Do Athiests have morals?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

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.

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.

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.



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 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.

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.

Having discussed abortion with you before, I will point out again that Christians do not seem to be any more moral than anyone else, given that the statistics show that they get abortions just as much as anyone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No problem that has happened to me too many times as well.


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).

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.

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.

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.

Well the feelings might not be but the actions that result from them are. Feelings are not the basis of law.

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.

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.

How?

 

[Cephus]

What do you find risky about using reason and rationality alone?

Because you can't get to gods by reason and rationality alone. It isn't possible. Since they are emotionally attached to the idea of there being gods, they don't dare reject blind faith, otherwise they have nothing at all.

 

[Augustus]

What do you find risky about using reason and rationality alone?

The fact that humans are neither particularly rational nor particularly reasonable, yet have over inflated opinions about how rational and reasonable they are.

Many people seem to make the assumption that rejecting religion as a basis for anything will automatically lead to the kind of warm, fuzzy liberal values that they hold dear. I think this view is based on faith, rather than reason, and that people should accept there is a realistic chance of something they find less favourable appearing.

We know that logic and reason led to at least one totalitarian ideology after all. People might say 'but their logic and reasoning was WRONG! So they weren't really rational...' But, assuming we will get wiser and stop making such mistakes is the least rational assertion of the lot.

 

[ArtieE]

What do you find risky about using reason and rationality alone?

Many people are neither naturally moral nor are they rational enough to figure out by themselves what is or isn't moral behavior. We need religions to command them and explain to them how to behave.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's been Constitutionally secular, I don't know that it's been necessarily secular in practice though.

Was the morality of the ancient Greece for example dictated by gods? Or even Rome? Or did they get by? In the west it wasn't theisticly dictated till the Christian church and then that just went to south so quickly. The Spanish inquisition, witch hunts, crusades, ect.

But the age of enlightenment brought about change that was more positive. Then we had the backlash against the enlightenment. But every time we look in history of where we have a surge or change from less religiously dominated, not necessarily less religious, to a more secular society we see change for the better. There are exceptions. The most notable being USSR but that wasn't a social move to the secular but a totalitarian dictatorship forcefully removing religion as it saw it as a threat.

And the US government for example has had no dictated religious morality, was founded by several deists, and since has had a somewhat unsuccessful run of separation of church and state. In most cases where religious law or reason has made its way into the government it has proven to be immoral by secular reasoning.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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'.

I do think that the 20th century has made the most progress in terms of humanism in several hundred years. So I do disagree. I think that more needs to be done but religion has never been the answer.

We don't know whats coming but secular morality isn't something brand new. It isn't some grand experiment we started last year.

 

[Cephus]

Was the morality of the ancient Greece for example dictated by gods? Or even Rome? Or did they get by? In the west it wasn't theisticly dictated till the Christian church and then that just went to south so quickly. The Spanish inquisition, witch hunts, crusades, ect.

I don't think the ancient Greeks were burning heretics at the stake if that's what you meant. They didn't have a particularly secular society, they were still looking for signs and portents from the gods, but so far as I know, they weren't out killing the non-religious or the otherly-religious among them.

But the age of enlightenment brought about change that was more positive. Then we had the backlash against the enlightenment. But every time we look in history of where we have a surge or change from less religiously dominated, not necessarily less religious, to a more secular society we see change for the better. There are exceptions. The most notable being USSR but that wasn't a social move to the secular but a totalitarian dictatorship forcefully removing religion as it saw it as a threat.

The point of communism is to guarantee the adherence to the state. Religion gets in the way of that, it splits the loyalties of the people. That is the *ONLY* reason that religion was attacked in the USSR, not because Stalin hated religion, not because communism hates religious belief, only because religion causes problems with state loyalty. In fact, Stalin ended up bringing back some of the churches after communism had taken hold.

And the US government for example has had no dictated religious morality, was founded by several deists, and since has had a somewhat unsuccessful run of separation of church and state. In most cases where religious law or reason has made its way into the government it has proven to be immoral by secular reasoning.

Recently, that's because it's much easier to appeal to the religious beliefs of the people when trying to get elected than it is to stick to actual political topics and promises that might be difficult to actually get through the political process. When you can refer to imaginary friends and say "vote for me, I'm on your side", you get votes. It's a masking technique.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We need religions to command them and explain to them how to behave.

Sounds a bit military to me.

 

[Augustus]

But the age of enlightenment brought about change that was more positive. Then we had the backlash against the enlightenment. But every time we look in history of where we have a surge or change from less religiously dominated, not necessarily less religious, to a more secular society we see change for the better. There are exceptions. The most notable being USSR but that wasn't a social move to the secular but a totalitarian dictatorship forcefully removing religion as it saw it as a threat.

You can't ignore the exceptions though, especially if the exceptions resulted in 50-100 million deaths. A move away from religious values to totalitarianism is just as valid as one to liberal Western democracy.

Religious people have to accept the Crusades, the inquisition, the Taliban and ISIS after all.

Moves to secularism can bring real benefits, they can also bring real harms. No sense in denying it.

 

[Nakosis]

Having discussed abortion with you before, I will point out again that Christians do not seem to be any more moral than anyone else, given that the statistics show that they get abortions just as much as anyone else.

Do you believe women who get an abortion are committing an immoral act?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you believe women who get an abortion are committing an immoral act?

No.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't ignore the exceptions though, especially if the exceptions resulted in 50-100 million deaths. A move away from religious values to totalitarianism is just as valid as one to liberal Western democracy.

Religious people have to accept the Crusades, the inquisition, the Taliban and ISIS after all.

Moves to secularism can bring real benefits, they can also bring real harms. No sense in denying it.

Any change has costs and benefits. I suppose it depends on your purpose in deciding whether the costs are worth the benefits.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many people are neither naturally moral nor are they rational enough to figure out by themselves what is or isn't moral behavior. We need religions to command them and explain to them how to behave.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

[Nakosis]

No.

So, Christian women who get abortions are not immoral.
I get that you're probably thinking to judge them by their own standards. That I think just gives their moral standards credibility.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure I agree with that.

People are born with personality traits. Makes babies unique and different. Those traits affect how we feel and I believe this does affect the morality we develop. A lot of other things go into its development as well. Culture, experience.

In some cases I know the source of my morals. In some cases it is based on feelings of which I may not be able to pinpoint the exact source.

I think religion provides an easy means to get people to accept or enforce a standard to judge morals by.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What do you find risky about using reason and rationality alone?

nothing, they overwhelmingly lead to belief in God, what has proven risky, as in USSR, China, N Korea is replacing free thinking reason and rationality with mandated atheism..

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, Christian women who get abortions are not immoral.
I get that you're probably thinking to judge them by their own standards. That I think just gives their moral standards credibility.

They're not, in my opinion. And maybe you're right.

I was explaining in light of Robin's point of view that Christians are morality superior when it comes to abortion because they apparently just assume life begins at conception so every single fetus is considered a precious life not to be aborted, while secularists "gamble on death for the sake of self interested convenience." That just doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Simplelogic]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Thankfully I do believe that most Atheist have morals. Though I don't believe morality to be congruent with the concept of evolution or the chaos theory. Morals are usually defined by the region and culture and is predicated on there being right action vs wrong action. Of course many would argue that this is inherit in all humans. However I strongly disagree. I have personally been to places where child rape was customary and accepted morally by society. So the age old question is "where do morals come from?" I have yet to hear an Atheist give a logical explanation for why one human can tell another that he/she is wrong. Even concerning the aforementioned child-rape case. How can an Atheist tell these people that they are wrong?

 

[SkepticThinker]

nothing, they overwhelmingly lead to belief in God, what has proven risky, as in USSR, China, N Korea is replacing free thinking reason and rationality with mandated atheism..