Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[mikkel_the_dane]

That explains much.

Have you ever observed, or even seen a documentary on, social animal behaviour?

Why? Because groups of early modern humans had to gather together in moral trust before religion could be invented.

Evidence of that please.

 

[Valjean]

How do you know it is not true?

The burden of proof is on you, the claimant. Belief in any particular thing is logically deferred if there is little or no evidence of the claim.

I don't think it is meaningful/useful to prove God exists. I believe God exists, because I don't think Bible or life would exist without Him.

God-belief is not meaningful? If the existence of God, like the existence of leprechauns, can't be demonstrated, isn't the reasonable position to defer belief?
Didn't life exist long before there was any Bible? Didn't it exist long before humans existed? Why is God needed for life to exist, or the Bible? People have been writing scripture for all kinds of religion for thousands of years -- people, not gods.

They seem to act and speak like communists.

What do you think a communist is? Aren't communists intensely social, coöperative, and égalitarian? Wasn't Jesus'band of disciples a commune?

Only if they ignore vast part of it. Anything can be interpreted like that, if read like that way.

No, most works are consistent and non-contradictory. The majority of the Bible is the Old Testament, with a warlike, cruel God, and several glaring factual errors.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I don't believe that. For example because when morals are not taught, people seem to revert to non moral state.

Not remotely true. Check out prison population, crime statistics, incidence of teen pregnancy, incidence of sti, incidence of rape, incidence drug taking.

All higher in the bible belt areas of America

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The burden of proof is on you, the claimant. Belief in any particular thing is logically deferred is there is little or no evidence of the claim.

God-belief is not meaningful? If the existence of God, like the existence of leprechauns, can't be demonstrated, isn't the reasonable position to defer belief?
...

Do you got any proof or evidence for that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not remotely true. Check out prison population, crime statistics, incidence of teen pregnancy, incidence of sti, incidence of rape, incidence drug taking.

All higher in the bible belt areas of America

Well, it could be correlated or caused. But I don't know that. Do you?

 

[blü 2]

This indicates that there is always some higher source for morality and that it is not evolved.

Interestingly I don't think my morals are programmed by culture.

Ah, it's very likely that you're wrong both times.

First, we know from experiments that humans are born with evolved moral tendencies ─ I summarized a report of one such experiment here >Atheists acknowledging historical Jesus' goodness</

The tendencies are dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group and a sense of self-worth through self-denial.

Second, the manners of relating to other people ─ family, relatives, neighbours, strangers, older and younger people, males and females, authority figures (teachers, doctors, bosses, police &c) ─ and to life milestone observations ─ coming of age, pairing, birth, death, other celebrations and remembrances ─ are largely learnt

 

[Nakosis]

This indicates that there is always some higher source for morality and that it is not evolved.

I dont see them as higher or better, just that they change over time.

Interestingly I don't think my morals are programmed by culture.

Yes, most of this occurs at a subconscious level.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Atheism is probably better for achieving morality than theism, particularly monotheism.

But rules-following is a very poor parameter for morality. The alternatives are far more reliable and useful.

There is no substitute for discernment.

As for religiosity... we would have to establish first what counts as a (proper?) religion. Some movements that insist on calling themselves by that name go out of their way to stymie the ability of discerning what is moral... usually by insisting that we should accept some sort of hypothetical higher power as a rules-giver not to be questioned.

Religion proper as I understand it would insist on doing the opposite and cultivating moral discernment instead. That must come from personal perception and reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism is probably better for achieving morality than theism, particularly monotheism.

But rules-following is a very poor parameter for morality. The alternatives are far more reliable and useful.

There is no substitute for discernment.

Atheism has nothing to do with morality. It is the lack of belief/disbelief in gods. As in regards to morality nothing follows from that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism has nothing to do with morality. It is the lack of belief/disbelief in gods. As in regards to morality nothing follows from that.

Atheism amounts to refusal to be distracted by arguably the greatest known obstacle to morality, so I have to disagree.

 

[AppieB]

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.

Obviously yes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism amounts to refusal to be distracted by arguably the greatest known obstacle to morality, so I have to disagree.

No, objective morality, which is the problem you are refering to, has nothing to do with gods as in can be found in non-theistic ideologies.
So no, atheism doesn't mean that a given person doesn't believe in objective morality as such. It just means the person doesn't believe in the theistic versions.

 

[Kathryn]

Not remotely true. Check out prison population, crime statistics, incidence of teen pregnancy, incidence of sti, incidence of rape, incidence drug taking.

All higher in the bible belt areas of America

Actually this is not true. Yes, the incidence of teen pregnancy is higher in bible belt states (so is poverty and African American stats). But the incidence of rape and drug taking is all over the place, not just in "the bible belt." Sorry, didn't check the others. Oh wait, I did check the STD rate and it's also all over the place.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, objective morality, which is the problem you are refering to,

Is it? I am not seeing that. How did you reach that conclusion.

has nothing to do with gods as in can be found in non-theistic ideologies.

Deontology is what I was talking about. Abrahamic deontology is probably the greatest hindrance to morality in the whole of human history.

So no, atheism doesn't mean that a given person doesn't believe in objective morality as such.

As it happens, I agree. But in recent months/years others have made me realize that depending on how you define the terms and expectations "objectivity" may actually be anathema to morality itself.

Functional morality can't help but feel the need to consider the circunstances and the subjects of each moral situation. Awareness of facts, including specific and transitory facts, is a prime requirement for moral action.

It just means the person doesn't believe in the theistic versions.

Which is a big advantage from the get-go when we are surrounded by Christians and Muslims.

But sure, it is not an assurance. Morality requires effort, rational analysis, and empathy.

 

[wellwisher]

A religious person by believing in a higher power has an extra way to self censor, even when nobody is watching. If you do not believe in a higher power that sees all, you can pretend when people are watching, and cheat if nobody is watching, since who will know?

A good example is the internet where one can become anonymous. In this site, the least tolerant are the Atheists. They are always on the attack and cannot live and let live. Those Atheists who vote D, are more likely to lie or promote deception. They are part of a propaganda group who all recite together. You are not obligated to tell the truth or even admit the truth, since you are anonymous. Most will not say the same things to people's faces, since the push back can become real; two faces will not confront one face. Religious people are more vulnerable having one face. They are more honest and easy to bully, since another face is not an option, if it is deceptive.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually this is not true. Yes, the incidence of teen pregnancy is higher in bible belt states (so is poverty and African American stats). But the incidence of rape and drug taking is all over the place, not just in "the bible belt." Sorry, didn't check the others. Oh wait, I did check the STD rate and it's also all over the place.

The pew stats i checked a couple of years ago confirm what i wrote, otherwise i wouldn't have written it

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it? I am not seeing that. How did you reach that conclusion.

...

Here is an example from philosophy - Objectivism by Ayn Rand. It claims to be objective and that morality is derivied from an objective fact, namely that the highest moral vaule to any person is the person themselves.
It is no more objective than morality from theism.

 

[AppieB]

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.

I think you're equivocating 'morality' with 'following the rules'. Morailty is doing the right thing (whaterever that means) for the sake of doing good. Not because there might be some punishment. Just "following the rules" has nothing to with morality.

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 think it's (almost) impossible to be "righteous" all the time. We are not perfect, whether you're a theist or an atheist. What you are describing is not relative morality, but hypocrisy. And it happens to the best of us.
Morality is based on preference, value, opinion etc and therefore is subjective at its foundation. That doesn't make it relative.
A morality by God is not objective either. That is what most people don't seem to get.

 

[Kathryn]

The pew stats i checked a couple of years ago confirm what i wrote, otherwise i wouldn't have written it

I'm just saying that I just checked on it and it is not true now. I checked on very recent stats per capita.

 

[AppieB]

A religious person by believing in a higher power has an extra way to self censor, even when nobody is watching. If you do not believe in a higher power that sees all, you can pretend when people are watching, and cheat if nobody is watching, since who will know?

A good example is the internet where one can become anonymous. In this site, the least tolerant are the Atheists. They are always on the attack and cannot live and let live.

I beg to differ.

Those Atheists who vote D, are more likely to lie or promote deception. They are part of a propaganda group who all recite together. You are not obligated to tell the truth or even admit the truth, since you are anonymous. Most will not say the same things to people's faces, since the push back can become real; two faces will not confront one face.

Now you're just slandering and painting all atheists with a broad brush. There is no need for that and it's obviously not true.