Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[Nakosis]

I would pit my moral standards against yours any day of the week

Who would get to judge?
Not me, I'd probably be biased.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would pit my moral standards against yours any day of the week

Yeah, I would like to know how you arrive at yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who would get to judge?
Not me, I'd probably be biased.

@ChristineM
As far as I can tell there is no objective standard to do that from.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, I would like to know how you arrive at yours.

It's be interesting if people could sum up their ground of morality. The bedrock foundation of all their moral behavior.

I think a commonly used one is the "Golden Rule". Not one I particularly agree with but one I find often cited.

 

[wellwisher]

Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.

So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.

One of the problem is without belief in a higher power, all you will have are other humans, to help keep you honest. If other humans are not around, who will know if you fall off the wagon? Will the Atheist do the same behavior if nobody is watching? With faith in God, you assume he is always watching, which keeps you on the straight and narrow even while alone away from other humans.

When I became a teen, if the parents were not around to see you, would experiment with things they may not approve of. If they were around, you put on the good boy act, and not let them think you were doing something, wrong. I was different in that I would not volunteer anything, but if they ask me a direct question I would not lie.

God is more like having the parents always around. You may want to do things, but you also do not what to be caught. In my case I saw this new freedom as a victimless crime. If you do not have that eternal oversight, you get to leave the house an go to the field, so you can sneak alcohol and cigarettes. Nobody may ever know except your partners in crime. In the eyes of parents you are still pure, even if not so. Telling the truth was not the easiest part to walk since there were consequence; grounded. However, my parents hated to be the bad cop and punish their good son for being honest. They almost preferred I lied so they could not be the bad cop. But I was under constant surveillance by God.

Back in middle school, if a teacher was out sick and a substitute came in, some of the kids would con the substitute to do things another way so we could slack. Or we would change seats and pretend to be each other. Once your regular teacher came back, you get back in line.

It is not impossible to be righteous all the time, without a belief in God, but when out of eye sight of others, who will know if you are not. Fake news works much easier without God looking over its shoulder. Those who buy into that, will lie to themselves and each other, but this is OK, since it is about other humans patting you on the back for being a team player. This is called relative morality, which is relative to the acceptance of other humans regardless of classic morality to God. In this sense, few if any Liberal Atheist can stick to the highest standards of just the truth, since that is taboo to certain cons, and will not get an attaboy from their peers.

 

[ChristineM]

It's be interesting if people could sum up their ground of morality. The bedrock foundation of all their moral behavior.

I think a commonly used one is the "Golden Rule". Not one I particularly agree with but one I find it often cited.

Being human

 

[Tomef]

Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.

So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.

Any difference between religious/non-religious people is illusory. People assume they are more moral because they try to hold to some sort of religious lifestyle, but all that means is that they emphasise some, essentially arbitrary, set of ostensibly ethical behaviours over another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's be interesting if people could sum up their ground of morality. The bedrock foundation of all their moral behavior.

I think a commonly used one is the "Golden Rule". Not one I particularly agree with but one I find it often cited.

"the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them"
It is in a sense too simple, because good and bad are not always the same for all humans.

I could harm someone and if they did it back in kind, they would harm me. Or in reverse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Being human

That is to vauge. Staln, Mao and all the rest were humans.

 

[Nakosis]

"the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them"
It is in a sense too simple, because good and bad are not always the same for all humans.

I could harm someone and if they did it back in kind, they would harm me. Or in reverse.

I see it as behaving in a certain manor with the expectation of receiving some benefit from it.
My idea of "right" doesn't necessarily include obtaining some personal benefit from it.

 

[Nakosis]

Being human

Perhaps having the capacity to forgive?

I thought it important once. Now not so much.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps having the capacity to forgive?

I thought it important once. Now not so much.

Some things cannot be forgiven, best you can do is accept they happen and get on with life

 

[Nakosis]

One of the problem is without belief in a higher power, all you will have are other humans, to help keep you honest. If other humans are not around, who will know if you fall off the wagon? Will the Atheist do the same behavior if nobody is watching? With faith in God, you assume he is always watching, which keeps you on the straight and narrow even while alone away from other humans.

When I became a teen, if the parents were not around to see you, would experiment with things they may not approve of. If they were around, you put on the good boy act, and not let them think you were doing something, wrong. I was different in that I would not volunteer anything, but if they ask me a direct question I would not lie.

God is more like having the parents always around. You may want to do things, but you also do not what to be caught. In my case I saw this new freedom as a victimless crime. If you do not have that eternal oversight, you get to leave the house an go to the field, so you can sneak alcohol and cigarettes. Nobody may ever know except your partners in crime. In the eyes of parents you are still pure, even if not so. Telling the truth was not the easiest part to walk since there were consequence; grounded. However, my parents hated to be the bad cop and punish their good son for being honest. They almost preferred I lied so they could not be the bad cop. But I was under constant surveillance by God.

Back in middle school, if a teacher was out sick and a substitute came in, some of the kids would con the substitute to do things another way so we could slack. Or we would change seats and pretend to be each other. Once your regular teacher came back, you get back in line.

It is not impossible to be righteous all the time, without a belief in God, but when out of eye sight of others, who will know if you are not. Fake news works much easier without God looking over its shoulder. Those who buy into that, will lie to themselves and each other, but this is OK, since it is about other humans patting you on the back for being a team player. This is called relative morality, which is relative to the acceptance of other humans regardless of classic morality to God. In this sense, few if any Liberal Atheist can stick to the highest standards of just the truth, since that is taboo to certain cons, and will not get an attaboy from their peers.

I'm always watching myself with God-like omnipresent powers.

Although I don't always act the same in private as I do in public because I take into consideration how my actions affect others.
In private there are no "others" to worry about.

 

[Nakosis]

Some things cannot be forgiven, best you can do is accept they happen and get on with life

I usually don't see a need to forgive anyone as I accept people behaved as it was in their nature to behave.
However if it causes me or some one I care about harm, I see it as in my right to take whatever steps necessary to prevent in future occurrences.

 

[F1fan]

Why be moral when you can be ethical instead?

Because ethics rely on moral principles. The two are related and not exclusive.

If anyone wants to be moral, I feel sorry for them whether they are theists or atheists. Atheists can be moral if they want to be and if they want to follow some rigid standards then that's on then even in my opinion, I think it is foolish. Moralism is a curse and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies, not even the atheists or the talking snake himself.

Odd statement. I notice you are vague and fail to explain your thoughts.

 

[F1fan]

I think everyone can become a moral agent and conform to "a standard of right behavior". But, the problem may be, what is the right behavior and who gets to decide it.

Right. For example in the 17th century good protestant Christians decided that there were many people living amongst them who were practising witchcraft and it was a moral obligation to torture these people and even execute them to save their souls. Some 30,000 people were executed before the public protested and ended the trials and killing. And of course we remember how the slave trade in the Christian West was prevallent in the 17th to 19th century, and in the USA the end of slavery required a war. Both sides were Christian, and the Southerbers were adamant that slavery was justified in the Bible, so who was correct morally? And oddly it was Lutherans and Catholics who committed the Holocaust, which was a political policy that Christians did not oppose. It makes us wonder what use religion is when it allows such horrific and organized behavior.

Today would anti-Semitism exist without Christianity and Islam? The two offshoots of Judaism may not directly be anti-Semietic but the religions certainly don't prevent some members from this immoral attitude. So the question is despite religious influence why do so many believers make immoral decisions?

 

[F1fan]

One of the problem is without belief in a higher power, all you will have are other humans, to help keep you honest. If other humans are not around, who will know if you fall off the wagon? Will the Atheist do the same behavior if nobody is watching? With faith in God, you assume he is always watching, which keeps you on the straight and narrow even while alone away from other humans.

So if very conservative Christians go into a voting booth and vote for a chronic liar, a cheater, a man who committed fraud against others, had a corrupt charity that was closed down, was found liable of sexual assault and defamation of the victiem, and convicted for crimes, with many more criminal cases in the future, they would not feel shame with God watching when there is a moral and decent candidate as an option?

 

[osgart]

Moralities have causes and effects in the real world. Morality can be defined as that which you find acceptable vs. being rejectable; that which brings you joy vs. that which offends you.

Everyone is a moral agent. That is an inescapable fact of life. To lack morality of some kind would be to totally not care and be completely indifferent to all actions and outcomes, all intentions, motivations, desires and all relations.

Even the worst humans have a moral code.

The better question is to ask is there moral facts and truths for atheists, and non religious people. The answer is often yes in the subjective sense. Being atheist is not an indicator of morality. Being theist does not imply moral superiority.

Morality is also the inner values, motivations, desires, nature, and intentions of beings. Ethics is how you apply and carry out your morality in the real world.

To lack all morality is not to care about anything whatsoever.

The best moralities are those that come from a genuine desire to be moral with others and self out of care. A morality that is driven by reward and consequences is not coming from a genuine desire to be moral. So atheists have the better reasoning on morals.

Morals comes down to how you treat people, and how you treat yourself.

 

[Tomef]

Will the Atheist do the same behavior if nobody is watching?

The atheist, or the mature atheist (or agnostic) is convinced nobody is watching. Religious people, who may feel the only thing constraining them is some imaginary being examining their thoughts miss out in this respect, as they may never mature past the stage of being a child afraid of a stern parent. The mature person, someone who is consistent, who understands what moral behaviour is and acts by it because of that understanding, not to please a fictional deity, is a rare thing. The superficial religious person is not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.

So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.

No, lack of belief in God/gods compels us to run out into the street in frenzied mobs, raping, pillaging and defiling all manner of holy edifices and art. Oh, and especially molest minors.