Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[Valjean]

Here's what I believe. I believe I don't know the answers to a lot of questions but I trust that the collective wisdom of many decades at least may approach some level, deeper than mine, of truth. And I think we are all in for a whole lot of surprises one day anyway.

Yet every culture is a repository of collective wisdom -- and no consistent wisdom or world-view has emerged.
The only methodology that has ever yeilded consistent, universally accepted results is science, with its reliance on observable, testable, objective facts.

 

[firedragon]

Like i asked for your link, that's the way it goes

At least could you give the description of the research study or a name? It's an interesting study and I would like to read it. If you don't have any information it's okay.

 

[firedragon]

The only methodology that has ever yeilded consistent, universally accepted results is science, with its reliance on observable, testable, objective facts.

Can you provide the data on it? Can you prove your statement scientifically?

If not, you fail your own standard.

 

[Kathryn]

Yet every culture is a repository of collective wisdom -- and no consistent wisdom or world-view has emerged.
The only methodology that has ever yeilded consistent, universally accepted results is science, with its reliance on observable, testable, objective facts.

Which are updated all the time. I mean, like ALL the time.

 

[1213]

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

If we assume your claim is true, we could ask, why is the morals not taught in the Bible belt area. Or, why doesn't "evolution" give the same information there as in the godless areas?

 

[1213]

God-belief is not meaningful?

Knowing God is real, doesn't necessary make one righteous, that is why belief that God is real is not very useful.

Why is God needed for life to exist

It seems life doesn't appear from dead non organic material on its own.

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

Jesus was not a communist, for example because he said: "…the laborer is worthy of his wages..." Luke 10:7. Socialists=communists think they have right to take share of other peoples wage.

 

[1213]

When are morals not taught?

In the cases when person for example steals. Although it could also be that it was taught, but the person just doesn't agree with it.

 

[1213]

If that were the case then why did the Nazi's work so hard to hide the holocausts from the rest of the world?

Because they wanted to avoid the coming judgment.

And then there is the uncomfortable fact that Nazi's were Christians.

Why do you think they were Christians?

Bible tells a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And person is truly a disciple of Jesus, when he remains in word of Jesus. I don't see any evidence that the Nazis did that. Therefore I don't see how any rational person could call them Christians.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
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

 

[Nakosis]

Because they wanted to avoid the coming judgment.

Why do you think they were Christians?

Bible tells a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And person is truly a disciple of Jesus, when he remains in word of Jesus. I don't see any evidence that the Nazis did that. Therefore I don't see how any rational person could call them Christians.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
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

Might want to verify whom your quotes are coming from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Off course they can, like many atheists / non-religious people demonstrate every day.

Why wouldn't they?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

In a nutshell...

Well being = good
Suffering = bad

In the broadest possible sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet every culture is a repository of collective wisdom -- and no consistent wisdom or world-view has emerged.
The only methodology that has ever yeilded consistent, universally accepted results is science, with its reliance on observable, testable, objective facts.

Well, that version of science is a cultural convention as there are other cultural understandings of what science is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

That doesn't follow.
Morality not being universally absolute, like say the gravitational pull of earth, doesn't mean that the only alternative is therefor arbitrary personal opinion.

Having said that, there are right and wrong answers to moral questions - given we agree on a few simple starting points.

Such a starting point could for example be that we are going to care about well-being.
Given that starting point, would it be moral to chop my arm off just for your entertainment?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, morals and ethics are the result of the social evolution required for the survival of the human family and tribe. Without morals and ethics humanity could not survive as a species. This is true of all higher primates, ie Great Apes, have simple forms of morals and ethics. needed to survive.

I agree, but I would also add that it goes further then just mere survival. Especially in the human species.
It also speaks to the quality of life - not just the mere continuation thereof.
One purpose of morality is indeed to ensure survival.
Another aspect of it is to maximize the quality of life itself. To maximize its chance to live good life, to prosper,... in all its aspects. To be free, to be healthy, to be happy, to enjoy security and safety, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No, it doesn't. It means that there is some type of base morality (a basic set of behaviors) that is pretty much inevitable when you are going to live a social life that depends on group cooperation AND for that group to prosper instead of fall apart and go extinct.

For example, a tribe that is not going to care about murdering their own, about each other's health, etc... is not going to last very long or thrive very well.
Morality, in its simplest form, concerns itself with behavior of individuals in context of group dynamics.

And there simply are good and bad ways to go about that which will inevitably lead to varying results.
An obvious one is indeed senseless killing as being very detrimental for group dynamics. This is why you will not find a single human tribe / society / civilization in the present, past and future, where no moral value is attached to senseless killing.

This is a behavior that simply can not be tolerated if the goal is for the group to survive and thrive.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any "higher power" or "higher source of morality", but instead simply with how the world works and the reality of group dynamics.

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

They nevertheless are, though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And when it is defined by people, it can be almost anything,

No.

like for example killing Jews. From Nazi point of view a morally good Nazi did so diligently.

Yes. And clearly the rest of the world did not agree.

Speaking of ethnic cleansing and genocide...
From the point of view of Jawhe / the Israelites in the old testament, it was also morally good to do the exact same to the amalakites etc.

So please, stop with the preaching and the pretending of having the moral high ground.
I can actually be consistent and present you with a reasonable argument against any form of genocide / ethnic cleansing - no matter the victims.

In the "moral" view of the "higher power" of abrahamic tradition, you can't. In that world, sometimes genocide / ethnic cleansing is a good thing. And that, for no other reason then the perceived authority commanding it. So no reasoning at all, no sensible argumentation. Instead, a mere "befehl ist befehl".
That's what I call moral bankruptcy. It's not moral reasoning. Instead, it's mere blind obedience to perceived authority.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Either way.... neither fits the idea that higher religiosity makes people more moral.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Either way.... neither fits the idea that higher religiosity makes people more moral.

But it does make a difference if religion makes people worse or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everyone can be "moral agents". Religious or not. But immoral behavior cannot be from the religious. They are not religious, but may pretend to be. That's my take on this.

Yeah. If X, then they aren't true Scottsmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think they were Christians?

Because they identified as such.
Your no-true-scottsman notwithstanding.