laws and would have accepted it with their whole heart if they had the chance in life.
It is more important to believe in and live the principles on which Glorious societies are formed and maintained.
I wouldn't mind allowing awesome and just people to live with me who don't believe in me or even worship me as long as they allow others their freedom and don't enforce their beliefs on me. I can't see why God would be so prideful as to say, "You lived an exemplary life, but you didn't believe in me or worship me and for that reason alone, I do not accept you." It isn't loving.
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #338 is a reply to message #296] |
Sat, 07 May 2011 07:33 |
bishop
Messages: 144
Registered: July 2010
Location: USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I believe that atheists have an agenda to not believe in God so that they do not have to do what is right. I agree with Dragon, that the great minds, who seek truth, eventually come to the conclusion that there is some force which is greater than us which oversees the universe. It always amazes me when I hear of seekers of truth who come to many of the same conclusions that we are taught in the Church. The saying goes that there are no atheists in a foxhole. At some level, the only way to believe there is no God is to lie to one's self. I agree with Alma in that all things testify of God.
Bishop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #539 is a reply to message #341] |
Sun, 24 June 2012 14:45 |
bishop
Messages: 144
Registered: July 2010
Location: USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I have to believe that you are really referring to an agnostic in this discussion-one who does not believe in God, but who believes that there may be a God. I believe that atheists declare that there is no God, thus lying in their declaration. I believe this gives them a false sense that they can do immoral things without the consequences. It seems to me that that is their motivation-to be immoral. I believe that an atheist is at war with God in a sense, while an agnostic doesn't say either way if there is a God.
It would have to be virtually impossible for an atheist of an agnostic to live with God without becoming a believer. That is the premise of the statement that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."
Bishop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Do what is right or do what is legal? [message #652 is a reply to message #539] |
Sun, 15 July 2012 15:56 |
|
Dragon
Messages: 499
Registered: June 2010
Location: Earth
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bishop,
I was not referring to an Agnostic (meaning no knowledge). Someone who is unsure whether God exists at least leaves open the possibility that there is a God. Agnostics, by my definition of morality, cannot be moral, because admitting their morals come from God requires an admission God exists, and therefore they are no longer agnostic.
In either case, whether someone is unsure if God exists, or outright denies His existence, they cannot base the guiding principles of their life on the laws which God Himself gives to us. To be moral requires we love God, as well as love our neighbor. If one declares there is no God, or God cannot be known, then it is impossible to love Him. Therefore, they are not moral, having no Love of God.
- Dragon
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Can an Atheist be Moral? [message #2823 is a reply to message #296] |
Sun, 13 October 2013 19:10 |
Seeker
Messages: 244
Registered: June 2010
Location: Las Vegas
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I was watching a series of debates/discussions on Larry King Live in which he had a protestant, Spiritualist, catholic, Muslim, atheist, and Deepak Chopra.
They were asked various questions to see what they would say... A number of things were Extremely obvious... Wow!
But, I wanted to revisit this topic.
My thought is that truth exists independent of God. God did not create truth, He/She discovered it and aligned Himself/Herself with it. For an example of this, we know that if God lied then God would cease to be God. If God created truth or was the source of truth, then God could not lie because if God lied, the that lie would become truth. Everything God says would be truth because God said it even if it contradicted what was truth immediately prior to God saying it. If truth was whatever God said, even if it was not truth before he spoke it, then God could not possibly lie and could never cease to be God.
But there are a number of things that could cause God to stop being God...
Quote:Mormon 9:19
19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.
Quote:
Alma 42:25
25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.
What this means is that God is not the creator of truth. He/She abides by truth but is not the creator of truth. So too it is with us. We believe that if we can learn to align ourselves with truth that one day we also will become Gods.
So, truth exists independent on God, be it our Father/Mother in Heaven or our own exalted selves. Truth existed before us, it will exist after us. We can accept it and live by it or not.
What about Atheists? If truth is independant of God, then can they discover and live by truth without believing in God? The answer is an obvious yes.
What about moral truth? Can an Atheist discover and live by moral truth? For example, can an Atheist learn without a belief in God that murder is immoral and wrong? Or the could get a testimony that lying was bad or stealing was wrong. Not wrong because God said so, but wrong because it was immoral. Immoral not because God defined morality but because truth defines morality and murder is contrary to truth which is eternal and independent of God.
So, can even an agnostic can discover eternal truths regarding moral conduct, moral association, moral society, ethics, and even godliness. A belief in God does NOT preclude a belief in truth or true principles. Even without the law, an agnostic is capable of living a moral life because morality is not based in God, but God is based in morality.
~ Seeker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Can an Atheist be Moral? [message #3371 is a reply to message #2826] |
Mon, 06 October 2014 06:44 |
|
Dragon
Messages: 499
Registered: June 2010
Location: Earth
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The definition of morality in man's dictionary has changed in the last 200 years. At the times of the founding fathers, when our founding documents were written, morality was defined as following the Natural Law, which Natural Law is so named because it was assumed all reasonable people could agree upon it. This Natural Law, and thus the laws of the United States, was based upon the two great commandments which encompass all the others. Love God, and love your neighbor. This is why witnesses swore on the Bible, to show they believed in it. For many years Atheists could not give testimony in the courts of the United States because they were not moral. That did not mean they weren't good people. It did not mean they ignored the rules of society. It meant they did not accept the two basic principles upon which the Natural Law is based.
It seems to me the definition of morality was changed to separate it from God. But the original definition of morality is inextricably interwoven with a belief in God as the foundation of a just society. The idea that our laws are more than what the majority of the population can agree upon is at the heart of our Government. Yes, it has been tainted, twisted, torn, and ignored. But when this great land declared independence, the people relied on God to help them in setting up the laws of society. Thus a moral person was one who acknowledged the laws upon which society was built. Not the Constitution or a list of rules in the Sheriff's office, but laws of loving God and loving your neighbor. If you do not believe those laws are at the heart of our government, as it was originally established, then you are not moral. That was the definition of the day. Today's definition is designed to avoid offending anyone. That is something I am not afraid of doing.
- Dragon
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 02:00:45 MST 2024
|
Elliaison.org - Forum
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
