Poll: Atheist Morality

[Shynobee]

Rehash...Rehash...Rehash...

Morality and ethics do not rely on religion, they rely on principle. An adaptation of the same stories without the religious influence can be told for the same effect: to teach a moral lesson. Aesop's fairytales did it, Mother Goose did it, the other fairytales from the Brothers Grimm all did it, and those are just fairytales.

Ah, but little do you know, all of those listed poets had strong religious backgrounds...

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

 

[Skeleon]

Incorrect sir! Ancient Greeks, while being very progressive in their own way still had many flaws. Including, but not limited to, slavery as a standard means of sustaining ones living, an extremely male dominated society, extreme disdain for the poor, and there are others.

Most of the changes in our society were originally taught by Jesus believe it or not. Some of the main reasons people hated Jesus in his time were because he socialized and even accepted people like, women, slaves, and the poor!

Not incorrect. Yes, the Greeks applied a double standard. But our Human Rights are based on the moral systems for free Greek citizens. And I never said the ancient Greeks were flawless, I just said that our Western moral system is based on theirs.

And while Jesus may have represtented several of those values as well, his teachings are not the basis.

I would like to further point out that Human Rights were severely surpressed until the Age of Enlightenment, which witnessed a resurrection of logic, doubt and rationality, a beginning separation from the Church and the first major bloom of science since the Roman Empire collapsed.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Rehash...Rehash...Rehash...

Morality and ethics do not rely on religion, they rely on principle. An adaptation of the same stories without the religious influence can be told for the same effect: to teach a moral lesson. Aesop's fairytales did it, Mother Goose did it, the other fairytales from the Brothers Grimm all did it, and those are just fairytales.

Ah, but little do you know, all of those listed poets had strong religious backgrounds...

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

I'm pretty sure they would have. A strong religious background has little impact on one's need to tell a story, their imagination, or the ability to reach out to children and parents alike, and simultaneously at that, since the tales were originally passed down in the means of warnings and cautions of why not to play with things that are dangerous. That the stories don't focus at all on the anger or charity of God means they come down to this: common sense. Things you should know if you're going to survive in the world (Slow and steady means quality in your work, never trust salesmen, don't punch tar, etc). Those same lessons became the ethics and morals for those listening to the tales as they grew up (never be cruel to an old lady in need, always spare a drink of water and a bite to eat if you're capable, and so on and so forth). The tale-tellers might have had a strong influence, but that doesn't mean the stories need it. Think a chocolate bar that's processed in the same place that processes peanuts--only the products affected by peanuts really need to know that there's peanuts inside, but that doesn't mean that there's peanuts in every bar that comes out of the factory.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

 

[Yeager942]

Yay, another religion thread *rolls eyes*

 

[Shynobee]

Incorrect sir! Ancient Greeks, while being very progressive in their own way still had many flaws. Including, but not limited to, slavery as a standard means of sustaining ones living, an extremely male dominated society, extreme disdain for the poor, and there are others.

Most of the changes in our society were originally taught by Jesus believe it or not. Some of the main reasons people hated Jesus in his time were because he socialized and even accepted people like, women, slaves, and the poor!

Not incorrect. Yes, the Greeks applied a double standard. But our Human Rights are based on the moral systems for free Greek citizens. And I never said the ancient Greeks were flawless, I just said that our Western moral system is based on theirs.

And while Jesus may have represtented several of those values as well, his teachings are not the basis.

I would like to further point out that Human Rights were severely surpressed until the Age of Enlightenment, which witnessed a resurrection of logic, doubt and rationality, a beginning separation from the Church and the first bloom of science since the Roman Empire collapsed.

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

 

[Shynobee]

Rehash...Rehash...Rehash...

Morality and ethics do not rely on religion, they rely on principle. An adaptation of the same stories without the religious influence can be told for the same effect: to teach a moral lesson. Aesop's fairytales did it, Mother Goose did it, the other fairytales from the Brothers Grimm all did it, and those are just fairytales.

Ah, but little do you know, all of those listed poets had strong religious backgrounds...

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

I'm pretty sure they would have. A strong religious background has little impact on one's need to tell a story, their imagination, or the ability to reach out to children and parents alike, and simultaneously at that, since the tales were originally passed down in the means of warnings and cautions of why not to play with things that are dangerous. That the stories don't focus at all on the anger or charity of God means they come down to this: common sense. Things you should know if you're going to survive in the world (Slow and steady means quality in your work, never trust salesmen, don't punch tar, etc). Those same lessons became the ethics and morals for those listening to the tales as they grew up (never be cruel to an old lady in need, always spare a drink of water and a bite to eat if you're capable, and so on and so forth). The tale-tellers might have had a strong influence, but that doesn't mean the stories need it. Think a chocolate bar that's processed in the same place that processes peanuts--only the products affected by peanuts really need to know that there's peanuts inside, but that doesn't mean that there's peanuts in every bar that comes out of the factory.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

you misquoted me a bit there, but I'll let that slide, because we are now currently arguing a moot point. Its now simply a matter of what you will choose to believe. I think that the strong religious influence inspired these writers to do what they did, and you believe otherwise. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so lets just leave it at that.

 

[WayOutThere]

Yay, another religion thread *rolls eyes*

Thank you, so much, for your imput.

If you want there to be less religous threads you should not post on one and validate its existence. No, you didn't come here to discourage religous threads you're just enjoying being pompous.

 

[Skeleon]

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

Hm, okay, I can't say much about America's moral system.
Talking about Europe here. Think of France, for example.
But as I said, I don't know enough about America (except for hearsay) to properly evaluate this. I would've imagined that it'd have been similar for America, but I could definitely be wrong.

Well, but that's a major failing of organized religion, isn't it? It always leads to an intrusion on the "worldly plane", if you will, because a religion is trying to grow, become more powerful and influential.
It's not so much about morality as it is about imposing your will and values, no matter how objectively "good"/desirable they are. This, of course, is not a problem specific to religion but to anything that influences masses of people on a similar level of fervor (think of political orientations or whatever).

Don't forget about the monarchs who, at that time, were very keen on funding promising young scientists. It's true that many scientists were monks but I don't really see the relevance since what matters is whether or not they applied the scientific method. They were not scientifically active because they were religious but because they were learnt.

Anyway, back to my original point: The Western moral system (maybe more specifically the European one, I can't tell), was based upon the ancient Greeks' ideas, which were "rediscovered" during the Age of Enlightenment and influence us to this day. Christianity may, in theory, have held similar prospects, but in reality it counteracted any free moral developments until its significance diminished somewhat. Whether or not that was "intended" doesn't really matter now. It definitely did.

 

[Drakmeire]

I'm a very spiritual person so if I didn't believed there was a higher purpose, I would just go nuts and destroy the planet.

 

[Shynobee]

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

Hm, okay, I can't say much about America's moral system.
Talking about Europe here. Think of France, for example.
But as I said, I don't know enough about America (except for hearsay) to properly evaluate this. I would've imagined that it'd have been similar for America, but I could definitely be wrong.

Well, but that's a major failing of organized religion, isn't it? It always leads to an intrusion on the "worldly plane", if you will, because a religion is trying to grow, become more powerful and influential.
It's not so much about morality as it is about imposing your will and values, no matter how objectively "good"/desirable they are. This, of course, is not a problem specific to religion but to anything that influences masses of people on a similar level of fervor (think of political orientations or whatever).

Don't forget about the monarchs who, at that time, were very keen on funding promising young scientists. It's true that many scientists were monks but I don't really see the relevance since what matters is whether or not they applied the scientific method. They were not scientifically active because they were religious but because they were learnt.

Anyway, back to my original point: The Western moral system (maybe more specifically the European one, I can't tell), was based upon the ancient Greeks' ideas, which were "rediscovered" during the Age of Enlightenment and influence us to this day. Christianity may, in theory, have held similar prospects, but in reality it counteracted any free moral developments until its significance diminished somewhat. Whether or not that was "intended" doesn't really matter now. It definitely did.

You do make excellent arguments. Especially on your comment of orginized religion, but honestly, that's just human fallibility there.

As to your continued argument on Greeks moral system, I still think you are a bit confused. The Greek moral system was quite different compared to what we live with today. Slavery, eye for an eye, etc etc etc, were all commonplace in ancient Greece. If we still held to those morals today, well honestly, I don't even want to think of what world we'd be living in now.

I believe you are refrencing the great Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. While all three were remarkably brilliant, they didn't present any truly revolutionary moral ideals, all they did was create new ways of thought and different world views on things such as politics.

If you could elaborate and give me an example of ancient Greek morality that is still widely accepted today, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Sayvara]

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?

All you need to do is look at little children to realize that what we call "morals" are something every human can easilly agree on, because we don't like the acts that morals forbid.

Take a toy or a stuffed animal from a child... the child will cry. We don't like having stuff stolen from us.

Hit a child... the child will cry and cringe. We don't like being hurt.

So we can go on and on about this and find that all these actions we condemn as immoral all stem from stuff we simply don't like being done to us. When someone hits me, it hurts, and I don't like that. So in order to protect myself, I invent the "moral" that says it's wrong to hit me.

Finaly... reciprocality: if a child sees you do something, it will assume it is allright to do so. If someone does something, it's diffucult motivate that the child cannot do that thing as well.

So... in order for me to say to someone, "You can't hit me", I must also say "I can't hit you"... or he'll think it's unfair and not follow the morals I set up for him. We universalize this... and we end up with "Don't hit anyone".

So simple... and no God was necessary to arrive at this.

/S

 

[Zacharine]

There is a nice and simple argument about morality and god.

Is something moral because (1)god says so,(2) because it is inherently good and moral or (3)because we decide it is good and moral?

1. If it is moral because god says so, then what we have is the subjective morality of God.

Why would he be the one to decide what is moral and what is not? Why would his opinion matter more than mine? Simply because he created us or is the strongest being in the universe gives him no inherent right to do this. In effect, he would be the ultimate dictator. He decides what is good and what is not, and also punishes/rewards us if we don't/do follow his rules.

This is dictatorship and bullying taken to it's most extreme form. And if this would be the case, why should we care, from a purely moral standpoint, of his opinion in subjective matters of deciding what is good and evil?

2. Something is moral because it is inherently moral and good.

Well, then God is not the source of morality now is he? Even he would be subject to this objective moral code. Hence, no god is needed to follow or understand this morality.

3. Well, if this is the case then we already agree that no god was needed.

End result: Either god is not needed for morality or he is, from moral point of view, no more important than you or me in deciding what the subjective morality should be.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip*

Well, actually, I had meant Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato as I had posted in my very first post replying to you.

*snip*

You do realize that much of our current moral system (especially the Human Rights) has its basis in ancient Greek morality based on rationality and logic (attributed to people such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)?

I had also already posted that I was aware of the flaws of ancient Greek society, such as slavery.

But if we look at the rights and laws refering to the free Greek citizens, we find many of the values we are looking at today. The problem was simply, that the ancient Greeks only applied those values to the rather small, special group of "free Greek citizens" (males of 18 years or older) instead of all human beings.
Even the above mentioned philosophers were guilty of this, by the way.

 

[Shynobee]

*snip*

Well, actually, I had meant Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato as I had posted in my very first post replying to you.

*snip*

You do realize that much of our current moral system (especially the Human Rights) has its basis in ancient Greek morality based on rationality and logic (attributed to people such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)?

I had also already posted that I was aware of the flaws of ancient Greek society, such as slavery.

But if we look at the rights and laws refering to the free Greek citizens, we find many of the values we are looking at today. The problem was simply, that the ancient Greeks only applied those values to the rather small, special group of "free Greek citizens" (males of 18 years or older) instead of all human beings.
Even the above mentioned philosophers were guilty of this, by the way.

I have to say, you are persistant. My point is that these ancient Greek rights and laws you keep refering to aren't morals, they are legal codes. The question in this thread is can MORALS survive with out God, not laws.

Yes the Greeks had a wonderful legal system, and I know you are aware of the flaws of Greek society, but you're dodging the issue here. And that is, Western Morality is not based on ancient Greece, it is based on Christian roots.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Interesting how people are saying "of course" when none of us have come from a position where we weren't taught about religion and morals by someone.

If Religion is right, without God, we'd not even exist, so it's kind of a moot point.

 

[bodyklok]

Is something moral because god says so or because it is inherently good and moral?

Ahh! Are you referring to the famous quote by Plato about what is holy?

"Is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"​

Either way that's exactly what I wanted to say, but I couldn't put the words together by myself.

 

[Rachmaninov]

The idea that morality was invented with religion is disproved by the Bible, of all things.

Before the rules are set down, humanity is not a load of murderous, sadistic, cannibal savages, so there were obviously laws (unspoken or otherwise), even by the Bible's account.

I find the idea that religion being the reason I'm sickened by the idea of torturing/killing/eating another human being ludicrous.

The commandments say nothing about violently raping a single woman, so does that make it okay? Of course not! Rape is against common morals. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morals change whereas religion stays the same.

 

[Skeleon]

I have to say, you are persistant. My point is that these ancient Greek rights and laws you keep refering to aren't morals, they are legal codes. The question in this thread is can MORALS survive with out God, not laws.

Yes the Greeks had a wonderful legal system, and I know you are aware of the flaws of Greek society, but you're dodging the issue here. And that is, Western Morality is not based on ancient Greece, it is based on Christian roots.

Ah, but these laws are in turn based on the Greek moral ideals of freedom and rationality, so why shouldn't I take them as an example for their moral basis?
Unless of course you don't consider the Human Rights morals as such but as laws only. I guess I never really made that distinction since I see the Human Rights as moral laws as well as laws in the more direct sense.

Basically, all I'm saying is that a) the ancient Greeks had created, although limited to a small group, a moral baseline and b) this moral baseline resurfaced when the hold of Christianity loosened.
Sorry for repeating myself, but considering the revival of ancient ideals such as rationality during the Age of Enlightenment, it stands to reason that it was exactly these ancient basics of morality that formed our, nowadays more than ever, secular moral system.

I guess the real issue is that, basically, I keep saying "it's based on the ancient Greeks" and you keep saying "it's based on Christianity". Seems like we're going nowhere, though.

As for that one question:

The question in this thread is can MORALS survive with out God, not laws.

Completely independent of the rest of our discussion, this obviously must be answered with a yes since morality itself has been around much longer than either mono-, poly- or even atheistic religions.

 

[WayOutThere]

god hates blacks and gays

Go away you trolling bastard.

 

[Shynobee]

I have to say, you are persistant. My point is that these ancient Greek rights and laws you keep refering to aren't morals, they are legal codes. The question in this thread is can MORALS survive with out God, not laws.

Yes the Greeks had a wonderful legal system, and I know you are aware of the flaws of Greek society, but you're dodging the issue here. And that is, Western Morality is not based on ancient Greece, it is based on Christian roots.

Ah, but these laws are in turn based on the Greek moral ideals of freedom and rationality, so why shouldn't I take them as an example for their moral basis?
Unless of course you don't consider the Human Rights morals as such but as laws only. I guess I never really made that distinction since I see the Human Rights as moral laws as well as laws in the more direct sense.

Basically, all I'm saying is that a) the ancient Greeks had created, although limited to a small group, a moral baseline and b) this moral baseline resurfaced when the hold of Christianity loosened.
Sorry for repeating myself, but considering the revival of ancient ideals such as rationality during the Age of Enlightenment, it stands to reason that it was exactly these ancient basics of morality that formed our, nowadays more than ever, secular moral system.

I guess the real issue is that, basically, I keep saying "it's based on the ancient Greeks" and you keep saying "it's based on Christianity". Seems like we're going nowhere, though.

As for that one question:

The question in this thread is can MORALS survive with out God, not laws.

Completely independent of the rest of our discussion, this obviously must be answered with a yes since morality itself has been around much longer than either mono-, poly- or even atheistic religions.

Gahhh!

I was soo ready to let this one go until you said "atheistic religions!!!" it was probably just a slip of the tongue on your part, but I have to correct you, there is no such thing as an atheistic religion.

The words latin roots are as follows, "A" = the absence of, and "theism" = religion, thus the word means, "The absence of religion."

And, since I'm already here, there is also no such thing as a "secular moral system." If you are considering Europe's current status as the most secular place on earth, and thus it's current western moral system, you are wrong. The moral system currently found in the western world has no secular roots, it is Christian as I have stated, or, as you have cleverly pointed out, possibly Greek as well.

And, now that I'm already off topic, I might as well go on to say that the idea of secularism is Christian as well. Mathew 22:21, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar?s, and unto God the things that are God?s." That is the founding idea of secularism, and its found in the Bible.