Do Athiests have morals?

[DrTCH]

Some do, some don't. No need to over-generalize. I have found, nonetheless that most atheists CAN spell.

Incidentally, though most folks seem to consider atheism a complete rejection of all faith and religion...it LITERALLY means a lack of belief...or acceptance of theism...and I have known some folks in this general "boat" who still embrace some form of spirituality...not, just--say--a Judeo-Christian monotheistic deity....and perhaps not organized religion. I find myself very sympathetic to this life-stance. Organized religions have had a LOT to answer for in the way of barbaric acts and intolerance, through the centuries.

 

[Caligula]

The first thing I do to dismantle the view that morals come from the Bible is to ask how does one compare between two or more immoral actions. How would one know which immoral action is worst? If you are able to establish that one action is worse than another, without making appeal to the Bible, you must surely be able to establish the morality of an act in the first place, by using the same method you used to compare.

In other words I get my morals by the same means a religious person establishes that pedophilia is worse than stealing.

The thing is that now, most of the religious people I argue with have a different approach: God placed the moral sense in all of us. We can all be moral, but without "receiving" God we can not be morally accomplished, whatever that means. The only approach I could take was to argue the free-will gift, but that takes me to other murky grounds.

 

[joshua3886]

I can't speak for a group of people who's only definition is "no God(s) exist". I have morals and I am an atheist. I base my morals on my own logic and critical thinking. It's a pretty simple concept of using your brain to figure out how to live your life that many religious people can't grasp.

 

[1robin]

I can't speak for a group of people who's only definition is "no God(s) exist". I have morals and I am an atheist. I base my morals on my own logic and critical thinking. It's a pretty simple concept of using your brain to figure out how to live your life that many religious people can't grasp.

Here is the huge problem with that. We can't have 6 billion individual nations with unique laws. When making laws for more than yourself then common standards need to exist independent from opinion (only with God do they). Plus many times on group must act on or react to another. For example if you had to ask a mother to risk her sons to stop Hitler your moral preference just will not do. Mothers want to know they lost their sons to stop something actually wrong not something out of fashion with you.

Let me ask: Is torturing a little child for fun actually wrong or just socially unpopular at the moment?

 

[Nakosis]

Let me ask: Is torturing a little child for fun actually wrong or just socially unpopular at the moment?

It's immoral for me, obviously not immoral for others.

Might makes right. Fortunately for me and those who have a common morality, there are enough of us to enforce our morality.

Power of enforcement decides what is moral for the group. Even with God. God's morality only matters if it is enforced.

If a moral law/code is not enforced, why should we be concerned about it?

Might is the only determination of group morals.

 

[Nakosis]

I can't speak for a group of people who's only definition is "no God(s) exist". I have morals and I am an atheist. I base my morals on my own logic and critical thinking. It's a pretty simple concept of using your brain to figure out how to live your life that many religious people can't grasp.

Of course you have morals. It is silly to think otherwise. The question I think is more about group morals isn't it?

Do Atheists have a basis for group morals. I think probably not. Certainly you could contrive something. But as a group, to get every Atheist to agree and enforce?

Being an Atheist is not a basis to develop a moral code. The common element is a lack of a common element (God).

 

[Harikrish]

Do atheists have morals?
Dawkins a self declared atheists believes morality is acceptable if it is the right kind.

Dawkins: "The absolute morality that the religious person might profess would include what, stoning people for adultery, death for apostasy, punishment for breaking the Sabbath; these are all things which are religiously based absolute moralities.

I don’t think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought-out, reasoned, argued, discussed—based upon, almost say—intelligent design. Can we not design our society which has the sort of morality, the sort of society we want to live in?"

 

[Cephus]

Here is the huge problem with that. We can't have 6 billion individual nations with unique laws. When making laws for more than yourself then common standards need to exist independent from opinion (only with God do they). Plus many times on group must act on or react to another. For example if you had to ask a mother to risk her sons to stop Hitler your moral preference just will not do. Mothers want to know they lost their sons to stop something actually wrong not something out of fashion with you.

You don't even get a single standard with God either, that's why there are more than 40,000 sects of Christianity, all of whom think God wants different things. Luckily, for those of us who live in reality, we realized that standards are rarely ever eternal, things do change as societies change. You might not like that but that's the way it is.

Let me ask: Is torturing a little child for fun actually wrong or just socially unpopular at the moment?

Is slavery actually wrong or just socially unpopular at the moment? It depends on when you ask Christians, they have justified slavery or hated slavery at various times in their history.

 

[1robin]

You don't even get a single standard with God either, that's why there are more than 40,000 sects of Christianity, all of whom think God wants different things. Luckily, for those of us who live in reality, we realized that standards are rarely ever eternal, things do change as societies change. You might not like that but that's the way it is.

You condemn God but indict men. God's morals are the exact same, your talking about moral epistemology (how we come to know morality, not moral ontology (the actual nature of morality). I don't care if none of the 40,000 sects got every moral hey believe in wrong that has no impact on what God's morality is. What a thing is does not depend on how I come to know it or even if no one knows what it is. Pluto was an objective solar body before anyone had ever heard of it.

God's nature determines what morality is and his nature does not change. His commands are merely reflections of his nature. I could have predicted your ontology epistemology confusion and I will predict the next misstep you would have taken and respond before hand. God's moral nature never change but his commands could. Moral commands have two parties but his nature only one. We change and so the exact same moral nature may produce two rules. The exact same way we teach kids to do one thing and then another when they get older but retain the same nature ourselves (in this sense anyway). For example don't eat pork was a rule given when no reliable way to cook it enough to kill its parasites existed but that rule went away when we could but God never changed.

As for denominations having different ideas. 90% of denominations believe 90% of the same things. The differences are usually about procedure not morality anyway. Having a piano in church or not is not really a moral dilemma but a procedural quirk. However it does not matter what or how many groups believe in differing things the nature of the thing (morality in this case) would be unaffected. Murder would be just as wrong even if no human on earth believed it was given God. The objectivity of a concept does not in any way depend on the awareness of what the objective fact is.

Is slavery actually wrong or just socially unpopular at the moment? It depends on when you ask Christians, they have justified slavery or hated slavery at various times in their history.

That one is a little complex semantically .

Chattel slavery is objectively wrong but voluntary servitude was permissible. God wanted neither but like divorce he did allow things because of our sin. Their was no welfare in the bronze age and slavery was universal. God created the most benevolent slavery laws on earth at the time. I am getting a head of myself. The word slavery does not appear in the bible as written. You first need to look up the words that were translated as slavery and see what they meant. Fortunately I have debated this issue many times.

1. The bible words translated as slavery never mean chattel slavery.
2. The word slavery in modern times is loaded with 20th century baggage that does not apply to the ANE.
3. The bible's wording I similar to servitude but can range from voluntary to permanent in extremely rare cases but never chattel slavery.
4. The only records that survive are all of voluntary debt slavery. A man would find himself in dept. He would voluntarily agree to serve a man who would pay off his entire debt. The man had property rights, could marry and have a family, was given a home and food and had legal protections. Even if his debt was not worked off he went free after six years anyway. This was biblical servitude as practiced in general but there were more harsh types.
5. One was war prisoners. At that time the normal action was to kill them all or let them roam around preying on their neighbors for food etc.... Refuge laws and the UN did not exist in the ANE.
6. Another was one that is not mentioned much but is when a person who already owned a slave would sell them. Being foreigners freedom would have caused the same problems as the above. No doubt these occurred but were so scare no record of them survives.

Let me give a few more comments and be done here.

1. Slaves could legally escape at any time.
2. It was illegal to turn them in (contrast that with Babylon which was the exact opposite).
3. They could live in any tribes land in Israel which not even the Hebrews could do.

Summary:
Slavery was allowed by God because our sins and our capabilities at that time made it the best solution for a terrible problem. It was not what we think of as slavery. In modern times the most Christian nation on earth is the only example of a significant nation self condemning Slavery. It was defended by a few rich Christian politicians and senior officers in the south but the South's soldiers were not fighting for slavery but for the state's right to make up their own minds (which is what we fought the revolution for), and 300,00 Christians died to set men they never met free. Find another example of that in history.


If you think a single immoral act is actually wrong it takes God to make it so.

 

[1robin]

It's immoral for me, obviously not immoral for others.

So the Nazis did nothing wrong and you would not have sent the US to stop them because whatever a person does is right?

Might makes right. Fortunately for me and those who have a common morality, there are enough of us to enforce our morality.

Let me ask this one then (since you unbelievably said might makes right which is impossible to begin with). If aliens land tomorrow and say we are now their food source and come for your family will you willingly allow that their might makes that action right? I would bet that you like every other non-theist in existence will start crying out with every objective moral idea they can think of but who knows you may be the one human on earth who actually acts like preference and morality are equal.

Power of enforcement decides what is moral for the group. Even with God. God's morality only matters if it is enforced.

That is impossible. What about a trident makes a law correct? Might may make a law enforceable but it can't make anything right.

If a moral law/code is not enforced, why should we be concerned about it?

Enforced and right are two completely different issue.

Might is the only determination of group morals.

No might makes ethical preferences enforceable to an extent. Christianity is full of those that would not bow to force and died for what was right, in spite of people who believed as you. Your horrific foundation for morality is far too easy of a target to feel like I have accomplished anything to tear apart so I will leave it here.


One final question. Islam was more powerful than Hinduism over the course of several centuries. They enacted the greatest genocide in human history against the Indians. Was that right because of their might?

 

[Cephus]

You condemn God but indict men. God's morals are the exact same, your talking about moral epistemology (how we come to know morality, not moral ontology (the actual nature of morality). I don't care if none of the 40,000 sects got every moral hey believe in wrong that has no impact on what God's morality is. What a thing is does not depend on how I come to know it or even if no one knows what it is. Pluto was an objective solar body before anyone had ever heard of it.

You're missing the entire point. You have produced no more reason for me to take your claims about God seriously than anyone else has. Why should I believe anything you have to say about God when you have not demonstrated that you have any way of actually knowing anything about God beyond your own empty and blind faith in the matter? You're just ascribing characteristics to God which you cannot actually show that God actually has. It's no more valid than you ascribing characteristics to Jar Jar Binks. You can sit around and tell us that God wants this and God wants that, God thinks this and God thinks that, but until you can actually show us how you achieved this knowledge and didn't just make it up or take someone else's word for it, then all you're doing is blowing hot air. You're just making unsupported claims. I don't care about your claims, I care about what is actually true and the only way for you to prove any of this is actually true is to produce evidence. You can't do that so why should I or anyone else listen to you?

 

[1robin]

You're missing the entire point. You have produced no more reason for me to take your claims about God seriously than anyone else has. Why should I believe anything you have to say about God when you have not demonstrated that you have any way of actually knowing anything about God beyond your own empty and blind faith in the matter? You're just ascribing characteristics to God which you cannot actually show that God actually has. It's no more valid than you ascribing characteristics to Jar Jar Binks. You can sit around and tell us that God wants this and God wants that, God thinks this and God thinks that, but until you can actually show us how you achieved this knowledge and didn't just make it up or take someone else's word for it, then all you're doing is blowing hot air. You're just making unsupported claims. I don't care about your claims, I care about what is actually true and the only way for you to prove any of this is actually true is to produce evidence. You can't do that so why should I or anyone else listen to you?

I am not having a theological debate. I am not trying to convince you what God's morals are. I am making a deductive argument in the form of an if then statement. If God exists then objective morality exists (even if no one knew what it was). If you think anything is actually morally wrong then it requires a transcendent moral law giver to make that true. I am stating conditional facts not a persuasive argument for God or his moral commands.

I am not talking about Thor or Ra obviously. I am talking about what is true of the Christian concept of God. That results in an if that God exists then irrevocably objective morality does. I am not sitting around telling you what he wants, what to do, what I do, or what the bible says we should do. I am stating deductive inevitabilities about the nature of morality given God or without God.

You do realize this is one of the most formidable scholastic arguments relating to morality in existence don't you. You act as if I made this up instead of the most brilliant men in thousand of years of history.

 

[Cephus]

I am not having a theological debate. I am not trying to convince you what God's morals are. I am making a deductive argument in the form of an if then statement. If God exists then objective morality exists (even if no one knew what it was). If you think anything is actually morally wrong then it requires a transcendent moral law giver to make that true. I am stating conditional facts not a persuasive argument for God or his moral commands.

Which unfortunately really doesn't get you anywhere. You can also say that if morality-giving pixies exist than objective morality exists. Sure, it's a tautology. It doesn't mean anything though. If Harry Potter exists than spells for levitation exist. Whoopie!

You do realize this is one of the most formidable scholastic arguments relating to morality in existence don't you. You act as if I made this up instead of the most brilliant men in thousand of years of history.

No, it's a really poor argument. It suggests that a character which cannot be demonstrated, that has characteristics which cannot be demonstrated, if it actually exists, which there is no reason to think that it does, might have those characteristics that were just made up to begin with. If that's the most formidable argument you've got, give up.

 

[McBell]

I am not trying to convince you what God's morals are.

One wonders who it is you are trying to convince?

I am making a deductive argument in the form of an if then statement.

Fair enough.

If God exists then objective morality exists (even if no one knew what it was).

Bold empty claim.
Even using your "if/then" approach.

If you think anything is actually morally wrong then it requires a transcendent moral law giver to make that true.

Bold empty claim.

I am stating conditional facts not a persuasive argument for God or his moral commands.

No, you have presented bold empty claims.

I am not talking about Thor or Ra obviously. I am talking about what is true of the Christian concept of God.

No, you are talking about what is true of YOUR concept of God.

That results in an if that God exists then irrevocably objective morality does.

You have not demonstrated this.

I am not sitting around telling you what he wants, what to do, what I do, or what the bible says we should do. I am stating deductive inevitabilities about the nature of morality given God or without God.

No, you are merely presenting what you think the nature of morality given god or no god.

The problem is that you have not presented sufficient reason to believe your opinions/beliefs need be taken any more seriously than the next persons.

You do realize this is one of the most formidable scholastic arguments relating to morality in existence don't you. You act as if I made this up instead of the most brilliant men in thousand of years of history.

Appeal to numbers has no bearing on the truth of your bold empty claims nor your opinions/beliefs.

Nice try though.

 

[Noel]

Of course, humans have natural law, which tells us plainly what's good and bad, but in a sense good and bad are just a part of human nature itself

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If we rely on a belief in God for our moral compass, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

 

[Nakosis]

So the Nazis did nothing wrong and you would not have sent the US to stop them because whatever a person does is right?

If the Nazis thought it was wrong they wouldn't have done it. Whatever a person does is right for them or else they wouldn't do it. I probably would have supported stopping it because for me, it would be the right thing to do.

Let me ask this one then (since you unbelievably said might makes right which is impossible to begin with). If aliens land tomorrow and say we are now their food source and come for your family will you willingly allow that their might makes that action right?

My willingness has nothing to do with it or their determination of morality. What I personally feel is right and wrong doesn't matter if it can't be enforced. For me it is immoral to eat animals, yet for many their morals allow this. If they saw us as animals I don't know if we'd be in any position to pass judgement on the aliens. However that doesn't mean it would be immoral for be to avoid being dinner.

If a chicken tries to avoid being lunch for a hound does that make the chicken immoral. The hound needs to eat to survive, is the hounds actions immoral?

I would bet that you like every other non-theist in existence will start crying out with every objective moral idea they can think of but who knows you may be the one human on earth who actually acts like preference and morality are equal.

If you are referring to preference as personal morality then personality is not equal to group morality. Group morals require enforcement. Otherwise personal morals is the only arbiter of right and wrong.

That is impossible. What about a trident makes a law correct? Might may make a law enforceable but it can't make anything right.

Why would you ever do anything you thought was not right unless you were forced to? Enforcement doesn't make it right for you. What makes it right for the group is agreement of it being right by those who can enforce it. The only reason God is right for you is because you believe God can enforce his morality on man.

If God cannot enforce his morality then atheists have nothing to worry about.

Enforced and right are two completely different issue.

Ok, but if God can't enforce what God says is right why should anyone listen to God?

No might makes ethical preferences enforceable to an extent. Christianity is full of those that would not bow to force and died for what was right, in spite of people who believed as you. Your horrific foundation for morality is far too easy of a target to feel like I have accomplished anything to tear apart so I will leave it here.

Of course, one can always choose personal morals over group morals. They just have to be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. The alien may feel it is not right to eat humans and refuse to do so. The group may punish the alien for this rebellion against group morality.

One final question. Islam was more powerful than Hinduism over the course of several centuries. They enacted the greatest genocide in human history against the Indians. Was that right because of their might?

For them as a group, else they would not have done so. For many Muslims I'm sure they found this immoral. Unfortunately they were unable to enforce their personal morality on the group.

As a person I act according to what I think is right to do. A part of a group we act according to what the group has agreed is right to do. I can always try to get agreement among the group to act according to my morals. Then I'd have the group's willingness to enforce my morals.

If I already agree with the group what is right then obviously for me there would be no enforcement. However getting others to act according to my morals who's personal morals disagree requires enforcement.

 

[sun rise]

Some comments. First I see that Godwin's law has again been proven true since Nazis have entered the conversation.

The second is that believers do believe that God enforces his laws either in heaven/hell or by reaping what one sows (aka karma) but not necessarily during someone's lifetime.

Third, I believe that God has ensured that people have an inward sense of right and wrong and that sense leads most atheists to derive ethical standards rather than adopt a "who cares what I do to people - I'll be dead soon and it's meaningless anyway" attitude.

There are also cultural morals as well as universal ones such as "women should not wear pants, men should not wear dresses" (although of course that's changed). The universal ones can be stated very simply such as "be kind", "seek justice and wisdom".

 

[Cephus]

Of course, humans have natural law, which tells us plainly what's good and bad, but in a sense good and bad are just a part of human nature itself

Except natural law is just as imaginary as Godly morals.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Look, there issue at hand is where did morals come from in the first place. Someone had to think of it. You lean toward a notion where anybody can come up with their own standards of morals on a whim. Does it mean that this is how Athiests operate?

This is how everyone if...not just atheist. Even the religious have a different set of morals. Some in Christendom take the idea of sin and what constitute a sin differently than their Christian brethren. Even we atheist have different degrees of morality. I believe morality is both inherent and taught. I certainly don't think they come from a place of mystery or fantasy.