Do Athiests have morals?

[LuisDantas]

Morality is global. everyone has morals.
What is not global is that everyone accepts the same set of morals.

Indeed. But morality exists for a reason, and it must conform to that reason to be true to itself.

Take the stand your ground laws for example.
Is it moral or immoral to stand your ground?

It will depend on the consequences of both standing one's ground and failing to.

Which is to say, we would need more information and decide accordingly, perhaps on a case-by-case basis.

Is this to say that you believe most morals are objective?

They need to be, although apparently the very understanding of the concept has become too clouded already.

And if so, at what level?

At its most basic, at their reason for being. Morality is supposed to guide choices and decisions in order to favor and protect sustainable, acceptable circunstances for as many people as possible on an ongoing basis.

That goal, in and of itself, sharply restricts the behaviors and values that can possibly be considered moral. It just turns out that we do not often realize that, mainly because our lifestyles are fairly alienated from their moral consequences.

How would you measure this outside of appeal to popularity?

Admitedly, it is a considerable challenge, particularly at a time when the very understanding of the concept is all but lost for good. The main ways involve gauging the effects of decisions in compreehensive ways, listening to as many different perspectives as possible and purposefully introducing some random elements in order to minimize the effect of self-interest.

 

[sun rise]

Who says that morality can only be derived from a holy book, religious teachings and stuff like that? Darwinian Theory also teaches one how to be morally upright (it's not as if it's some sort of a dogma, but it actually does). For instance, it makes us realize not to utilize the 'survival of the fittest' idea in fixing our politics. And yeah, can't the society dictate which actions are morally acceptable and which is not even without religious influence? I don't think that's impossible

I agree it's possible. But I think you're conflating ethics and morals. They're closely related but ethics is typically an externally imposed standard of behavior while morals are internally generated. Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen and many others.

But I can't agree with you on Darwin. I could go down the "social Darwinism" path, but instead there are many examples of animals acting in ways that don't have survival value such as predators nurturing prey animals. Lioness ‘adopts’ baby antelope (PHOTOS) - NY Daily News is one of many examples.

 

[Maldini]

The OP makes a mistake by thinking people's morality comes form their faith or religion.

Atheism means lack of faith. Nothing more. There are hundreds of types of Atheists who have their own specific point of view on morality.

Don't bring down atheists to the level of the sheep who think that morality is perfectly explained in 2000 year old books sen from skies.

 

[Idoleject]

First of all, I don't use the word "atheist" to describe anyone. It's a word coined by a theist with the sole purpose of singling out, dividing and denigrating people who lack a belief in god(s). It's useless to describe a group. It's like inventing a word for people who don't collect stamps! No need for that collective to be described. They have but one thing in common to them all. They don't share an interest in stamps. They don't bond over their lack of interest. They don't organize conventions around a thing that they don't do. So just put "non-stamp collectors" in place of "atheists" in all your diatribes and you'll see how insidiously absurd the whole thing is. It's ridiculous!

 

[Underhill]

The Golden Rule is one of of the single most logical rules in the history of history. When it comes to standards of morality that have no basis in anything but religion, like those who believe hair length or wearing too much jewelry is a sin, then of course I throw that out as nonsensical.

Even on issues like teens having sex, the atheist can justify his morality as easily as any christian. Although it becomes less of a moral issue and more of a mental health issue or safety issue.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do Atheists have morals?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a very crude idea of ethics and morals.

Regards

 

[Buttercup]

Do Atheists have morals?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a very crude idea of ethics and morals.

Regards

Since you seem to have knowledge of my morals as an agnostic, could you please tell me the difference between your morals and my morals?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do Atheists have morals?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a very crude idea of ethics and morals.

Regards

Crude as compared to whose? Some saint?

Most theists have nothing on us when it comes to morals.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do Atheists have morals?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a very crude idea of ethics and morals.

Regards

Speaking only for this particular atheist, I'd suggest you're right. I do have a very crude idea of ethics and morals. Note, though, this would still put me in front of 95% of the population, I would estimate.
Any who cede personal responsibility in favour of taking direction from documents which lack clear intent, instruction or applicability to the world we actually live in would fall into this category.

Happily, I have met plenty of theists who actually consider morals and ethics, and take personal responsibility for their decisions and choices in much the same way some atheists do.

 

[Gomeza]

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?

These types of threads always give me a chuckle......I particularly liked this little irony: "Quick definitions for the unlearned:....(then in the same paragraph we see atheist spelled incorrectly as athiest)"

There is always an elephant in the room when these types of notions are aired publicly in what we will assume is a sincere inquiry. To arrive at a point where an individual can ask such questions without deceptive intent, that person must be subjected to some form of social conditioning or simply put; indoctrination.
To clarify further: indoctrination is a necessary element because the line of inquiry is not based on real life experience. The notion of inherently evil atheists lacking in morals is a religious propaganda construct that cannot be corroborated by any meaningful examples taken from the societies we live in.
Morals are inherent in humans, derived from empathy and common sense. Religious beliefs do little to enhance these attributes and are responsible for an exponentially greater percentage of immoral conduct amongst humans than non belief could ever possibly achieve.
It has been my experience that most religious individuals harboring a prejudicial view towards atheists are incapable of offering any real life examples of the small social demographic they are so willing to vilify.

The elephant in the room?.....Questions such as this as an example: "Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?" .......How does a person ask such a question, which cannot be based on real life observations, unless they have been conditioned by religious propaganda to think in this manner?

 

[Gomeza]

First of all, I don't use the word "atheist" to describe anyone. It's a word coined by a theist with the sole purpose of singling out, dividing and denigrating people who lack a belief in god(s). It's useless to describe a group. It's like inventing a word for people who don't collect stamps! No need for that collective to be described. They have but one thing in common to them all. They don't share an interest in stamps. They don't bond over their lack of interest. They don't organize conventions around a thing that they don't do. So just put "non-stamp collectors" in place of "atheists" in all your diatribes and you'll see how insidiously absurd the whole thing is. It's ridiculous!

Right on. A great deal of what enters public discourse on this subject is tainted by ulterior political and religious agendas, social conditioning and a vilification normalized systematically by religious institutions over generations. It has been my experience that beyond the definition of an individual who does not believe in a God or gods, virtually all generalizations describing atheists are inaccurate.

 

[goodhunter819]

I have just joined the site as you can see, Yes atheists have morals, the guidelines between human behavior dose not always fall to the judgement of religion, human morality is a personal and social question, most of the fellows I know and most of their women all having their own families and are not believers and are no less moral than would be civil servant, morality should not be seen as just religious, it should individual responsibility and should be self obligatory, decorum helps ensure a mutual social response even in lesser modern circles , I can just hear someone about to start quoting 18th century German philosophy.

 

[DrTCH]

Pretty much, atheists...as I understand it....may adhere to an ethical system. Morals are more a creature of religion.

 

[goodhunter819]

I have just joined the site as you can see, The theory of morals can be seen as different from one practice to the next, it can for example seen as immoral to have no more than one wife, while with differing religions like Kiowa, Crow, Sioux, Cherokee or any of the plains Indian warrior religion or Islam and Mormon extremists polygamy is not considered as immoral to have more than one wife, it is also not considered as immoral to have a common law wife without the bounds of Christian matrimony however for atheists yes they do have morals, the guidelines between human behavior dose not always fall to the judgement of religion, human morality is a personal and social question, some of the fellows I know and most of their women all having their own families and are not believers of any religion and are no less moral than would be civil servant, morality should not be seen as just a religious issue but also non religious, it should be an individual responsibility and should be self obligatory, decorum helps ensure a mutual social response even in lesser modern circles and cultures , I can just hear someone about to start quoting 18th century German philosophy(chuckle chuckle)

 

[goodhunter819]

Love the Battle Star Galactica last supper depiction and yes, cylon hotty and immorality, I agree with what you say morality is really a question of cultural, religious and social upbringing.

 

[goodhunter819]

]I have just joined the site as you can see, Yes atheists have morals, the guidelines between human behavior dose not always fall to the judgement of religion, human morality is a personal and social question, most of the fellows I know and most of their women all having their own families and are not believers and are no less moral than would be civil servant, morality should not be seen as just religious, it should individual responsibility and should be self obligatory, decorum helps ensure a mutual social response even in lesser modern circles , I can just hear someone about to start quoting 18th century German philosophy. and for the I am assuming young lass just joined, I do not mean to insult to but Atheists are not part of the Buddhist agenda, you said you have friends that Atheist and partly Buddhist? I think you may have been mislead because even in the modern terminology today still, an Atheist has nothing to do with religion at all, Buddhist being one of the great Atheists dislike and disbelief of the more popular religious faiths.

 

[Kai'a]

Atheists are people. People have morals; some sort of compass. If it's a good compass or not, productive to society or not, or helpful to themselves, that's up for discussion, but it's very much presence of at least some sort of morals.

 

[StopS]

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

Why? Why such an offensive question?
What difference is there between the behaviour in public between a theist and an atheist?
We walk behind a person who looses a piece of paper and we both pick it up and return it to the person. Right?
If the person in front of us trips we both help them up. Right?
If someone asks us for directions we both help.
So what beneficial action can a theist perform that the atheist can't?
But a theist can justify beheading a human or blowing themselves up in a market.
It's up to the person, not the label.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheists are people. People have morals; some sort of compass. If it's a good compass or not, productive to society or not, or helpful to themselves, that's up for discussion, but it's very much presence of at least some sort of morals.

We all evolved. Cooperation enhanced our chances of survival and was selected for. As we started living in communities some behaviors increased the well-being and chances of survival for the community and the individuals in it and some behaviors were detrimental. We learned to notice the difference and call that "morality". So we call beneficial behavior "moral" and detrimental behavior "immoral". As time passed it got hard-wired into our brains and we call that "conscience". Religion evolved as a way to encourage people to behave morally. Everybody has a survival instinct. So we play on people's survival instinct, provide religious authority figures like God and Jesus explaining what is moral commanding people to behave morally and as a reward we say the people will get eternal survival. Moral people don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong but a lot of people do so religion has an important function in our society.

 

[Idoleject]

Do Atheists have morals?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a very crude idea of ethics and morals.

Regards

As has already been stated in numerous ways thus far ...

1: Community morality and ethics predate the religious adaptation by centuries. We learned that civility and fairness were essential for a successful large tribe's advancement and enlightenment WAY before gods were even conceived. So, basically, our understanding of ethics and morality is very ancient but, at its core, it is the same for all of us no matter our perception of deities. It is old but hardly crude. In fact it is finely honed and and ubiquitously understood after centuries of refinement.

2: I think you would agree that if you were to suddenly stop believing in a deity tomorrow, not much in the way you live, love and interact with society now, as a believer, would change. Yes, you might gravitate toward others who are more in line with your way of thinking but your interactions with humanity on the whole would remain the same. The same would be true oppositely. If I were suddenly struck down off my donkey with a belief in a deity ... nothing in my life would change but for my perception of my surroundings. I'd still love the same people for the same reasons I love them now. My children would be just as dear to me as ever. I know I certainly would NOT try to convince others of my worldview nor shun those who perceive the world differently as that is how I engage in life with my present one. So, basically we arrive at the same conclusions about morality and ethics with and/or without god(s).