Do Athiests have morals?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Of course. But unless we're talking about sociopaths or the severely mentally retarded, I think most people are capable of reason and rationality.

Religion may very well provide an easy means to get people to accept a standard to judge morals by, but I don't think it's necessary. And I think it implies that most people (or at least religious-minded people) aren't capable of using reason and rationality to determine morality.

 

[Cephus]

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

But they don't and you know it. Lots of religious people out there make endless excuses for why these things aren't really the fault or the responsibility of religion. They try to rationalize their way out of feeling bad about it.

 

[Augustus]

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?

They just say that society has decided they are wrong so they are wrong. Some people get too caught up in trying to prove something is 'objectively wrong'. If enough people in society decide it is subjectively wrong, then it is wrong. That's the way society works.

If you disagree with society, then try to convince them to change their minds.

 

[Augustus]

But they don't and you know it. Lots of religious people out there make endless excuses for why these things aren't really the fault or the responsibility of religion. They try to rationalize their way out of feeling bad about it.

And other people, righty, point this out to them.

 

[Simplelogic]

They just say that society has decided they are wrong so they are wrong. Some people get too caught up in trying to prove something is 'objectively wrong'. If enough people in society decide it is subjectively wrong, then it is wrong. That's the way society works.

If you disagree with society, then try to convince them to change their minds.

But society has already spoken in this case. They claim it is right. What gives anyone the right to claim their actions to be wrong?

 

[Augustus]

But society has already spoken in this case. They claim it is right. What gives anyone the right to claim their actions to be wrong?

If you disagree with society, tell them why its wrong and hopefully you can change their views.

Look at the history of slavery. You convince people they are subjectively wrong rather than prove a hypothetical objective morality.

 

[Cephus]

And other people, righty, point this out to them.

It doesn't mean they'll listen though, nothing keeps a working mind from functioning like religion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Take the risk of thinking for yourself, (Hitch)

ironic quote for a guy who spent his life parroting word for word the identical Marxist/atheist propaganda he was fed as an adolescent

 

[Augustus]

It doesn't mean they'll listen though, nothing keeps a working mind from functioning like religion.

My point was that both sides have to take the rough with the smooth whether they like it or not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

ironic quote for a guy who spent his life parroting word for word the identical Marxist/atheist propaganda he was fed as an adolescent

I guess that means you didn't watch the video. You should because he answers your claim about North Korea.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My point was that both sides have to take the rough with the smooth whether they like it or not.

hmm.. trying to think of an atheist state which ran smoothly ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I guess that means you didn't watch the video. You should because he answers your claim about North Korea.

That was the hitch way, why create your own viewpoint when you learned someone else's already

what happened to thinking for yourself? what do you think?

 

[Cephus]

My point was that both sides have to take the rough with the smooth whether they like it or not.

Well, they should, that doesn't mean they actually do. We both know that many times, if a Christian does something wrong, there will be other Christians who will say he was never a Christian at all because Christians don't do that. I'm sure there are Muslims who do the same thing. Just because they should accept both the good and the bad, many refuse to do so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That was the hitch way, why create your own viewpoint when you learned someone else's already

what happened to thinking for yourself? what do you think?

That's the opposite of the Hitch way. You really should learn something about people before talking about them. His adolescence was spent at a Methodist boarding school. I'm sure they were really into Marxist ideology there.

I agree with what he had to say about North Korea, which is why I posted what I did. It's coming from someone who has been there. North Korea is not replacing free thinking reason and rationality with mandated atheism, rather they've replaced reason and rationality with state sponsored religion in which a dead guy is declared the head of state and must be worshipped as a god. How that's atheistic, I don't know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

hmm.. trying to think of an atheist state which ran smoothly ...

Can you think of any state which ran smoothly?

 

[Simplelogic]

If you disagree with society, tell them why its wrong and hopefully you can change their views.

But why are they wrong?

 

[Nakosis]

Do Atheists have a standard to judge morals

Of course. But unless we're talking about sociopaths or the severely mentally retarded, I think most people are capable of reason and rationality.

Religion may very well provide an easy means to get people to accept a standard to judge morals by, but I don't think it's necessary. And I think it implies that most people (or at least religious-minded people) aren't capable of using reason and rationality to determine morality.

I think reasoning and rationality require training. I don't think everyone is capable of "critical" reasoning or rationality. People can be easily guided by feelings and emotions. Likely more guided by feelings then rational when it comes to morals.

Ethics, seems to be used interchangeably with the word morals. Based on mutual benefit. Whatever rules/behavior we agree to accept, we both gain something from the agreement.

Sometimes my "benefit" is based on my feelings and emotions. So, yeah we can probably work something out. Just don't know if we can come up with something that is going to be universally agreed on.

Maybe something very high level? Like what?

As long as it remains mutually beneficial maybe. If it's no longer beneficial to me, I'm not likely to continue to honor it.

 

[Nakosis]

But society has already spoken in this case. They claim it is right. What gives anyone the right to claim their actions to be wrong?

Not much. We feel it's wrong. Maybe argue to reduce the transmission of STDs.

You can of course try to enforce what you feel is right on others.

 

[ArtieE]

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?

Because they hurt the child. We evolved a survival instinct. Hurting others often leads to others hurting us. This reduces our chances of survival. Hurting others is illogical.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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'...

Or we can look at secular governments based on democracy. Because a religious government that is a democracy isn't the same thing as a religious government that is a dictatorship.

Either way the argument is that we have seen secular morality work. We have seen it in action for a long period of time and so far so good. I personally haven't murdered anyone since giving up religion. In fact I feel I've been a more moral person since.