• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Athiests have morals?

Gordian Knot

Being Deviant IS My Art.
Been awhile. Certainly cannot go back through all the posts of this topic. So maybe my question was answered. If so, would someone be kind enough to re-elaborate.

My question is this. Why do some people think that a person without a religious upbringing must be amoral or immoral? What is so impossible about learning morals independently of religion?
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
I have a survival instinct so I don't go around hurting people because chances are they, others or the society might hurt me back and that would reduce my well being and survival chances. I have a "help people" instinct because helping people increases my chances of survival because chances are they'll help me back. Christians have a survival instinct and don't go around hurting people because they believe a god says they shouldn't and that they'll survive happily forever if they behave like he says. The reason both me and Christians don't go around hurting people is because we want to survive as long as possible. Giving people the hope that they might survive happily forever gives them added incentive to not hurt others.
But still its only your belief that makes you do those things, what if there was no god, would you still do what you do ?.
 
Communism is, and I repeat for the last time, not a moral system. It was an attempted system of government. Just as monarchs, republics, direct democracies, dictatorships ect aren't moral systems.

Of course communism is a moral system. Communism has as much to do with morality as religion does. It was a utopian ideology that, at least in theory, tried to 'perfect' human nature. Creating a new morality was integral to communism.

But traditionally our pasts and histories will effect our morality. The moral systems in place have largely been cultural

Morality and religion are both cultural. Western culture is a product of Christianity, not only Christianity, but it is a major influence.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the superiority of religiously influenced values, just stating that the idea we can work out new values based on reason and rationality alone is not one without its risks and certainly hasn't been 'proved' to be superior.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
But still its only your belief that makes you do those things, what if there was no god, would you still do what you do ?.
It's my survival instinct that makes me do what I do not any "belief". God or no god, I would still have a survival instinct.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Of course communism is a moral system. Communism has as much to do with morality as religion does. It was a utopian ideology that, at least in theory, tried to 'perfect' human nature. Creating a new morality was integral to communism.
Marxism was yeah. And then communism in practice became totalitarian government control.

Morality and religion are both cultural. Western culture is a product of Christianity, not only Christianity, but it is a major influence.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the superiority of religiously influenced values, just stating that the idea we can work out new values based on reason and rationality alone is not one without its risks and certainly hasn't been 'proved' to be superior.
Would you rather live in England or Ethiopia right now? France or Iraq? Japan or Saudi Arabia?
 
Would you rather live in England or Ethiopia right now? France or Iraq? Japan or Saudi Arabia?

Malaysia or North Korea? Dubai or China during the cultural revolution? Israel or the Soviet Union?

Just saying you have to accept all forms of non-religious morality and put them into your calculations. Unfortunately, this takes a little shine off the 'stats'...
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Again, my argument holds, advocating subjectivity to get objectivity cannot be straightforwardly understood.

I don't think anybody should talk about objective morals, because it is a known and fundamental sin to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What you are doing is itself intensely sinful. You seek to know as fact what is good and evil, instead of leaving it a matter of opinion for the God the holy spirit to decide.
You do not seem to be familiar with moral theory as it has existed since the Greeks, or theological moral theory since the time of the Hebrews.

1. I did not suggest and specific moral that was objectively true. I made a point that the nature of morality in general is objective if God exists.
2. God does not chose morality from an external standard, nor does he invent it, his eternal nature defines what is morally true.
3. We are created to be moral agents, we are commanded to act upon correct morals, the bible lays out entire catalogues of moral duties. It is the exact opposite of sinful to be concerned with morality, it is God who command we be such. What you said does not even make sense.
4. Islam makes the exact same determinations. I believe they are merely copying other religions and Allah is an invented deity but the same moral theories Christianity holds about the nature of morality exist in Islam.
5. Your response may be the most unusual and irrational response I have seen in over 10,000 posts.
6. If God exist moral values and duties are objective. They are free from human opinion (thank God), eternal, true in all places, and for all things. You may not like this, you may think that sinful, yet it is necessarily true and your response is irrational.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Lot of words here. But not a whole lot of meaning. Proportions count. For example if there is a neighborhood where you had a 1 in 10 chance of being assaulted vs a neighborhood that had a 1 in 1,000 chance which one would be "safer"? Which one would be more moral? But what if that dangerous neighborhood that had a 1/10 chance only had 10,000 people. But the city, group, neighborhood ect that had a 1/1,000 chance had 5 million people then they would have more. The first group would have roughly 1,000 people assaulted. The second would also have about 5,000 people assaulted. Total number is 5x higher but it is still a safer group.
Proportions were not mentioned. Nor do they necessarily mean anything. If we only had two people on earth and both wanted to murder anyone they found we would have 100% even but doubt they could find each other to kill each other. I can construct hypotheticals to mean anything I want them to. What I can't do is create the fact that the 20th century was bloodier than all that proceeded it combined. Add to that that the rates themselves in almost every moral statistic there is show a sharp decline since the secular revolution in the 1950's US.

War has been made more fair over time. We are very good at killing but now we have rules that govern war. Prior there were no rules. We used to do as we pleased. This has very little to do with religion vs secularism and more to do with media coverage.
More fair, do you call irradiating two civilian population centers fair. War is not supposed to be fair, I was a soldier, I am a life long military historian, and work in the DOD. Everything we do is to widen the gap on unfairness. The only rules we have are about things that did not exist hundreds of years ago to require rules and very few follow the rules we have. Only the powerful side tries to follow rules, the other does everything possible. What in the world is fair or civil about flying passenger plains into office buildings or doing everything in their power to procure bombs who's only purpose is to poison. Islam is not even fighting a war Their methods have no possibility of victory) they are mere trying to hurt and kill without any strategic gain. It is pure hate.

And I'm sure you don't want to get into an abortion debate. It can be depressing but I don't see it as a bad thing if is early enough. We will have to agree to disagree beyond that.
What does early have to do with anything. No mater where you draw the line you simply invented it. What makes taking lives actually wrong is that we (secularists without cause) credit human life with inherent worth. The Christian does not know at what point this takes place but instead gambles on life and does not draw any lines out of thin air, the secular person has no idea how or when this occurs but gambles on death for the sake of self interested convenience. If you do not see anything wrong with killing our unborn one day before some arbitrary date then that is why this is so depressing.

Though there are several other ways to measure it. For example racism has gone down tremendously over the last few hundred years. Acceptance of other cultures has gotten more common. Crime has gone down significantly. The chances of you being killed when you leave your house or being raped if you walk down the street is far lower now than it was before. This idea of a golden era of moral upstanding citizenry is a fairy tale.
What? I use US facts because I live here, it is a very diverse nation, and it keeps accurate stats.

I have never see this nation as racially polarized in the last 30 years. Drug abuse is up, violence in schools is up, gang activity in schools is up, violent crime is up, gambling debts are way up, one parent or no parent homes have gone way up, ten pregnancy is up, 74% of those surveyed said we are in a moral decline, and that is despite a sharp rise of those who think there is no objective morality. I have posted hundreds of these before. Here are just a few.

The current prison population of over 2 million constitutes a growth of over 850% in the past 30 years.
From 1960 to 1990 violent crime rose 560%. F.B.I. Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennett http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/usadecline.html

Childhood obesity has more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among Adults: United States, 1999-2002. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


The porn industry rakes in an estimated $10 billion to $14 billion annually in the United States. The $4 billion that Americans spend on video pornography alone is more than the annual revenue of the NFL, the NBA or Major League Baseball. Dillon Fishman Arizona Daily Wildcat http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/133/03_1.html

60% of all web-site visits are sexual in nature. MSNBC /Stanford/Duquesne study, Washington Times Jan. 26, 2000;. http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/general/

A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978.

I can post these night and day.



1) That has nothing to do with religion. In fact I think that secularism was one of the driving forces that kept us safe in the cold war. If everyone simply believed that they would go to heaven after they died then why not destroy the world? Rapture is comming anyway. There are more than just a few who think this way now that are currently in our government's highest places.
Again what? The USSR was the primary proponent of the cold war and they were militantly secular. They eradicated all faith and posed the greatest threat to human survival in recorded history. Hitler primary motivations were secular and naturalistic and the great Christian nations are who stopped him from taking over the world. Russia helped but they flew our planes, drove our trucks, and shot our rifles.

2) I don't think abortion is wrong in the early stages. Many of our problems in society are caused by unwanted children. I would rather a child be aborted at the 6 week period rather than be born into an imoverished family that wouldn't love or care for it. I agree that abortion the best solution in many cases and it is my opinion to keep children if at all possible. But I am not going to judge someone else becaus of it.
The idea that you can invent a line and suggest that killing humans who have no say so one day before that line is simply another symptom of the disease I am describing.

3) How is this different than two? I think it is religions that claim truth that often warp it. The earth was created 6k years ago and evolution is a lie...right. Not saying you believe that but between secularism and religion which has a greater history of warping the truth?
It is certainly true that religion hijacks the word of God and acts contradictory to it but I am not defending religion. I am defending God and his word. The entire NT does not have a single verse than can be used to justify violence for any reason and the OT has never applied to non-Hebrews and to no one in 2000 years. No open ended commands to violence exist in the bible unlike the Quran. There is little truth in secularism to warp, it is a suppression of the truth.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
You do not seem to be familiar with moral theory as it has existed since the Greeks, or theological moral theory since the time of the Hebrews.

1. I did not suggest and specific moral that was objectively true. I made a point that the nature of morality in general is objective if God exists.
2. God does not chose morality from an external standard, nor does he invent it, his eternal nature defines what is morally true.
3. We are created to be moral agents, we are commanded to act upon correct morals, the bible lays out entire catalogues of moral duties. It is the exact opposite of sinful to be concerned with morality, it is God who command we be such. What you said does not even make sense.
4. Islam makes the exact same determinations. I believe they are merely copying other religions and Allah is an invented deity but the same moral theories Christianity holds about the nature of morality exist in Islam.
5. Your response may be the most unusual and irrational response I have seen in over 10,000 posts.
6. If God exist moral values and duties are objective. They are free from human opinion (thank God), eternal, true in all places, and for all things. You may not like this, you may think that sinful, yet it is necessarily true and your response is irrational.

Again, straightforwardness. Knowledge of good and evil is expressly forbidden, end of story.
 
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978.

That's the most fabricated set of statistics I have ever seen in my life. Do you actually believe it?:fearscream:

Jesus wept...
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I had replied to this once. I guess it didn't go through... ah well. This will probably be far less in depth than the original.
No problem that has happened to me too many times as well.


Just a quick question before we depart. In your opinion is sociology the study of opinions? And then off that is psychology the study of opinions?
It is the study of behaviors within groups. I am sure that is not all it is but in that respect yes it is an argument from popularity (maybe an argument from population would be a better way to state it but it comes down to the same thing).

Moral facts that are harmful are worse than no moral facts. The greatest evils in this world have been done under the name of "good" and "god" alike.
Well humanity abhors a moral vacuum. It will never occur that we lack moral codes, but it may be that we lack any moral truth behind those codes. However the worst evils done have been in the extermination of faith. Faith has it's fair share of violence but the masters were Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the like. Stalin alone killed more in a few decades than Christianity has killed in any form in 2000 years. And abortion eclipses all of them combined.

However how do we define what "god" has rooted? There is a problem we haven't come across yet. Even if i conceded to you all my arguments (I haven't for the record but for the sake of argument I bring this point) how do we determine right and wrong? It seems that it still is based off of opinion even more so as it isn't based on critical thinking and deep contemplation of these issues. It is rather your favorite god or aspects of a particular god that you would define as moral truth. So which god? And what aspects of that god? How would we determine this?
That is a far more complex issue. Christianity is built to run a believer not a state. I do not make many epistemological arguments because they would take a long time. Let me sum it up this way. Even a bumbling effort at identifying God's moral demands holds every advantage in every category over fumbling to find an objective moral truth that does not exist. Denying God is a total net loss in this context. However I do acknowledge that to identify and apply Godly morality would not be a smooth process for an entire society.

As a humanist I think that there are good and bad in people. There are great human flaws and there is great potential for good to be done. It takes digging and discipline to find it. No answer is easy and if it is easy then it usually isn't right. Or if it is it isn't worth much. You are caught in the christian concept of human nature as nothing but evil vile things. You said earlier you want to be bad. I get that. But if there were no god. For a hypothetical if there were no god and you were convinced of that would you rape your daughter? Would you harm a child? Would you murder someone else while looking them in the eye and KNOWING that you were hurting them needlessly? Or would you have a desire not to. Would you, dare say, even have a desire to sacrifice your own well being for your wife or children? Without entering god into the equation I bet you would.
But that can't be. No atom in our bodies has as moral component. Only with God and a soul or mind do we have moral properties. I agree that we have good and bad but only with God is that perfectly accounted for. Without God there is nothing to dig for. Either X is preferred or not preferred there is no ultimate fact of the matter to find. Christianity does not say we are nothing but vile creatures. It says we are of infinite worth despite whatever faults we have. I do not want to do those things you mention but I do want to do a host of others. It is not God the keeps me from doing them, it is the fact they are wrong because God exists that keeps me from doing them. Actually that is only part of it but that is the part that founds the rest. It is not that I want to murder someone needlessly it is that without a God need is irrelevant. Since the rest is the same let me make one last statement to short circuit them all. I did not say that I needed God to act morally, I said I need God for any moral duty to be based on objective foundations. What I want is not the issue. What is right or wrong is.

There are things beyond our opinion at play. Or do you assume temperament, biological implications and empathy are all opinions?
Well the feelings might not be but the actions that result from them are. Feelings are not the basis of law.

There is a degree of preference but there are components that go into that prefrence and why that prefernce is made. Opinions are not simply "opinions" and end of story. In certain cases they can be but in many cases they are not.
They are in multiplicative equations. If X x Y x Z = a law then if opinion is included at all the equation equals opinion. I think in this context that would be the same for additive equations as well.

For example I think that drunk drivers should be served even harsher sentences than what they serve now. Why do I have that opinion? Is it purely subjective conjecture? Its because I knew someone personally that was struck and killed by a drunk driver. I know first hand the damages and pain it causes. So its it purely from opinion or do I have reasons for my opinion? Is there something more than just a subjective take it or leave it opinion in this specific case.
Informed opinion and pure opinion the same in this context. If our preference is a factor in any part of that equation then it is no longer based in fact.
 

Midnight Rain

Well-Known Member
Proportions were not mentioned. Nor do they necessarily mean anything. If we only had two people on earth and both wanted to murder anyone they found we would have 100% even but doubt they could find each other to kill each other. I can construct hypotheticals to mean anything I want them to. What I can't do is create the fact that the 20th century was bloodier than all that proceeded it combined. Add to that that the rates themselves in almost every moral statistic there is show a sharp decline since the secular revolution in the 1950's US.
So we have established that you don't care about giving meaning to statistics or claims. Got it.
More fair, do you call irradiating two civilian population centers fair. War is not supposed to be fair, I was a soldier, I am a life long military historian, and work in the DOD. Everything we do is to widen the gap on unfairness. The only rules we have are about things that did not exist hundreds of years ago to require rules and very few follow the rules we have. Only the powerful side tries to follow rules, the other does everything possible. What in the world is fair or civil about flying passenger plains into office buildings or doing everything in their power to procure bombs who's only purpose is to poison. Islam is not even fighting a war Their methods have no possibility of victory) they are mere trying to hurt and kill without any strategic gain. It is pure hate.
In some cases. I was actually talking about how globilization has made unfavorable tactics negative in the eyes of the world economy. The UN and other such organizations have power to place sanctions on economies rather than direct conflict. Though this in and of itself could be stated as "less fair" .
What does early have to do with anything. No mater where you draw the line you simply invented it. What makes taking lives actually wrong is that we (secularists without cause) credit human life with inherent worth. The Christian does not know at what point this takes place but instead gambles on life and does not draw any lines out of thin air, the secular person has no idea how or when this occurs but gambles on death for the sake of self interested convenience. If you do not see anything wrong with killing our unborn one day before some arbitrary date then that is why this is so depressing.
Then I guess you will be depressed.
What? I use US facts because I live here, it is a very diverse nation, and it keeps accurate stats.

I have never see this nation as racially polarized in the last 30 years. Drug abuse is up, violence in schools is up, gang activity in schools is up, violent crime is up, gambling debts are way up, one parent or no parent homes have gone way up, ten pregnancy is up, 74% of those surveyed said we are in a moral decline, and that is despite a sharp rise of those who think there is no objective morality. I have posted hundreds of these before. Here are just a few.

The current prison population of over 2 million constitutes a growth of over 850% in the past 30 years.
From 1960 to 1990 violent crime rose 560%. F.B.I. Quantifying America's Decline by William J. Bennett http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/usadecline.html

Childhood obesity has more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity Among Adults: United States, 1999-2002. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


The porn industry rakes in an estimated $10 billion to $14 billion annually in the United States. The $4 billion that Americans spend on video pornography alone is more than the annual revenue of the NFL, the NBA or Major League Baseball. Dillon Fishman Arizona Daily Wildcat http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/133/03_1.html

60% of all web-site visits are sexual in nature. MSNBC /Stanford/Duquesne study, Washington Times Jan. 26, 2000;. http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/general/

A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978.

I can post these night and day.

So can I. I already posted two different links this thread. (or one this thread and another in another thread) talking about how the rate of murder, rape, violent crime in general, sexism, racism, ect have all gone down dramatically since the 60's (which is when the record started).

If we want to look at it beyond that lets take the middle ages vs now. Big difference.
Again what? The USSR was the primary proponent of the cold war and they were militantly secular. They eradicated all faith and posed the greatest threat to human survival in recorded history. Hitler primary motivations were secular and naturalistic and the great Christian nations are who stopped him from taking over the world. Russia helped but they flew our planes, drove our trucks, and shot our rifles.
The USSR removed religion because they wanted state worship society. Hitler used religion to get his work done so in no way was that secular. And which nations are you including as "Great Christian Nations" because I have a feeling you simply mean nations that may have had a majority of Christianity as the religion rather than ever being motivated for religious reasons.
The idea that you can invent a line and suggest that killing humans who have no say so one day before that line is simply another symptom of the disease I am describing.
Claiming truth without evidence and continued oppression and forcing of this ideology on others is a symptom of monotheistic totalitarianism. But thats just my opinion.
It is certainly true that religion hijacks the word of God and acts contradictory to it but I am not defending religion. I am defending God and his word. The entire NT does not have a single verse than can be used to justify violence for any reason and the OT has never applied to non-Hebrews and to no one in 2000 years. No open ended commands to violence exist in the bible unlike the Quran. There is little truth in secularism to warp, it is a suppression of the truth.

So long as you cut out everyone who has done wrong in the name of your god, as well as removing the old statesman of a god that supposedly never changes, then you can claim its perfect. Because no one has lived up to that standard. Good plan. Its a near perfect no true scotsman setup.
 
We have had secular morality for hundreds of years and there has still yet to be this massive decline in morality that was supposed to happen. The cop out is that "oh its coming" isn't valid.

The 20th century wasn't exactly a high point for human morality and progress. Or do you disagree?

Anyway there is a world of difference between your statement 'oh it's coming' and my actual statement 'we don't know what is coming'.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Of course communism is a moral system. Communism has as much to do with morality as religion does. It was a utopian ideology that, at least in theory, tried to 'perfect' human nature. Creating a new morality was integral to communism.



Morality and religion are both cultural. Western culture is a product of Christianity, not only Christianity, but it is a major influence.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for the superiority of religiously influenced values, just stating that the idea we can work out new values based on reason and rationality alone is not one without its risks and certainly hasn't been 'proved' to be superior.
What do you find risky about using reason and rationality alone?
 
Top