Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why be moral when you can be ethical instead?

Ethics are societal and morals personal. The 'good' slaveholder may have been ethical, but the early abolitionist was modeling a moral -- often humanist -- code.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

All "golden rules" simply express an understanding that we are a social species, and that if we hope or expect to be treated (or not) in some fashion, we should expect to have to treat (or not) others in the same way. If I hope that someone will be there to help me when I stumble, then I ought to help someone who actually does stumble. If I hope people will not deliberately harm me, I would be wise not to deliberately harm anyone else.

The crux of it is very simple indeed: social animals depend on others of their kind. That word, "depend," is weighty indeed, but it is in the nature of what we are. Unfortunately, although we are indeed a social species, we are also able to default on our obligations to others for our own selfish reasons -- and that is the essence of immorality.

 

[Heyo]

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 - to the headline.
Yes - to the question in the body.
(And there is no difference between believers and non-believers.)

Nobody has the mindfulness to act moral, all of the time.
But with a bit of mindfulness and the will to act moral,
everybody can act moral, most of the time.

 

[1213]

Well, you do. Or in my case, I do.
However, how I go about that is convoluted.
I find my moral standards to be a combination of culture, I suspect genetics, experience and some rational thinking on my part.

In a way that can be really dangerous, because people have made up very bad moral decisions. Do you think it is possible to have objective morality, instead of subjective?

 

[1213]

...It makes us wonder what use religion is when it allows such horrific and organized behavior.

Why blame a religion when it is humans who do the things?

Today would anti-Semitism exist without Christianity and Islam?

By what I see, it is mostly atheists/communists/the left who are anti-Semitic. But, in any case, I think it is weird how any Christian could be anti-Semitic. Bible tells Christians are Jews. That is why it would be stupid and ignorant, if a Christian is anti-Semitic.

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, don’t boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21

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?

I think that should be asked from those who do immoral decisions. But, probably it is because they disagree with what is good and right and want something else.

 

[Nakosis]

In a way that can be really dangerous, because people have made up very bad moral decisions. Do you think it is possible to have objective morality, instead of subjective?

No but they may feel objective. We may as part of our human experience develop a common set of of moral ideology however depending on what we come to face as a species it is not necessarily stable. IOW, I suspect there is a lot we'd agree as being moral because of a shared common experience we have being human. I accept that humanity in the past held different moral ideology and future human morality is likely to change to something which would seem foreign to us now.

 

[McBell]

Do you think it is possible to have objective morality, instead of subjective?

Individually, yes.
Universally, no

 

[Pawpatrol]

But they could choose to be moral if they wanted to without a need for divine intervention?

Even the Christian concept of God seemed to have an expectation of Adam and Eve being able to, on their own make "right" choices.

They could. The problem is they don't seem to want to.

Adam was a prophet... Duh?

 

[Nakosis]

They could. The problem is they don't seem to want to.

Adam was a prophet... Duh?

Then it seems that prophets can obviously fail.

 

[Argentbear]

In a way that can be really dangerous, because people have made up very bad moral decisions. Do you think it is possible to have objective morality, instead of subjective?

in some limited capacity only. So much of life is situational and most moral rules can't hold up for everyone all the time. I can think of a few exceptions, for example is it always wrong to sexually abuse a child.

 

[F1fan]

Why blame a religion when it is humans who do the things?

Because believers make claims about their religions that aren't true, and they refuse to adjust their understanding. They believe due to what religions say. Ironically a good religion would teach to not believe in religions.

By what I see, it is mostly atheists/communists/the left who are anti-Semitic.

It's what you see? What are you "seeing" that is evidence of this. You do realize those three categories are not related, yes?

But, in any case, I think it is weird how any Christian could be anti-Semitic. Bible tells Christians are Jews. That is why it would be stupid and ignorant, if a Christian is anti-Semitic.

That is the failure of Christian leaders, and the vagueness of the Bible that allows such broad and evil interpretations. Heck, there are many conservative Christians who reject what jesus taught, so you tell us why Christianity and Christians have failed.

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, don’t boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21

What use it there in quoting the Bible when so many Christians disagree, and the more conservative Christians have immoral beliefs like racism (as in the KKK, a Christian organization), Nazis, both of the 1940's and into modern times, slavery, science denialism, like rejectiong climate change, and even think there will be an End Times, which affects their judgment? Sure, all these beliefs are the fault of individuals, but they were taught by other individuals by using the "authority of God" and the Bible to convince them. The question I have in the 21st century is why any person still believes in Christianity.

I think that should be asked from those who do immoral decisions. But, probably it is because they disagree with what is good and right and want something else.

If we observed Christians, and Muslims, and any other person who identifies as some religious ideology, behaving with an amzing moral consistency then observers could conclude some remarkable lessons that believers are learning that guides them well. But we don't. We see religious believers act good and bad, usually depending on the natural traits of maturity and personality.

So what's the purpose of Christianity? Salvation? That's a pretty far-fetched idea, and one only an indoctrinated person would believe. Do you have any factual and rational answers to my questions, that won't be biased by your religious indoctrination?

 

[Father Heathen]

The question is not "can they". It's "do they". And the answer for the most part is, no.

Actually, morality based on reason and compassion is vastly superior to "morality" based on arbitrary superstition, so you're wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually, morality based on reason and compassion is vastly superior to "morality" based on arbitrary superstition, so you're wrong.

I agree. I just as a skeptic consider vastly superior in the end subjective and without evidence.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

But all of the gods spoke through other humans, or other rather humans spoke through all the gods, and it all tends to be arbitrary, irrational, unsubstantiated nonsense; not a very solid basis for morality.

As for believers somehow being more honest, some of the most conniving, two-faced, deceitful, malicious, manipulative, hypocritical, selfish, sanctimonious snakes I've ever seen were Fundamentalist Christians.

 

[1213]

Because believers make claims about their religions that aren't true, and they refuse to adjust their understanding. They believe due to what religions say. Ironically a good religion would teach to not believe in religions.

Even if what the "religion" says is true?

You do realize those three categories are not related, yes?

It is amazing how often they seem to be related. But, maybe it is wrong to make generalizations from people I have seen.

That is the failure of Christian leaders, and the vagueness of the Bible that allows such broad and evil interpretations.

Bible allows people to read only small part of it. That doesn't make Bible guilty for that people misuse it.

What use it there in quoting the Bible

It is to show that the wrong actions don't really come from the Bible, but from the ignorant/evil people.

when so many Christians disagree, and the more conservative Christians have immoral beliefs like racism

How can a person be called a conservative, if he has rejected what is said in the Bible? Sounds more like a progressive person.

... science denialism, like rejectiong climate change,

Climate has changed as long as earth has existed. Interesting, if someone doesn't believe that. However, I would not call that immoral, if person doesn't believe something that can't be demonstrated to be true.

Do you believe the climate will change, if we just buy enough electric cars and so save the car industry, that seems to have invented the climate hysteria? Is it not disturbing that the solutions for all problems/crises in this world is more power and money for the rulers? Is it not at all suspicious?

and even think there will be an End Times, which affects their judgment?

And you know there will be no end times?

... I have in the 21st century is why any person still believes in Christianity.

I believe what is said in the Bible, because I think it's teachings are good, true and come true as said in it.

So what's the purpose of Christianity?

What is "Christianity"? In Biblical point of view Christian means a disciple of Jesus, and person is a disciples of Jesus, if he remains in word of Jesus.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

I want to do so, because I think Jesus and his teachings are great.

 

[1213]

in some limited capacity only. So much of life is situational and most moral rules can't hold up for everyone all the time. I can think of a few exceptions, for example is it always wrong to sexually abuse a child.

I think people can always explain why wrong is right, if they want. Doesn't mean they are correct. But it shows to me that moral is arbitrary if God doesn't define it.

 

[1213]

No ....

Individually, yes.
Universally, no

If there is no objective/universal moral, doesn't it make all moral irrelevant, because anyone can choose whatever they want, and there is no way to say which is the correct moral?

 

[Nakosis]

If there is no objective/universal moral, doesn't it make all moral irrelevant, because anyone can choose whatever they want, and there is no way to say which is the correct moral?

There are ways to encourage/enforce a commonality of moralism. Not to say one can't develop an individual set of morals but they will usually get crushed by a preponderance cultural/peer reinforcement of a common set of values. Everything from reading Aesop's Fables as a kid to Saturday morning cartoons to education, religious authority, movies, books etc... have come together to program a set of common morals within you according to what the society you find yourself in sees as acceptable.

The people who take it on themselves to be moral authorities have been manipulated/programmed in the same way.

There are issues when different cultures come together that have different moral programming. We get protests, riots and wars when cultures clash.

So imo, no there is no "right" set of morality. There is only what gets encouraged or enforced often on a subliminal level.

Our brains get wired/programmed throughout our entire life toward a set of morality which we come to accept as what ought to, according to us, be naturally accepted as what is right and what is wrong.

I know this because I have become aware of some of this programming causing my current moral standards. The "why" that I think certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

Could I change that? Possibly but why would I. It is my thinking after all even though I didn't chose it. Unless some critical external event causes a moral crisis, I'm happy with my set of morals I have because that is how, for the most part, I've been programmed.

My big influences have been Christianity and Western culture. Whatever commonality we may share likely comes from there.

 

[Nakosis]

All "golden rules" simply express an understanding that we are a social species, and that if we hope or expect to be treated (or not) in some fashion, we should expect to have to treat (or not) others in the same way. If I hope that someone will be there to help me when I stumble, then I ought to help someone who actually does stumble. If I hope people will not deliberately harm me, I would be wise not to deliberately harm anyone else.

The crux of it is very simple indeed: social animals depend on others of their kind. That word, "depend," is weighty indeed, but it is in the nature of what we are. Unfortunately, although we are indeed a social species, we are also able to default on our obligations to others for our own selfish reasons -- and that is the essence of immorality.

For some of us, not all.

For myself, I've never been able to find anyone to depend on. When I've tried, I've always been let down. Not saying it doesn't work for a lot of people, just that it doesn't coincide with everyone's experience. So my personal behavior doesn't depend on "golden rules" since it has never work out for me.

Nice if it would/had but being an independent loner has embedded itself into my personality. Although I'll say I have learned to fake dependence as that is what most people have come to expect.

 

[ChristineM]

For some of us, not all.

For myself, I've never been able to find anyone to depend on. When I've tried, I've always been let down. Not saying it doesn't work for a lot of people, just that it doesn't coincide with everyone's experience. So my personal behavior doesn't depend on "golden rules" since it has never work out for me.

Nice if it would/had but being an independent loner has embedded itself into my personality. Although I'll say I have learned to fake dependence as that is what most people have come to expect.

I've had the golden rule idea knocked out of me by Christians. So i know where you're coming from.
My view now is people have to earn my consideration.