Where atheists get their morality.

[garyallen59]

...

 

[eldeeder]

So did Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.

And if moral relativism is true, they were just as "right" as you or me.

Absolutly, you are 100% correct, but on that note, lets look at how many atrocities in history have been commited in the name of god?

Atheists are capable of doing bad things, but no more capable than a religous person. Entire cultures have been wiped off the face of the earth in the name of god. Just because a couple atheists do bad things does not give religon a monopoly on morality.

The bible says you should murder me for talking to you about this. It says you should strike the first blow. Even a christian has to use their own reason in morality to discount that biblical phrase as nonsense. Religous people use reason in morality in the same way that atheists do. But to JUSTIFY enslavery, torture, and murder, well my friend, for THAT you need religon...

 

[eldeeder]

So did Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.

And if moral relativism is true, they were just as "right" as you or me.

and YES, they were just as "right" as you or I. Cosmically speaking.


There is no little red man with a pitchfork, underground somewhere, poking hitler in the keester with a trident. Nobody is telling hitler anything. hes dead.

No cosmic justice folks. No divine spirit making sure everyone gets their just due. We have to make sure things like hitler, and stalin, don't ever happen again. We have to learn from it. We cant just assume the "invisible man" is looking over us.

We are a very young species, and our delusion of our own self importance will most likley be what destroys us.

 

[wildflower]

Absolutly, you are 100% correct, but on that note, lets look at how many atrocities in history have been commited in the name of god?

Atheists are capable of doing bad things, but no more capable than a religous person. Entire cultures have been wiped off the face of the earth in the name of god. Just because a couple atheists do bad things does not give religon a monopoly on morality.

The bible says you should murder me for talking to you about this. It says you should strike the first blow. Even a christian has to use their own reason in morality to discount that biblical phrase as nonsense. Religous people use reason in morality in the same way that atheists do. But to JUSTIFY enslavery, torture, and murder, well my friend, for THAT you need religon...

I think you misunderstood my point. The point of my post was not to say, "atheists did these things." I was responding to someone who said, "I define my own morality" And the belief that morality is only defined by the individual, or a culture, is moral relativism.

What I'm saying is that if moral relativism is true, then Jeffrey Dahmer or Stalin weren't immoral. Because with moral relativism, there is no actual right or wrong. So they were just as "right" as anyone else.

(that is not what I believe, but that is moral relativism)

and YES, they were just as "right" as you or I. Cosmically speaking.

There is no little red man with a pitchfork, underground somewhere, poking hitler in the keester with a trident. Nobody is telling hitler anything. hes dead.

No cosmic justice folks. No divine spirit making sure everyone gets their just due. We have to make sure things like hitler, and stalin, don't ever happen again. We have to learn from it. We cant just assume the "invisible man" is looking over us.

We are a very young species, and our delusion of our own self importance will most likley be what destroys us.

You are the one who brought up a little red man, not me.

Read the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis. Don't let the title put you off, it's a classic and it's a fantastic book, about this topic.

 

[Workguy23]

Morality all stems from the desire of survival for the individual, and social evolution has shown us that the best way for the individual to survive is to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us." I think things like greed, war, thievery, murder, etc., comes from the Alpha-male nature of Man, like animals, but in our societies evolution, the biggest and strongest are no longer the alphas, but the intelligent, charismatic, and most importantly, the wealthy. Jealousy and envy come from man's desire to achieve alpha male status.

In all this, man being the "thinking" creature that he is cannot accept the fact that we are all animals, and that we are somehow better than they are. We've tried to develop a society free from things that are animalistic, yet it's those natural urges that tend to get people in "trouble." War(most people get a nice adernaline rush when you watch movies with intense battle scence, right?), infidelity, how many families have been ruined because of one persons desire overcoming them, their love for their family, and their own Bible beliefs, for a 15-20 minute "good time" that is NEVER worth it. After it's over, and the primal urges are gone, our brain kicks back on and we feel shame. Evolution of society has influenced all of this!

Remember when it was "unacceptable" for a husband and wife to be shown sleeping in the same bed on TV, and Johnny Carson could be seen smoking a cigarette. Now you have shows like Desperate Housewives, and it's way beyond just a husband and wife sleeping in the same bed....the only objection most people have to this is the fact they smoke a cigarette after they do-the-deed.

There are countless examples of this, but it all arrives to the same conclusion. Morality is dicatated by society, which is influenced by the "alpha-males" of that time. Things Hollywood was doing 30 years ago may have been controversial at the time, but is now seen as commonplace. Who would've thought that some of our more popular sitcoms and movies would be about gays/metrosexuals and gay cowboys? The morality line has definately been changed and has gotten smaller as things like this are not only more acceptable, but things that would otherwise be very controversial are being accepted at a FASTER and more open rate. Because now, we are told by most liberals to be more "politically correct" and "accepting" of EVERYONE'S lifestyle.

Personally, I couldn't care less about what someone does in the privacy of their own home, but when I'm TOLD/DEMANDED that I MUST accept this or be labeled as non-PC, that is when I object.

Oh well, that's my 2 copper.

 

[hypnagogue]

As christian philosophers often say, god can't do evil simply because whatever god were to do is inherently good, regardless of what it is.

Man that was a hearty laugh.

 

[loupeznik]

This whole thread doesn’t make sense to me.

As an Atheist I would like to inform all theists that Atheism is not a religion. It has no dogma. It has no philosophy. It has no beliefs. Values, morality and indeed politics are the domain of philosophy. A philosophy may be Atheistic but Atheism isn’t a philosophy. Just as an apple may be green but greenness does not make an apple. Just ask a lizard.

Philosophies have different morals and different reasons for being moral. I may also say that religions have different morals and different reasons for being moral. Outside of our belief systems exists our experiences hopefully the two agree but often the overlap isn’t perfect. An example of this would be to ask Christians if they believe that slavery is moral. The bible presents many holy people who owned slaves and Jesus made no attempt to stop slavery implicitly yet many Christians view slavery as evil. This moral judgment relies on their values imparted from their experiences and shared societal values. If the religious can derive morality from these sources then so can the areligious. Atheists and Theists in a common society often share similar values imparted from that society.

 

[WilliamC]

Humans are different. There's something 'else'. It's not a conscious decision in animals as animals really have no choice at all in the matter. They're simply driven to do so. You can mess with human neurotransmitters and hormones all you want and you will not be able to undo a conscience.

Completely false. Otherwise anaesthesia wouldn't work now would it?

Conscience, empathy, and rational thought are entirely phenomena of the brain, and normal brain function is what makes us human. People with damage to various parts of their brains lose various aspects of their humanity, from speech to empathy to emotional control or foresight. Even free-will, which I "believe" in (or perhaps ascribe to would be better) is a brain function. Unconscious people do not have free-will, but other primates do. We humans just happen to have a more evolved (or advanced if you prefer) brain, therefore we have a more developed sense of self-identity and everything that goes with it.

The science of mind is a huge field and I do not pretend to be an expert, but for anyone wanting to peruse the matter a good starting point is here http://consc.net/online

 

[xd9fan]

Where atheists get their morality.

From Govt.

 

[Brennon]

Completely false. Otherwise anaesthesia wouldn't work now would it?

Conscience, empathy, and rational thought are entirely phenomena of the brain, and normal brain function is what makes us human. People with damage to various parts of their brains lose various aspects of their humanity, from speech to empathy to emotional control or foresight. Even free-will, which I "believe" in (or perhaps ascribe to would be better) is a brain function. Unconscious people do not have free-will, but other primates do. We humans just happen to have a more evolved (or advanced if you prefer) brain, therefore we have a more developed sense of self-identity and everything that goes with it.

The science of mind is a huge field and I do not pretend to be an expert, but for anyone wanting to peruse the matter a good starting point is here http://consc.net/online

I never meant to imply it wasn't a phenomena of the brain or some sort of handy-wavey mystical mumbo jumbo was the cause of human empathy. What I was trying to get across is that humans are not so enslaved to hormones in their behavior (particularly parental behavior, as that was used as an example). I fully think conscience is strictly controlled by the mind. How it got there and why it got there is another animal in and of itself.

 

[davver]

So did Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.

And if moral relativism is true, they were just as "right" as you or me.

I don't know about moral relativism. The golden rule is pretty clear on what is right and wrong, but it doesn't tell me which way to part my hair (like religion).

Don't use aggressive force on others. Really simple. It makes stuff Stalin did wrong. However, it doesn't require me to hate gay peopel or not eat meat on Fridays because some book says so. Most of the "rules" in the Bible or any other religous text seem pretty arbitrary.

You don't need some obscure centuries old book telling you what to think about every facet of your life. Use some goddamn judgement and think for yourself.

 

[Mesogen]

that command was not for anyone here. That was for the 12 tribes of Israel some 1,400 years BC

So the 10 commandments are out then? Those weren't for the people of today, just some certain tribes thousands of years ago.

 

[loupeznik]

What was the question again?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Where atheists get their morality.

From Govt.

Wow. Nevermind anything I've said or read in this thread. I was trying to muck everything up with thought, but you've set me straight. It's the simplicity, and the size of the font that convinced me.

 

[Atheist73]

As a non-mystic (i.e., atheist) I do not base my moral system upon folklore or superstitious pronouncements.

My moral system is based upon honesty and sympathy. Religion does not hold a monopoly or exclusive dominion over either concept whatsoever.

1) Honesty is, simply put, a fidelity to reality. Reality is all that I know based upon the evidence of my senses and non-contradictory reasoning. Not infallible by any means, but it has worked well for me.

Justice is ultimately a function of honesty. Theft and fraud are ant-honesty.

2) Freedom is ultimately a function of sympathy. Sympathy for me is to treat people as they want to b treated (note the important variation from the Golden Rule, "as THEY want to be treated"). Tyranny and violent aggression is anti-thesis of sympathy IMO.

This is just my philosophy, I speak for no one else. I hope my perspective helps give you a glimpse into how someone can love liberty and not religion simultaneously.

 

[WRellim]

Logically speaking, an atheist has no reason to be moral, aside from possible consequences of defying the accepted but none-the-less arbitrary morality of the society. It's sort of an inevitable consequence of atheism.

Do I think atheists are immoral? No, but it's an inconsistency in their belief set as there truly is no reason aside from the above.

I'm not particularly a fan of sagan, btw.

To begin with, I am NOT an atheist, but a Quaker Deistic Christian.


That said, I would almost entirely disagree, both in practice AND in theory.

In practice, I have known a significant number of atheists and agnostics. Many of those "atheists/agnostics" have been among THE most upright and truly MORAL people that I ever had the pleasure to know. They exhibit both self-discipline, modesty, charity, etc. -- in short ALL of the virtues that most religions profess to promote. Certainly there are IMMORAL atheists and agnostics... but there are also a HUGE NUMBER of VERY IMMORAL people in EVERY religious group (Nixon was raised as a Quaker... something we are greatly ashamed to admit, but which is true nonetheless!)

Conversely, a significant number of the "religious" believers that I have known -- have been among the most IMMORAL and LOWEST forms of life on the planet. (And, yes, I have told them so!)



In theory, well there are significant LOGICAL reasons for many aspects of a moral code, and indeed, I believe majority of the "ten commandments" can be justified BY a moral code virtually without reference to a deity (and hence one of the reasons I do not believe it to be of solely "human" origin).


Adultery, Fornication, Promiscuity
For example, many religious people will assert that without the "codified" prohibition on adultery as "sin" there would be no reason would any PERSON to NOT being promiscuous. I say this is baloney.

Anyone with knowledge of the physical dangers of STD's (Gonorrhea, Syphilis, HPV, AIDS, etc) would be WISE to refrain from promiscuity, indeed it would be WISE for them to refrain from ALL forms of sexual activity outside of a monogamous long term relationship. Indeed, current research is revealing that many of our "chronic" diseases {such as infectious causes of heart disease} as well as heretofore "unknown origin" diseases {such as Cancer -- that's right about 40% of cancers are KNOWN to be virally caused, with HPV strains alone causing cervical, penis, colon, and other cancers}. Go and read "Plague Time" by Paul Ewald for an REAL eye-opener.

In addition, any THINKING person will be aware of the dangers of both the "objectification" of others (treating them as mere "objects" rather than as human beings) -- AND the "emotional" impact of unfaithfulness within long-term intimate relationships. Only "unfeeling" sociopaths -- those without conscience -- (whether atheistic or religious) are immune to this.

And, with all of the promiscuity, unfaithfulness and immoral sexual acts of those who claim to be "believers" (of whatever religion) -- where it is at LEAST as prevalent as among those who profess to be atheists -- and there is no "high ground" here for ANY group.

In short, one cannot expect to LEGISLATE MORALITY either in the secular world (via government) or in the religious world (via churches).


Murder, Theft, Fraud, etc
The OTHER areas of "morality" -- whether it be murder, theft, or fraud -- can be EQUALLY defined as LOGICALLY based for one wishing to both BENEFIT from being a trusted member of a society, as it is to be based on the FEAR of the retaliation from the other members of that society.

In addition, while one can CLAIM that an atheist can readily "justify" breaking those mores on a number of grounds -- it must be admitted that religious people are at LEAST as innovative in coming up with their own "justifications" for violating those same prohibitions. And while one CAN point to certain "crazy atheist" individuals who have committed a host of heinous acts against other people -- it is JUST as easy (in fact EASIER) to point out "crazy believer" individuals who have LIKEWISE committed similar or WORSE heinous acts.


So, again... one cannot expect to effectively "LEGISLATE" a moral code either in the secular world (via government) or in the religious world (via churches).


Indeed, any such "codification" is truly useful only for TWO purposes:
1) To have an "objective standard" for use in CONVICTING and PUNISHING individuals who violate the code.
2) To have a "written" means of categorizing and disseminating the "common understanding" of what is and is not moral conduct within a society (and potentially inhibit such acts by making people aware of the CONSEQUENCES of such acts).

Note that PREVENTION is not really a possible "function" of such codified moral codes -- except via education of the code and the consequences. This is where most "legislators" who advocate "tighter laws" fall off the boat -- they believe and PROCLAIM that increasing the number, the strictness, and even the breadth of laws will "prevent" such activity -- when in fact it can do no such thing. (Witnessed by both scientific studies AND various scriptural writings in virtually all religions.)

As Thomas Paine so eloquently wrote in the Introduction to his book, the "Age of Reason":

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.​

So, it greatly saddens me when I see people from EITHER group over-generalizing and claiming the "high ground" in some absolutist sense. The "militant atheists" are really no DIFFERENT from the worst of the theocratic absolutists -- BOTH such "factions" claim to hold the absolute "truth" and desire to IMPOSE their own SPECIFIC beliefs on others, and are therefore EQUALLY DANGEROUS as a consequence.

Fin.

 

[winston_blade]

To begin with, I am NOT an atheist, but a Quaker Deistic Christian.


That said, I would almost entirely disagree, both in practice AND in theory.

In practice, I have known a significant number of atheists and agnostics. Many of those "atheists/agnostics" have been among THE most upright and truly MORAL people that I ever had the pleasure to know. They exhibit both self-discipline, modesty, charity, etc. -- in short ALL of the virtues that most religions profess to promote. Certainly there are IMMORAL atheists and agnostics... but there are also a HUGE NUMBER of VERY IMMORAL people in EVERY religious group (Nixon was raised as a Quaker... something we are greatly ashamed to admit, but which is true nonetheless!)

Conversely, a significant number of the "religious" believers that I have known -- have been among the most IMMORAL and LOWEST forms of life on the planet. (And, yes, I have told them so!)



In theory, well there are significant LOGICAL reasons for many aspects of a moral code, and indeed, I believe majority of the "ten commandments" can be justified BY a moral code virtually without reference to a deity (and hence one of the reasons I do not believe it to be of solely "human" origin).


Adultery, Fornication, Promiscuity
For example, many religious people will assert that without the "codified" prohibition on adultery as "sin" there would be no reason would any PERSON to NOT being promiscuous. I say this is baloney.

Anyone with knowledge of the physical dangers of STD's (Gonorrhea, Syphilis, HPV, AIDS, etc) would be WISE to refrain from promiscuity, indeed it would be WISE for them to refrain from ALL forms of sexual activity outside of a monogamous long term relationship. Indeed, current research is revealing that many of our "chronic" diseases {such as infectious causes of heart disease} as well as heretofore "unknown origin" diseases {such as Cancer -- that's right about 40% of cancers are KNOWN to be virally caused, with HPV strains alone causing cervical, penis, colon, and other cancers}. Go and read "Plague Time" by Paul Ewald for an REAL eye-opener.

In addition, any THINKING person will be aware of the dangers of both the "objectification" of others (treating them as mere "objects" rather than as human beings) -- AND the "emotional" impact of unfaithfulness within long-term intimate relationships. Only "unfeeling" sociopaths -- those without conscience -- (whether atheistic or religious) are immune to this.

And, with all of the promiscuity, unfaithfulness and immoral sexual acts of those who claim to be "believers" (of whatever religion) -- where it is at LEAST as prevalent as among those who profess to be atheists -- and there is no "high ground" here for ANY group.

In short, one cannot expect to LEGISLATE MORALITY either in the secular world (via government) or in the religious world (via churches).


Murder, Theft, Fraud, etc
The OTHER areas of "morality" -- whether it be murder, theft, or fraud -- can be EQUALLY defined as LOGICALLY based for one wishing to both BENEFIT from being a trusted member of a society, as it is to be based on the FEAR of the retaliation from the other members of that society.

In addition, while one can CLAIM that an atheist can readily "justify" breaking those mores on a number of grounds -- it must be admitted that religious people are at LEAST as innovative in coming up with their own "justifications" for violating those same prohibitions. And while one CAN point to certain "crazy atheist" individuals who have committed a host of heinous acts against other people -- it is JUST as easy (in fact EASIER) to point out "crazy believer" individuals who have LIKEWISE committed similar or WORSE heinous acts.


So, again... one cannot expect to effectively "LEGISLATE" a moral code either in the secular world (via government) or in the religious world (via churches).


Indeed, any such "codification" is truly useful only for TWO purposes:
1) To have an "objective standard" for use in CONVICTING and PUNISHING individuals who violate the code.
2) To have a "written" means of categorizing and disseminating the "common understanding" of what is and is not moral conduct within a society (and potentially inhibit such acts by making people aware of the CONSEQUENCES of such acts).

Note that PREVENTION is not really a possible "function" of such codified moral codes -- except via education of the code and the consequences. This is where most "legislators" who advocate "tighter laws" fall off the boat -- they believe and PROCLAIM that increasing the number, the strictness, and even the breadth of laws will "prevent" such activity -- when in fact it can do no such thing. (Witnessed by both scientific studies AND various scriptural writings in virtually all religions.)

As Thomas Paine so eloquently wrote in the Introduction to his book, the "Age of Reason":

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.​

So, it greatly saddens me when I see people from EITHER group over-generalizing and claiming the "high ground" in some absolutist sense. The "militant atheists" are really no DIFFERENT from the worst of the theocratic absolutists -- BOTH such "factions" claim to hold the absolute "truth" and desire to IMPOSE their own SPECIFIC beliefs on others, and are therefore EQUALLY DANGEROUS as a consequence.

Fin.

Bravo.