Poll: Atheist Morality

[The Man Who Is Thursday]

So baisicaly your saying that, on the assumption that there's now divne being, Morals/morality is man-made; meaning that it's what we personally think is right?

I just wanted clarification. Your post sounded like that, but it had too many philososphical terms for my pea-brained mind to handle.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I guess I should work on being clearer, though...

I think one thing that must be said, though, is that this debate isn't about whether or not an atheist can be a good person. To say that they couldn't would be an asinine claim not supported by reality. The existence of objective morality is not a personal question, but a metaphysical one.

 

[Xender90]

Morality needs to come from somewhere. If some higher being did not exist it would be okay to kill if you weren't found out. stealing would be fine just as long as it didn't hurt you. As Dostoevsky said "anything is permissible without god." If a god did not create morality then something else did, and moral relativism is wrong.
It's inconsistent. it's absolutely apposed to absolutes, it thinks it is true there are no truths, and it's dogmatically opposed to dogmatism.

 

[TheLefty]

I'm not truly atheist but pretty close. Though I'm indifferent when it comes to religion I still have a conscious.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

This can't seriously be a "common argument." It's stupid. I'm pretty sure most religious people aren't so into their religion that they think atheists are immoral barbarians or something. Morals definitely don't need a God to exist. They're born from our inherent sense of right and wrong.

 

[spuddyt]

Rationally, there is no reason for morality from an individual's perspective (at least assuming no later judgement), but like so many others, I have been conditioned since birth to fell bad when I do something "wrong"

 

[Cairo]

how moral can a person be if his actions are based on a fear of punishment rather then an understanding of human suffering ?

Using religion as a basis for morality is not necessarily basing it on fear. It's the idea that there is a loving God, and because He loves you, you should love Him enough to love others as He does. I'm not arguing your point, just trying to clarify what actual Christians (all I can speak for) believe.

 

[72Chevy]

I hit no when I meant to hit yes, because you don't need a god to die.

 

[Rawker]

Morality doesn't need a god to exist.
It only needs a set of guide-lines and virtues for the perciever to hold onto.

Agreed. everyone has their ideas of morals. wether doing good is killing your ex-wife or helping old ladies across the street, everyone has there ideas of right and wrong.

 

[Canadian Fodder]

You don't have to believe in something to do good. For me, I just like to be helpful to others when they need it. Personally I think its kinda odd to believe in something that if you do anything wrong, you will be sent to a fiery damnation.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

My morality is not based on religion because I don't have one but there is a Bible verse that's pretty accurate to my morality:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another"

Also the song:

smile on your brother everybody get together
try to love one another right now

 

[Aardvark]

If the threat of an invisible man in the sky with the power to cast your soul into hideous torture is all that's keeping you from going on a murderous necrorapist spree, then it's not really morality, is it?

 

[Vorocano]

Ok, just so you know where I'm coming from, I am an evangelical Christian (Mennonite background, for those of you who care). For me, however, I have striven in my life to have reasons for my faith that go beyond simply parroting `For the Bible tells me so` every time anyone has a question. I have tried to synthesize faith and logic in my life as much as I can.

Now, I`d like to comment on this, if I may:

Its' very important to distinguish the difference between the weight that believers and thinkers put on morals. Thinkers see an 'immoral' action to be 'bad' on its own merit, while a believer would consider merely 'offending' someone as 'evil' as it is actually two actions lumped together in their eyes, the action itself and disobeying god, which far outweighs the actual immoral action itself to them. To a believer, giving reasons to be nice to people is either missing the point or 'playing god' and also evil, simply for questioning god.
Understand that at any point in time if some televangelist claimed that 'god talked to him' to them as they always say, but said that god wanted them to throw away their morals, the morals are as good as gone. If you are a believer, ask yourself if you would start killing people if God told you to, but please, in advance, figure out how you would know if it was really God who told you. Believing is a few holy words away from psychosis at any moment, I?ve seen it in action, it really is.

Any televangelist that would publically declare that `God told him` to abandon the moral principles set out for us in the Bible is not being spoken to by God. Period. And anyone who blindly follows such a televangelist needs to be way more familiar with what is written in the Bible, starting with Jesus` words: `Be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.` Nowhere in Scripture are we told to just blindly follow the words of someone who claims to have spoken with God; in fact, in the Old Testament, anyone making such claims was expected to meet certain criteria as proof that God had truly spoken to them (one such criterion being that they made some prediction of the future that would come true; how many televangelists these days do that).

Now, back to the point at hand: there is, I think, a misunderstanding at play here. The argument that God must exist because human morality exists doesn`t quite mean what some of you seem to think it means. It does not mean that `No atheist can be a moral person.` Rather, it suggests that, since there are some moral principles that seem to exist across all cultural lines, some higher or Divine being must have placed the idea in our minds. Basically, the idea is that God is the source of the very idea of human morality, not that all Christians are one short crisis of faith away from homicidal mania.

And actually, for my part, I don`t really buy that argument either. Morality is inherently logical: it is logical to develop a society where people are raised to know that murder is unacceptable behaviour, or that someone who steals from others should be made to accept restitution. If this argument were the only one upon which people base their belief in the existence of God, it would be flimsy to say the least.

 

[jboking]

All you have to do is ask yourself this:

How many philosophies set moral codes?
How many of these philosophies require a god?

Answer both of those questions and it's clear that morality exists without god.

 

[hippo24]

Well personally I think they are linked.
So yes.

I believe that some very basic concepts of morality are innate, and that religious morality is an extension of those.
I believe that we are not basilary by nature, that humanity in general is more than just an exotic animal.

I personally think that we are all linked to something greater and are established to do so. Weather you call this greater purpose divine, or an anomaly, doesn't change the fact that its there.

It is in my opinion that because we are more, we are made to be more. So we, by very nature, have a basic mental similarity that we call morality.

 

[Jurassic Rob]

This thread is interesting. Yes you could argue that the morals and truths we hold, may have started with religion, but, in the age we live in it would be truely bizarre if people didn't hold to what we now percieve as normal morality, just because they don't believe in an omnipitant deity!

I'm sure way back when the popular organized religions were starting, then there were similar morals, but religion gave them something to fear if the believers didn't follow them!

Look at you neighbour's wife (and it is always your neighbour) with lust, and it's a one way trip to Hell.

 

[Sark]

I don't act nice because of heavenly rewards, I do that because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I'm an atheist and a moral relativist. If not a moral nihilist, depending on mood.

But yes, whatever we call morals exists without God. Pretty much the Golden Rule.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Hmm...

Anyway. Morality without God, or a "higher power" becomes relative. Everyone defines their own morals. They then lose any value. Your moral standards will conflict with someone else's. Without a higher authority, neither is "wrong", but neither is "right".

With God, or a higher power, there is a moral absolute as defined by a greater existence and/or creator.

The Golden Rule was pretty much there before religions. Hence a lot of religions and philosophies adopted it. I don't see how it's religious - religious moral would be "don't do this, or you'll burn in hell" or receive some other form of punishment from some sort of divine being.

Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself is just common sense. If you punch someone in the face, chances are they'll fight back. So if you befriend someone, chances are their response will be positive as well.

I think you have a bad view of religion. Well... since you reference hell, probably just Judaism/Christianity.

The point isn't "do bad things, go to hell; do good things go to heaven". That's a very oversimplified approach that too many, even within Christianity, take to heart. In Christianity, is is more like; behave this way because it is right. behave this way because it is how Christ would have you behave. Behave this way because it is best for you. Do that which is holy because your father in heaven is holy. Sin and God do not mix, therefore do not sin because your sin will separate you from God. Essentially, it references God as the standard of morality. Yes, if you are separate from God, the consequence is hell. It is also very clear in the Bible, not always Christianity as a religion, that good works are not a "ticket to heaven".

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

Snip

The Golden Rule was pretty much there before religions. Hence a lot of religions and philosophies adopted it. I don't see how it's religious - religious moral would be "don't do this, or you'll burn in hell" or receive some other form of punishment from some sort of divine being.

Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself is just common sense. If you punch someone in the face, chances are they'll fight back. So if you befriend someone, chances are their response will be positive as well.

I also find it ironic that you point out a consequence system in Christianity as a bad thing and then turn around and misinterpret the "Golden Rule" you evidenced as saying "Don't punch people in the face or they will punch you in the face back", when it is actually "Don't punch people in the face because you don't want to be punched in the face."

 

[WayOutThere]

Anyway. Morality without God, or a "higher power" becomes relative. Everyone defines their own morals. They then lose any value. Your moral standards will conflict with someone else's. Without a higher authority, neither is "wrong", but neither is "right".

With God, or a higher power, there is a moral absolute as defined by a greater existence and/or creator.

Everyone defines their own morals (as they do today regardless of Gods existence) but that doesn't mean their morality is rationally sound. I'm saying morality should be rationally sound, it is something to be constructed through reasoned debate.

Why should we listen to this higher power anyway? All he has is his "inscrutabel wisdom" (an oxymoron). His responce to Job for killing his family was to just point out all the stuff he created. Job more or less said after that "Don't tell me 'cause I wouldn't understand anyway".

God's got nothing.

I'm pretty sure most religious people aren't so into their religion that they think atheists are immoral barbarians or something.

Most don't think that. Instead, they say morality is based on their religion or a belief in God. They say atheists can be moral but atheism can't be.

The existence of objective morality is not a personal question, but a metaphysical one.

Its a scientific question. You're making a claim about reality.

As Voltaire once said: "I do not have morals, but I am a very moral person." He was not, by any means, an atheist, but he makes sense in that, if you stop objectifying moralism, it becomes immediately subjective. Mostly to societal or sensory conditions.

What you're saying is that we need to objectify morality. But what is "objectively" true. How do we decide that? Doesn't just asking that question make morality "subjective"?

chalk it up to experience, if you will.

ummm, slavery?

If one can prove that morals exist in an a priori, infinite, and universal way, then their cause would, by definition, be God.

Wait, how do you figure?

 

[Nifty]

Its a common argument that morality does not exist without God. I'm an atheist and I very much don't buy into this. But what do you think fellow Escapistians?

It's an exciting question, one I'd love to write an essay on but I'll keep this as short as possible to stop me getting carried away.

I'm an atheist and I like to think I'm a morally good person. Even if God did exist, there's little reason for me to think that things weren't wrong before he said so.