Morality and the atheists

[javajo]

What I believe is that while some people have higher morals and such than others, whether atheist, theist or what have you, compared to God's perfect holiness, we all fall way short. Like if you have a skyscraper next to a one story bank. The skyscraper seems taller, but when compared to the distance to Orion and the trillions of miles, there is hardly a difference. Or say we all try to jump, unaided, to the moon. Some will jump much higher than others but we will all fall way short. This is what it means when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No matter how good we think we are, we are just human we all fall short.

I believe this creates an equal playing field and puts us all in the same boat as far as salvation is concerned, which is good because it gives everyone an equal opportunity to be saved. I believe no matter how good someone is, if they are trying to 'earn' their way to Heaven (provided they believe in such a place), nobody can earn it by their own merit, for the Bible says that all the good works we do are like filthy rags as far as earning salvation goes. And that is good too, so nobody can boast that they made it to heaven because they were so good. I believe salvation, therefore, must be a free, undeserved, unmerited gift we simply accept with thanksgiving. I believe this gift was costly to God, for it cost him the death of his Son. Since all have sinned, and the penalty is death, Jesus died thus paying the penalty for all of us so God is still just, he punished our sin, and can now declare us justified. That's just my beliefs anyway.

 

[Falvlun]

I've been confronted with this question as well. And I always reply "Do you mean to tell me that the only reason you are moral is because you believe in God?" That usually gets them hemming and hawing.

I believe we get our tendencies for certain moral behavior from biology, but the vast majority of moral behavior (and cultural quirks) comes from our environment and how we are raised. Makes sense, no?

Just to play devil's advocate, one response I've seen a couple times is that atheists are merely "stealing" their morality from Christians and other religions, as if morality would never have occurred if religion hadn't handed it to us. Do you believe morality can occur without religions (and God handing them down in the first place)? How? Can atheists be said to just be mooching off of the religious tradition?

In some ways, the answer to that last question is yes. In many cultures, religion has played a vital and central role in deciding what is right and wrong. Without the centralized control of religion, some morals probably wouldn't have taken such a strong hold upon our collective conciousness.

But then again, I see religion as just another evolved trait, the benefit of which may just well have been to support the spread of morals that would allow people to live peaceably with each other.

 

[Cthulhu]

For those who view morals in a philosophical sense, the idea of a single objectively correct set of values is very appealing because of how simple it makes the problem. Religion provides a simple set of right/wrong values and is therefore attractive to those that do not wish to think through every issue as it arises.

Morals tend to be based on objectively beneficial values to humans. For example, nearly every faith says that stealing, lying, murder and other such actions are immoral. This is due to most humans disliking those actions occurring around them. Complications arise when one considers different environments in which moral values arose; different conditions produced different moral values, all of which may be equally logical considering the specific conditions of one area.

When people attach tradition and indoctrination to those values instead of teaching an understanding of why the values exist, the people cannot understand why other groups may not share their values. This naturally leads to conflict and mistrust as multiple groups refuse to change their values in new environments, and settle things illogically through warfare "justified" by the values they do not actually understand.

In short, think for yourself and decide why you have your values before you judge others.

 

[jmvizanko]

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.

Its 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.

And yeah, its probably the most commonly cited verse for why Christians are not supposed to marry non-Christians. My fiance obviously doesn't care though, and she knows I'm a good guy.

 

[gnostic]

When people attach tradition and indoctrination to those values instead of teaching an understanding of why the values exist, the people cannot understand why other groups may not share their values. This naturally leads to conflict and mistrust as multiple groups refuse to change their values in new environments, and settle things illogically through warfare "justified" by the values they do not actually understand.

This is excellent insight to why some people might clash over conflicting values.

In short, think for yourself and decide why you have your values before you judge others.

I can agree with that.

 

[gnostic]

What I believe is that while some people have higher morals and such than others, whether atheist, theist or what have you, compared to God's perfect holiness, we all fall way short. Like if you have a skyscraper next to a one story bank. The skyscraper seems taller, but when compared to the distance to Orion and the trillions of miles, there is hardly a difference. Or say we all try to jump, unaided, to the moon. Some will jump much higher than others but we will all fall way short. This is what it means when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No matter how good we think we are, we are just human we all fall short.

I believe this creates an equal playing field and puts us all in the same boat as far as salvation is concerned, which is good because it gives everyone an equal opportunity to be saved. I believe no matter how good someone is, if they are trying to 'earn' their way to Heaven (provided they believe in such a place), nobody can earn it by their own merit, for the Bible says that all the good works we do are like filthy rags as far as earning salvation goes. And that is good too, so nobody can boast that they made it to heaven because they were so good. I believe salvation, therefore, must be a free, undeserved, unmerited gift we simply accept with thanksgiving. I believe this gift was costly to God, for it cost him the death of his Son. Since all have sinned, and the penalty is death, Jesus died thus paying the penalty for all of us so God is still just, he punished our sin, and can now declare us justified. That's just my beliefs anyway.

As interesting as your post was, it doesn't really answer my question.

From what I can see from your post, you don't have the same view as jesus4m3 - that atheists have no morals? That's jesus4m3's view.

He seemed to think atheists have no conscience and believe that without God. If this is true, then atheists would not see rape of little girl to be wrong.

 

[waitasec]

What I believe is that while some people have higher morals and such than others, whether atheist, theist or what have you, compared to God's perfect holiness, we all fall way short.

i disagree. no one is more moral than the next guy. i believe people in general are doing the best they can with what the have.
personally i think god, or whatever it is, nature...is amoral and indifferent

 

[javajo]

From what I can see from your post, you don't have the same view as jesus4m3 - that atheists have no morals? That's jesus4m3's view.

Right, I don't share his view, I know many atheists that have very high moral standards (and many who don't). I know many who are much more disciplined and hold themselves to higher standards than I am capable of much of the time and whom I greatly admire. That is why I am thankful that (I believe) salvation is a free gift, that anybody, no matter how bad they have ever been, can be freely saved forever by believing in Christ; that he did pay for all their sins on the cross.

 

[javajo]

i disagree. no one is more moral than the next guy. i believe people in general are doing the best they can with what the have.
personally i think god, or whatever it is, nature...is amoral and indifferent

I can go along with the idea that people in general are doing the best they can with what they have. To me, its not the degree to which we sin, it is the fact (I believe) that we all do sin. Someone once said that we aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I believe we all are born with that sinful nature (compared to a holy God) and so we all do sin to some degree. I believe God has a free remedy for our sins, but that we first must acknowledge that we are sinners. That is the first step. And I believe God forgives all sin, no matter the severity. Whether one has committed murder, rape, child molestation, or any other vile sin, God will forgive all who come to him, not just the ones who have committed more 'respectable' sins.

 

[Falvlun]

i disagree. no one is more moral than the next guy. i believe people in general are doing the best they can with what the have.
personally i think god, or whatever it is, nature...is amoral and indifferent

So the person who habitually lies is just as moral as the person who tries to be honest as much as possible?

Your comment, imo, takes relativism a bit too far. Regardless of whether you believe that morality is absolute or not, there are still criteria within a culture to determine what is moral and what is not. And obviously, people are going to fall on a sliding scale.

I agree with you though: Nature is undoubtedly amoral. Morality is a human construct.

 

[Looncall]

I can go along with the idea that people in general are doing the best they can with what they have. To me, its not the degree to which we sin, it is the fact (I believe) that we all do sin. Someone once said that we aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I believe we all are born with that sinful nature (compared to a holy God) and so we all do sin to some degree. I believe God has a free remedy for our sins, but that we first must acknowledge that we are sinners. That is the first step. And I believe God forgives all sin, no matter the severity. Whether one has committed murder, rape, child molestation, or any other vile sin, God will forgive all who come to him, not just the ones who have committed more 'respectable' sins.

This is quite an interesting scheme. On the one hand inculcate permanent morbid feelings of guilt; on the other hand offer a "get out of jail free card". All to put bums in pews and dollars in collection plates.

 

[javajo]

This is quite an interesting scheme. On the one hand inculcate permanent morbid feelings of guilt; on the other hand offer a "get out of jail free card". All to put bums in pews and dollars in collection plates.

I don't look at it as a scheme to shame people or make money although men have used it for just that. I believe God wants to set us free from our guilt and shame over past and present and future sin and failure and wants to make us a new creation, clothed with his righteousness and freely justified by his Son's finished work on the cross. I take this by faith in what I believe is God's Word, who cannot lie. I don't understand it all but I echo Paul in Romans 11:

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe God wants to set us free from our guilt and shame over past and present and future sin and failure and wants to make us a new creation, clothed with his righteousness and freely justified by his Son's finished work on the cross.

If you failed a test, and then had a friend take that test over for you so that you could pass it, would you truly feel as if you were free from your failure?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think the premise that organized religion invented morality is the greatest con jobs that have ever existed since antiquity. Far from been "moral" they have preached intolerance of other cultures and even declaring war at the drop of a hat in the name of their gods.

 

[Falvlun]

I think the premise that organized religion invented morality is the greatest con jobs that have ever existed since antiquity. Far from been "moral" they have preached intolerance of other cultures and even declaring war at the drop of a hat in the name of their gods.

Hey, ignoring the good because of the bad is just as unreasonable as ignoring the bad because of the good. Religion has historically supported many of the "good morals" that are prevalent in our culture today, such as the Golden Rule, charity, and personal responsibility. It's often not easy to be "good", so having the weight of religion behind these things may very well have allowed them to take root in an otherwise sandy soil.

 

[waitasec]

So the person who habitually lies is just as moral as the person who tries to be honest as much as possible?

Your comment, imo, takes relativism a bit too far. Regardless of whether you believe that morality is absolute or not, there are still criteria within a culture to determine what is moral and what is not. And obviously, people are going to fall on a sliding scale.

I agree with you though: Nature is undoubtedly amoral. Morality is a human construct.

i thought deviants were obviously excluded from my post...guess i have to spell it out
that's why i said:

i believe people in general are doing the best they can

 

[waitasec]

I can go along with the idea that people in general are doing the best they can with what they have. To me, its not the degree to which we sin, it is the fact (I believe) that we all do sin. Someone once said that we aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I believe we all are born with that sinful nature (compared to a holy God) and so we all do sin to some degree.

well that's different from

What I believe is that while some people have higher morals and such than others, whether atheist, theist or what have you, compared to God's perfect holiness, we all fall way short.

I believe God has a free remedy for our sins, but that we first must acknowledge that we are sinners. That is the first step. And I believe God forgives all sin, no matter the severity. Whether one has committed murder, rape, child molestation, or any other vile sin, God will forgive all who come to him, not just the ones who have committed more 'respectable' sins.

i equate that to 1st we must know what our limitations are...
and not be so hard on our selves for our shortcomings...while striving to
be true to our integrity to find the strength to live by the courage of ones convictions.

 

[Yanni]

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.

Not the "Old Testament," or should I say, the Torah. The Chrisians believe that non-believers are destined to eternal hell and damnation. We're not that arrogant. Like I've said before, Judaism does not believe that you MUST be Jewish to be righteous or earn a place in the World to Come. But non-Jews (as well as Jews) do have to follow the tiny 7 Noahide Laws to get there. (However, those who never knew about the 7 Noahide Laws but were righteous throughout their lives will not be abandoned by God; besides, God never abandons ANYBODY, even when the whole world seems to be crashing down on your head).

 

[Acim]

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?

Hmmm, this is 2nd item I've read by you (recently) where I was just wondering about this topic.

I'm theist, but I am hardly old school. So far in this thread, I see lots of references to old school religion, and very few references to "why self identified atheist has morality."

There are 2 reasons (at least) why I think atheists might not have a moral compass. I'll get to that in a moment.

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.

To a theist, that is everything. Oh wait, you said "that's all" so that pretty much covers everything. Please continue.

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.

Frankly, I don't buy that. If I claim I can do faith healing, skeptics (agnostics) and atheists are, in my experience, wanting to have me clarify that, and use science to back up that claim. God is nowhere in the argument (thus far) and yet that 'science' thing is front and center as to 'what I who claim faith healing" must align with, or just admit I am delusional.

So, one reason that I question moral compass (or basis) of atheist types is their reliance on physical as 'only basis of reality.' Meaning, if it can't be corroborated with materialism, it is probably 'mere belief' and possibly delusional, or at very least, imaginary.

I see morality as based on abstract ideas, held there by convictions, that are (from a certain perspective) imaginary. From another perspective, it is principles, but even that is abstract. IOW, not observable, in the physical. Rape may occur, but there is nothing in 'natural order' telling us it is inherently wrong. We do that. We 'imagine' it to be wrong, and so we imagine that we can make laws that will address it, hopefully prevent it. For some, that is morality. We don't need a god in there to hold those principles, but I very much believe it is ultimately where the abstract relations and manifested actions are stemming from.

Like, for me, "judge not lest ye be judged," needs no god to be working. Yet, I very much understand this in a metaphysical way. That there is no "other" I can possibly judge. I can delude myself into thinking that. I can hold conviction that "you" are not "me" and that we are separate. Physical observations confirm this. But, from my metaphysical understandings, that is delusional, and moreover that we really are One Self. So, if I judge, I am judging that Self, of which I am part.

The second reason I feel atheist types do not have moral compass is my bias at work. And is in vein of idea that atheists sometimes show up to me as anarchists. Do 'religious types' ever show up this way to me? Perhaps, but I would like to be clear that this is a filter thing for me, and is reason that intellectually speaking is way down the totem pole from previous point I was arguing. But in terms of 'social interactions' there is vibe I get from 'certain atheists' that is in vein of "it's all chaos man. Deal with it. Your God is dead. Ha ha ha ha. Fail!"

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.

Again, I'm not seeing in this thread how the distinction is made. More like it is being asserted / claimed, but assumed then that the two don't have to go together. And since I am around 100 times more spiritual than anything resembling religion, I am countering what most others are saying in this thread. I firmly believe morality is a spiritual thing. So, if you are an atheist, and you have morality, I can understand how you might say, "I don't believe in a particular God (i.e. Abrahamic God)." But, I believe if I spoke with you enough, especially on this particular topic, you would come off as definitively spiritual (prone to metaphysical beliefs).

And if you reading this, who are self identified atheist or agnostic, wish to debate that, I would like to see how that looks for you. So far in this thread, I am not seeing the distinction that is alleged.

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.

Wow. "Right choice" bandied around as if it is 'something we can all agree upon, no questions asked. I tell you. If I aggressively use the scrutiny that atheist types use for "evidence" for God, I am fairly confident that I can get the agnostic / atheist to see that no such 'evidence' exists for "right choices." Imaginary / abstract concepts exist. I'll grant that. But nothing in vein of hard evidence.

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.

But the law doesn't block research. Not really. Nor does the law block murder. Frankly, I can't think of anything the law actually blocks. If you can, I would like to hear that.

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 relative way, I agree there are bad atheists, just like there are bad Christians, Jews, Muslims and so on. But in the way of knowledge and facts, I don't see how we can assertively pronounce any as bad, without attributing that to something that is a) more or less imaginary and b) is not something we can observe in the physical.

 

[Acim]

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.

And you have done NOTHING to substantiate / validate your belief why rape or murder is bad. Again, turning the atheist logic right back on you, a conscience could justify murder as good. As very necessary. In fact, we already do this. We justify killing in many ways. And while very few reading this (I'd like to think none) would justify rape as "good," I can understand why it shows up in our society, beyond the incredibly short sighted claims of, "some mental defect."

You speak of "fear" as sense of protection for religious types. Perhaps that is the case. But I assure you, many spiritual types I know / discuss stuff with, have worked through that sort of meme and see it for the illusion it is. Personally, I think just about as many atheist types use "fear" as form of protection, arguing such things as, "nature intended for us to experience fear in certain situations, as form of protecting ourselves." I'm not saying I dispute that, and perhaps we get lost on that side tangent in this discussion, but the point I'm making is, it ain't (only) religion making this claim for "fear is protection boys and girls." Either way, those of us in the know (esoteric knowledge), realize that fear is used for many things, some of which have nothing to do with religion (except in sense that 'everything' comes back to religion).

Will someone in this thread tell me why you think murder is bad? Really why? And how you arrived at that? And how that is not an 'imaginary belief?' If you can show me some 'hard evidence' for 'why bad people are objectively bad,' I would very much like to hear that.