Morality and the atheists

[gnostic]

Morning to you all. I hope it is warmer where you're living then here.

I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic. However, when it come to miracles and such, I rather skeptical, so in some ways, I'm atheist.

Anyway, I sometimes come across posts where some theists, usually Christians, but sometimes Muslims, assume that if you're an atheist, you would automatically be listed as someone someone with no moral (amoral) or who are immoral.

Why do such people assume this position about atheists?

From what I understand about atheism, atheism is simply position that they don't believe in the existence of a deity or deities. That's all.

For atheists, morality and atheism are 2 different things and unrelated. This is the same with the position of agnosticism; their agnosticism is no way related to morality. In both cases (atheism & agnosticism), their positions only relate to god.

I know that with most religions, their religious teachings are related to morality. And that's fine and I can understand this. The core (scriptures) of Judaism is the Torah (law), which is basically a teaching of Moses about law and morality. And for them (Jews), as well as to Muslims and to the Christians, it (law/morality) come from God.

I don't have problem with them mixing the two (religion & morals) up. It is their choice to believe what they want with regards to their respective teachings.

In another topic, where we're getting sidetracked from Qur'an debate, a Christian assume that if you're atheist, then you would have no moral. This is what he wrote:

Question to an Atheist. If someone rapes a little girl would you think its wrong?

In the same post, he wanted to know where atheists get their morals from:

And if so where did you learn that from? Because your morality had to come from some source.

However, I don't live in a home with religious background, and I was educated in public schools. This is where I got most of morals from - at home, by my parents and relatives, and at schools. I was also have responsibility to myself, think for myself, and given the choice to the right thing. If I didn't do the right thing, I could learn from this experience, to make the right choice next time when I am confronted with similar circumstances.

Anyway, my problem was not where I get my morals from, but to his reply, later:

If we were perfect we wouldn't need a savior would we? And how can you say that christians are doing wrong when you have no morals in your life. Unless you borrow them. I dont think myself highly better then anyone but i do say my father in heaven sees what i do. You are no one to judge and have no control over peoples decisions. No offense but Atheist are very confused people. That i bet that when the time comes to a near death experience they will call for some sort of help. Maybe even Jesus. But why? Because the confused people have no idea what's next after this and because their natural instinct is to call for help.

How can such people assume you to have "no morals" simply because of a limited label "atheist"?

Atheism doesn't extend to morality, because it is a totally different line of thoughts.

Here is an example of two things that are different: Law and Science.

Now the law may block a research (like stem-cell research) from proceeding, but the legislator(s) may or may not have any (in-depth) understanding of scientific research.

Sure there may be bad atheists, but you can't condemn atheism or atheists for a few bad atheists. Just as there are good and bad Christians, Jews, Muslims or Buddhists.

So why do some people assume others who don't believe in a deity/deities, do not have morals?

 

[jmvizanko]

So why do some people assume others who don't believe in a deity/deities, do not have morals?

Well the Bible and Koran say in many instances that unbelievers are evil doers. But I think much more than just trusting that, many believers just think that without a god and a list of rules he has, people are just going to be as selfish and depraved as they want. And the belief in original sin only compounds that. But in my experience, there isn't a whole lot of personal difference between most Christians and most atheists except for what they do for a few hours on Sunday morning.

PS: You are not sometimes atheist and sometimes agnostic. There is no such thing as agnostic as far as religious positions go. Either you believe in a god/gods, or you don't. If you are an "agnostic," you are uncertain, and therefore do not believe in god/gods. Which makes you an atheist. Its just that you are an implicit (weak) atheist instead of a strong (explicit) atheist. Agnosticism is independent of atheism/theism, and one can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is simply when one realizes that one cannot know if god exists, but that person can still either not believe or believe in god despite this.

 

[839311]

This belief that some religious people - particularly of the Abrahamic faiths - have about atheists is simply false. Its so false that its unfortunate that time must be spent in order to try to educate such people about basic facts.

 

[waitasec]

This belief that some religious people - particularly of the Abrahamic faiths - have about atheists is simply false. Its so false that its unfortunate that time must be spent in order to try to educate such people about basic facts.

i'm sorry, but what do you mean? what belief? it's hard to tell.

 

[839311]

The belief that atheists lack morals and/or are evil.

 

[Otherright]

While they may be based on moral teachings, those teachings are secondary to nature. They only support the nature. Nobody gets their morality from God or from a book. Everyone gets moral basis from the same source as everyone else; through the teachings of their environment.
Our parents, elders, siblings, friends, etc teach us our moral basis. God does not come down and tell us personally that something is right or wrong, and no one has ever picked up a book and learned it. Its comes from trial and error.

 

[waitasec]

The belief that atheists lack morals and/or are evil.

thank you. just wanted to be sure.
but i have an idea why those who follow the abrahamic religions tend to think that way. 'those who are of the world are unrighteous and believers are righteous...' you find this theme through out the bible.

 

[839311]

but i have an idea why those who follow the abrahamic religions tend to think that way. 'those who are of the world are unrighteous and believers are righteous...' you find this theme through out the bible.

Yes, thats the case for the people who make the accusation against atheists that they lack morals. Thankfully, there are also many people within Abrahamic faiths who don't believe this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People always attempt to place their position on higher ground, whether it's true or not.

 

[Storm]

So why do some people assume others who don't believe in a deity/deities, do not have morals?

Because they themselves possess an infantile morality that needs to be told what to do.

 

[waitasec]

Because they themselves possess an infantile morality that needs to be told what to do.

i think they underestimate themselves...

 

[gnostic]

Well the Bible and Koran say in many instances that unbelievers are evil doers. But I think much more than just trusting that, many believers just think that without a god and a list of rules he has, people are just going to be as selfish and depraved as they want. And the belief in original sin only compounds that. But in my experience, there isn't a whole lot of personal difference between most Christians and most atheists except for what they do for a few hours on Sunday morning.

Other than one side believing in God and the other side don't, how Christians or other theists treat other people are no different to atheists. You are right on that account.

Some Christians are bad, just as some atheists are bad. It doesn't matter what religious or non-religious background, people being people, some will succumb to do something rash, immoral or criminal.

The things is that belief in God or scriptures (laws or Jesus' teachings) is not a deterrent for Christians; it doesn't stop them from committing immoral acts. No God or books will prevent Christians from doing something immoral.

And time have changed, since any of the books of Judaeo-Christian or Islamic religions were written, so morals have changed.

It was perfectly acceptable in those days to have slaves, but slavery is now considered immoral practice. Maybe sometime in the future the legal or moral status of slavery will change again in the future, but I hope it don't.

Women status in today's families or societies have changed considerably, especially for Western countries. The system is still not perfect in Australia, or for any other countries for that matter, but I think it is progress in the right direction.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Some atheists are altruistic and morality minded and some are not, just as some Christians are altruistic and others are not; particularly with many of those wealthy American tele-evangelists. They are any but altruistic or have any form or a moral conscience and are frequently only capitalizing on people ignorance and gullibility to feather their own nests.

 

[jmvizanko]

Some Christians are bad, just as some atheists are bad. It doesn't matter what religious or non-religious background, people being people, some will succumb to do something rash, immoral or criminal.

Exactly. I have met terrible atheists and Christians, and great atheists and Christians.

The things is that belief in God or scriptures (laws or Jesus' teachings) is not a deterrent for Christians; it doesn't stop them from committing immoral acts. No God or books will prevent Christians from doing something immoral.

I can even see how it could be the opposite of a deterrent. If one believes that one's faith gets one into heaven no matter what, then why do whatever bad acts they do even matter.

And time have changed, since any of the books of Judaeo-Christian or Islamic religions were written, so morals have changed.

It was perfectly acceptable in those days to have slaves, but slavery is now considered immoral practice. Maybe sometime in the future the legal or moral status of slavery will change again in the future, but I hope it don't.

Women status in today's families or societies have changed considerably, especially for Western countries. The system is still not perfect in Australia, or for any other countries for that matter, but I think it is progress in the right direction.

I agree. I think that the morality of a culture is more driven by the culture itself than the predominant religion. There is nothing in the Bible that says one shouldn't have slaves for instance. As the west has progressed toward freedom, people of the book just simply choose to view the passages of their holy book that are more barbaric as canceled out or obsolete. Its cherry picking their interpretation so their interpretation isn't embarrassing relative to our culture's mindset. Of course, there are less popular sects that still think the barbaric is valid, but then that's probably a large reason why they are less popular. (although it is depressing how many people think that their religion should trump giving freedom to those that want to commit victimless "crimes")

As an example of a statement about unbelievers, look at the passage that means my fundamentalist fiance should not marry me:

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"

The fact that I am just as righteous as her, in so far as we both have a very similar moral character, makes this verse a lie in the case of me. But its verses like these that do explain some of the reasons behind the OP's question. After all, if the whole bible is the perfect and absolutely true word of god, then I must be unrighteous.... In this instance, I can absolutely say that the bible is simply wrong.

 

[Looncall]

Other than one side believing in God and the other side don't, how Christians or other theists treat other people are no different to atheists. You are right on that account.

Some Christians are bad, just as some atheists are bad. It doesn't matter what religious or non-religious background, people being people, some will succumb to do something rash, immoral or criminal.

The things is that belief in God or scriptures (laws or Jesus' teachings) is not a deterrent for Christians; it doesn't stop them from committing immoral acts. No God or books will prevent Christians from doing something immoral.

And time have changed, since any of the books of Judaeo-Christian or Islamic religions were written, so morals have changed.

It was perfectly acceptable in those days to have slaves, but slavery is now considered immoral practice. Maybe sometime in the future the legal or moral status of slavery will change again in the future, but I hope it don't.

Women status in today's families or societies have changed considerably, especially for Western countries. The system is still not perfect in Australia, or for any other countries for that matter, but I think it is progress in the right direction.

This reminds me of the quote of (I hope I remember correctly) Stephen Weinberg: "Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things takes religion."

The problem is that religion can spur people to do bad things such as suicide bombing, genocide and bigotry.

 

[gnostic]

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"

Thanks for the quote, but would you please cite where you got it from.

Anyway, excellent example for your own circumstance and points you've made.

 

[Valjean]

People assume others are like themselves. The religious are motivated by a fear of Hell or hope of Heaven. Their behavior is governed by an external set of arbitrary "divine commands," which may or may not make sense. They cannot conceive an internalized morality. Honor without reward seems senseless to them.

Those who need the crutch of religion assume all others would fall on their faces without it.

 

[gnostic]

This reminds me of the quote of (I hope I remember correctly) Stephen Weinberg: "Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things takes religion."

:biglaugh:

 

[gnostic]

Because they themselves possess an infantile morality that needs to be told what to do.

People assume others are like themselves. The religious are motivated by a fear of Hell or hope of Heaven. Their behavior is governed by an external set of arbitrary "divine commands," which may or may not make sense. They cannot conceive an internalized morality. Honor without reward seems senseless to them.

Those who need the crutch of religion assume all others would fall on their faces without it.

I often thought these days that it would be senseless for one to rely on belief in god or texts that haven't change since they were 1st composed (like the bible), to be suitable for different times or changing circumstances/environment.

Although, we would like to think that morals don't change or that it's black-and-white, but there are many circumstances when they are not.

Like the example, I have given earlier about slavery, even Jesus or Muhammad didn't condemn slavery. Moses (and God) who help his people out of slavery and leave Egypt, didn't ban the Israelites from owning slaves.

It is only recent history where slavery was universally condemned and branded as being illegal and immoral. But even today, slavery still exist like sex slaves and child slavery where some authorities would turn blind eye toward these horrendous practice.

 

[AgnosticAtheistDebate770]

Morning to you all. I hope it is warmer where you're living then here.

I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic. However, when it come to miracles and such, I rather skeptical, so in some ways, I'm atheist.

Anyway, I sometimes come across posts where some theists, usually Christians, but sometimes Muslims, assume that if you're an atheist, you would automatically be listed as someone someone with no moral (amoral) or who are immoral.

Why do such people assume this position about atheists?

From what I understand about atheism, atheism is simply position that they don't believe in the existence of a deity or deities. That's all.

For atheists, morality and atheism are 2 different things and unrelated. This is the same with the position of agnosticism; their agnosticism is no way related to morality. In both cases (atheism & agnosticism), their positions only relate to god.

I know that with most religions, their religious teachings are related to morality. And that's fine and I can understand this. The core (scriptures) of Judaism is the Torah (law), which is basically a teaching of Moses about law and morality. And for them (Jews), as well as to Muslims and to the Christians, it (law/morality) come from God.

I don't have problem with them mixing the two (religion & morals) up. It is their choice to believe what they want with regards to their respective teachings.

In another topic, where we're getting sidetracked from Qur'an debate, a Christian assume that if you're atheist, then you would have no moral. This is what he wrote:



In the same post, he wanted to know where atheists get their morals from:



However, I don't live in a home with religious background, and I was educated in public schools. This is where I got most of morals from - at home, by my parents and relatives, and at schools. I was also have responsibility to myself, think for myself, and given the choice to the right thing. If I didn't do the right thing, I could learn from this experience, to make the right choice next time when I am confronted with similar circumstances.

Anyway, my problem was not where I get my morals from, but to his reply, later:



How can such people assume you to have "no morals" simply because of a limited label "atheist"?

Atheism doesn't extend to morality, because it is a totally different line of thoughts.

Here is an example of two things that are different: Law and Science.

Now the law may block a research (like stem-cell research) from proceeding, but the legislator(s) may or may not have any (in-depth) understanding of scientific research.

Sure there may be bad atheists, but you can't condemn atheism or atheists for a few bad atheists. Just as there are good and bad Christians, Jews, Muslims or Buddhists.

So why do some people assume others who don't believe in a deity/deities, do not have morals?

In honesty im not Quite sure how to reply to this...as to, what is the debate in this. So here, i will share my thoughts, if they are not what you want, sorry.
Personally, I (being Atheist/Agnostic) cannot fathom Why some people make such Ridiculous assumptions about people who share my beleifes (or lack of?). First of all, me being Agnostic, I am a SKEPTIC about whether or not there is a god, or a hell. Me being an Atheist, i KNOW there is nothing. (I know, I do seem to not make up my mind). The truth is, people who are religous are just scared people. They need to believe that when death comes they will not stop existing. So, at some point in time, someone created somthing that would stop people from being scared, it doesnt make it true, its like the white lies of parents, religion is just for protection. People who are Atheist or Agnostic dont let irrational fear cloud there judgement so they know that it is very likely that there is nothing beyond this life. In addition, the laws of a church help keep people from doing wrong, but that does not make them religous laws. Rape, or murder is bad. You dont have to be religous to see that. People who are Atheist or Agnostic DO have a concience and they know, without a church to tell them, that some things are simply not to be done because they are bad.