Atheistic morals

Snake_Six

New Member
It appears to me that there are several atheists that are members here and I have a couple of questions for them.
Do you believe in Right and Wrong?
Do you believe that there are moral standards that man should adhere to?
Where do your morals come from?
Thanks in advance for your time.
 
I would like to hear that too... if you do have morals, why do you have them? Why are you called to live along certain guidelines?
 
Athiesm and Secular Humanism aren't exactly the same thing, but Secular Humanism is athiest, so this might apply. From the Affirmation of Secular Humanist Principles:

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

So, basically, they affirm two methods of morality: conscience, and ends justifying means. Not bad considering a total lack of deity, I suppose, but I don't know what creates a positive or negative consequence. Also note the lack of an idea of justice or punishment. If some dude walks up and socks you in the face, as a Secular Humanist I don't know which is the better consequence, to have me hit him back and thus trade blows, or to not hit him back because it just creates more black eyes.

Good thing I'm not a Secular Humanist I guess. ;)
 
I did notice that it had come up several times, but by then I had already started this topic.
Maybe we can start fresh here?
 
Let's see if I can put this succinctly.

Morals aren't subjective, they are objective. There isn't one set of fixed rules that one must follow. There is no moral absolute.

Morals are dependant upon family, community, geography and time.

Morals are liquid, they aren't rigid. They ebb, flow and evolve over time.

Morals can be created and followed without the need for religion.

Morals begin and end with one simple creed: Treat others as you would have yourself treated. (Note that as I have proven several times, this Golden Rule was not invented or posed first by Christianity. It predates any writings of the Bible).

It's a bit disconcerting to know that some Christians believe that Atheists cannot have morals, and thus, are immoral at their very core. It is even more disconcerting to know that there are Christians that exist and state that the ONLY reason they are moral is because of a threat of eternal damnation.

Here's a set of questions I posed from the thread I linked:

What specific morals do you believe that Christianity has offered the world that is unique to Christianity? I have already shown that the Golden Rule was NOT a Christian invention. The 10 commandments maybe? Sorry, similar tenets have also existed before Christianity. So what is it that Christianity expouses that is unique? To me, God is a "do as I say, not as I do" deity. Why? Just take a look at the OT.

To specifically answer your questions:

Do you believe in Right and Wrong?

Yes.

Do you believe that there are moral standards that man should adhere to?

Yes.

Where do your morals come from?

Society: I grew up in the United States.
Family: I grew up being taught to be respectful & followed the examples of my family
History: Everything that has happened that has led up to this point. Example: There was a time when segregation and racism was considered morally right/acceptable by the majority. Over time we have come to realize that this is not true.
Education: By learning and understand not only what goes on around my little sphere of life, but across the world and across time, I have learned to appreciate things that I never would have had the opportunity to understand. I count my time as a Christian as part of that education process. I do, however, believe that my morals are greater now.

Hope that helps.
 
In my mind morals, apart from a religious dogma, are exactly as DV said.

But as you said, DV, it varies among culture; so when a person goes into a different society, do the morals change? I'm not entirely sure how that works :p

Extreme example:
In one society if I was taught to slap a person's face as a compliment, I think I'm doing something good if I did it to someone else. But, if I went to another society, I would be breaking their social norms, and therefore their moral code since a slap in the face is considered an insult.
Who, then, is the morally sound person? Me, or the person in the other culture that got offended by my action that probably punches me back?
 
The Golden Rule is a Christian ideal. It came out of the Jewish religion, which was the first religion of all.
From your statements, it appears as if you are a Humanist. Your philosophy is right in line with theirs.
There is a moral absolute, God's.
You say that moral aren't rigid. Does that mean that rape, which is morally wrong now, might be right in a hundred years?
Also, Atheists cannot have morals as they deny the exsistence of a god.
By doing this, they say that Man is the ultimate power and that all laws/morals come from within. Which is not good as Man (all men, not just Atheists) are immoral to the core and utterly depraved.

What do you do if your morals conflict with someone else's? You don't have the right to say that they are wrong. They just grew up in a different time/family/geography/community than you.

Where do the moral standards come from? God. The first religion ever was the Jewish religion and it predates all other beliefs/morals around. This is because it started the moment Adam and Eve sinned. All of the maral standards and/or moral laws that we have today come out of this religion.
You have to understand that Christianity comes out of Judeism and, except for those which pertain to salvation, the laws are the same.
The whole point of the Jewish religion was to point to Christ, and when He came to Earth the Jewish religion shifted into what we call Christianity.
While there are still people who believe in the OT Jewish religion, that religion is now a false religion as Jesus fulfilled it.
 
Dark Virtue said:
There is no moral absolute.

Morals begin and end with one simple creed: Treat others as you would have yourself treated.

At first glance, these two statements seem contradictory. One the one hand, you say there are no moral absolutes. On the other, you're saying that all morals are based on the Golden Rule, which would be an absolute. Can you expand on that and fill in what I must be missing?
 
Azzie said:
In my mind morals, apart from a religious dogma, are exactly as DV said.

But as you said, DV, it varies among culture; so when a person goes into a different society, do the morals change? I'm not entirely sure how that works :p

Yes and no :)

Extreme example:
In one society if I was taught to slap a person's face as a compliment, I think I'm doing something good if I did it to someone else. But, if I went to another society, I would be breaking their social norms, and therefore their moral code since a slap in the face is considered an insult.
Who, then, is the morally sound person? Me, or the person in the other culture that got offended by my action that probably punches me back?

I'm not sure this is so much a question of morality than a question of customs. In this case, since you are living in a society that frowns upon this particular custom, it would indeed, be wrong to continue that custom when you know it would offend people. Now, this doesn't mean that you can't keep this custom in your home and family, just not in public where you know it would only hurt others.

Here's a better example. You grow up in a society that believes that slavery is wrong. You move to a country where slavery is acceptable. It would still be morally wrong for you to accept slavery, even though it is a morally acceptable practice where you now live.
 
Snake_Six said:
The Golden Rule is a Christian ideal.

I never said it wasn't a Christian ideal. I said that Christianity didn't invent the concept and I have proven this to be true.

It came out of the Jewish religion, which was the first religion of all.

How is Judaism the first religion of all?

Hinduism is generally regarded as the world's oldest religion. You may also want to look at Zoroastrianism.

From your statements, it appears as if you are a Humanist. Your philosophy is right in line with theirs.

I do share many philosophies with Secular Humanism, but I wouldn't say it would be a 100% fit.

There is a moral absolute, God's.

Consider two things here. 1) You cannot prove that God exists, therefore you cannot attest to a moral absolute. 2) If God DOES exist, there are many examples in the Bible of God issues moral principles and then performing actions which go contrary to those edicts. I refer to this as a "Do as I say, not as I do" outlook.

You say that moral aren't rigid. Does that mean that rape, which is morally wrong now, might be right in a hundred years?

Maybe, hopefully not. Look BACK in history and you will see that there are many examples of times/people that thought it was acceptable. I saw Braveheart the other night and it has a good example of that. Remember the noble that exercised his "right" to sleep with the man's wife on their wedding night?


Also, Atheists cannot have morals as they deny the exsistence of a god.

Are you claiming that I have no morals? I suggest you back this assertion up awful quick.

Secondly, you are operating under the incorrect assesment that the majority of atheists DENY the existence of a God. Like the majority of atheists, I have a lack of belief in gods, not a denial.

How do you explain why millions of atheists aren't running around willy nilly committing all sorts of crimes against humanity because we have no morals whatsoever.

Your idea that Atheists are immoral is ludicrous.

By doing this, they say that Man is the ultimate power and that all laws/morals come from within. Which is not good as Man (all men, not just Atheists) are immoral to the core and utterly depraved.

There is no evidence, proof or reason to believe that Man is NOT the ultimate power. I see no evidence, proof or reason to believe in your God or anyone else's.

What do you do if your morals conflict with someone else's? You don't have the right to say that they are wrong. They just grew up in a different time/family/geography/community than you.

Give me a specific example and I would be more than happy to entertain your question.

What morals do you have that conflict with others?

Where do the moral standards come from? God. The first religion ever was the Jewish religion and it predates all other beliefs/morals around. This is because it started the moment Adam and Eve sinned. All of the maral standards and/or moral laws that we have today come out of this religion.
You have to understand that Christianity comes out of Judeism and, except for those which pertain to salvation, the laws are the same.
The whole point of the Jewish religion was to point to Christ, and when He came to Earth the Jewish religion shifted into what we call Christianity.
While there are still people who believe in the OT Jewish religion, that religion is now a false religion as Jesus fulfilled it.

Blah blah blah. I'd pay more attention to the whole thing, but you are, again, operating under wrong information. See my request above to explain how Judaism is the world's oldest religion.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
At first glance, these two statements seem contradictory. One the one hand, you say there are no moral absolutes. On the other, you're saying that all morals are based on the Golden Rule, which would be an absolute. Can you expand on that and fill in what I must be missing?

Let's see if I can clarify...

When I speak of Moral Absolutism in regards to religion I mean a strict set of rules set forth by a deity that are considered perfect and immutable.

The Golden Rule is not a mandate or edict, it is a philosophy. One that lies at the crux of Moral Relativism, which states that morality is relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.

This Wikipedia quote may help:
Lastly, the ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule of ethics, should not be confused with a "rule" in the semantic or logical sense. A logical loophole in the positive form of Golden "rule" is that it would require a masochist to harm others, even without their consent, if that is what the masochist would wish for themselves. This loophole can be addressed by invoking a supplementary rule, which is sometimes called the silver rule. This states "treat others in the way that they wish to be treated". However, the silver rule may create another logical loophole. In a situation where an individual's background or belief may offend the sentiment of the majority, the silver rule may imply ethical majoritarianism if the Golden rule is enforced as if it were a law. An absurd example may be Adolf Hitler's reference to Otto Weininger, which was something in the effect of "There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself." Weininger was a Christian convert with Jewish background who was well known for his view about supposed superiority of Christianity and Christian character over Judaism and Jewishness.

It is clear that most religious understandings of the principle imply its use as a virtue toward greater love and mutual respect for one's neighbour rather than as a deontological or consequentialist rule. Most of us know that different people have different faith or ideological belief, different preferences concerning sex or other matters, and may belong to different cultural heritage. Therefore, the golden rule depends on everyone's ability to understand and give respect to such difference. George Bernard Shaw once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".

Here's a link to the entire article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Hope that helps.
 
Personally, if some guy comes up and hits me in the face they've got a fight on their hands. Even though I might not win, they're sure gonna remember it! The same goes for any guy that messes with my sister. I don't take crap and sure, you should turn the other cheek, but I ain't gonna take a hit to the face, or some dude messing with my sister and look the other way. The song Coward of the County comes to mind, its a good song, look it up!
 
[toj.cc]phantom said:
Personally, if some guy comes up and hits me in the face they've got a fight on their hands. Even though I might not win, they're sure gonna remember it! The same goes for any guy that messes with my sister. I don't take crap and sure, you should turn the other cheek, but I ain't gonna take a hit to the face, or some dude messing with my sister and look the other way. The song Coward of the County comes to mind, its a good song, look it up!

That's the PERFECT example of the difference between Moral Relativism and Absolutism.

Moral Relativism says that you treat others like you would want to be treated. If someone comes up and smashes your face in, he should expect to get the same in return.

Moral Absolutism, according to Christ, says you MUST turn the other cheek.
 
So morals are reletive?

As for Judeism being the oldest religion...
God created the universe and then people.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God killed a sheep to cover their nakedness.
This was the start of Judeism, and as there wasn't anybody else on the Earth to start a new religion yet, it has to be the oldest.

While I realize you don't believe this, that doesn't stop it from being true.
There is plenty of proof for the Bible, people just refuse to see it.
 
Why does society tell you what your morals are? (you said morals come from time, place, etc.) What makes those morals what they are, what decides that? when a trend in morals changes, suddenly Atheists follow THOSE morals? I don't think I'd like this idea of fluid morals...
 
Back
Top