Poll: Atheist Morality

[hippo24]

Well personally I think they are linked.
So yes.

I believe that some very basic concepts of morality are innate, and that religious morality is an extension of those.
I believe that we are not basilary by nature, that humanity in general is more than just an exotic animal.

I personally think that we are all linked to something greater and are established to do so. Weather you call this greater purpose divine, or an anomaly, doesn't change the fact that its there.

It is in my opinion that because we are more, we are made to be more. So we, by very nature, have a basic mental similarity that we call morality.

 

[Jurassic Rob]

This thread is interesting. Yes you could argue that the morals and truths we hold, may have started with religion, but, in the age we live in it would be truely bizarre if people didn't hold to what we now percieve as normal morality, just because they don't believe in an omnipitant deity!

I'm sure way back when the popular organized religions were starting, then there were similar morals, but religion gave them something to fear if the believers didn't follow them!

Look at you neighbour's wife (and it is always your neighbour) with lust, and it's a one way trip to Hell.

 

[Sark]

I don't act nice because of heavenly rewards, I do that because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I'm an atheist and a moral relativist. If not a moral nihilist, depending on mood.

But yes, whatever we call morals exists without God. Pretty much the Golden Rule.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Hmm...

Anyway. Morality without God, or a "higher power" becomes relative. Everyone defines their own morals. They then lose any value. Your moral standards will conflict with someone else's. Without a higher authority, neither is "wrong", but neither is "right".

With God, or a higher power, there is a moral absolute as defined by a greater existence and/or creator.

The Golden Rule was pretty much there before religions. Hence a lot of religions and philosophies adopted it. I don't see how it's religious - religious moral would be "don't do this, or you'll burn in hell" or receive some other form of punishment from some sort of divine being.

Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself is just common sense. If you punch someone in the face, chances are they'll fight back. So if you befriend someone, chances are their response will be positive as well.

I think you have a bad view of religion. Well... since you reference hell, probably just Judaism/Christianity.

The point isn't "do bad things, go to hell; do good things go to heaven". That's a very oversimplified approach that too many, even within Christianity, take to heart. In Christianity, is is more like; behave this way because it is right. behave this way because it is how Christ would have you behave. Behave this way because it is best for you. Do that which is holy because your father in heaven is holy. Sin and God do not mix, therefore do not sin because your sin will separate you from God. Essentially, it references God as the standard of morality. Yes, if you are separate from God, the consequence is hell. It is also very clear in the Bible, not always Christianity as a religion, that good works are not a "ticket to heaven".

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

Snip

The Golden Rule was pretty much there before religions. Hence a lot of religions and philosophies adopted it. I don't see how it's religious - religious moral would be "don't do this, or you'll burn in hell" or receive some other form of punishment from some sort of divine being.

Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself is just common sense. If you punch someone in the face, chances are they'll fight back. So if you befriend someone, chances are their response will be positive as well.

I also find it ironic that you point out a consequence system in Christianity as a bad thing and then turn around and misinterpret the "Golden Rule" you evidenced as saying "Don't punch people in the face or they will punch you in the face back", when it is actually "Don't punch people in the face because you don't want to be punched in the face."

 

[WayOutThere]

Anyway. Morality without God, or a "higher power" becomes relative. Everyone defines their own morals. They then lose any value. Your moral standards will conflict with someone else's. Without a higher authority, neither is "wrong", but neither is "right".

With God, or a higher power, there is a moral absolute as defined by a greater existence and/or creator.

Everyone defines their own morals (as they do today regardless of Gods existence) but that doesn't mean their morality is rationally sound. I'm saying morality should be rationally sound, it is something to be constructed through reasoned debate.

Why should we listen to this higher power anyway? All he has is his "inscrutabel wisdom" (an oxymoron). His responce to Job for killing his family was to just point out all the stuff he created. Job more or less said after that "Don't tell me 'cause I wouldn't understand anyway".

God's got nothing.

I'm pretty sure most religious people aren't so into their religion that they think atheists are immoral barbarians or something.

Most don't think that. Instead, they say morality is based on their religion or a belief in God. They say atheists can be moral but atheism can't be.

The existence of objective morality is not a personal question, but a metaphysical one.

Its a scientific question. You're making a claim about reality.

As Voltaire once said: "I do not have morals, but I am a very moral person." He was not, by any means, an atheist, but he makes sense in that, if you stop objectifying moralism, it becomes immediately subjective. Mostly to societal or sensory conditions.

What you're saying is that we need to objectify morality. But what is "objectively" true. How do we decide that? Doesn't just asking that question make morality "subjective"?

chalk it up to experience, if you will.

ummm, slavery?

If one can prove that morals exist in an a priori, infinite, and universal way, then their cause would, by definition, be God.

Wait, how do you figure?

 

[Nifty]

Its a common argument that morality does not exist without God. I'm an atheist and I very much don't buy into this. But what do you think fellow Escapistians?

It's an exciting question, one I'd love to write an essay on but I'll keep this as short as possible to stop me getting carried away.

I'm an atheist and I like to think I'm a morally good person. Even if God did exist, there's little reason for me to think that things weren't wrong before he said so.

 

[Lord Thodin]

Repubic By Plato. Get crackin on that OP.

Every bit of morality exists from a sociological stand point. If one were to eliminate god entirely from the worlds minds, the issue of morality vs immorality would still stand. If the ones in charge say this is right, and this is wrong, that sets the ground rules FOR morality in that society. Its morally wrong for One American to Bash another, however in the Middle East if one person has a different religion than the rest its considered immoral to go against the society.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

Morality is based on personality, not religion. Religion can churn out mass murderers and atheism can produce upstanding members of society. And vice versa. Religion has no effect on whether you are a good person or not.

 

[Skeleon]

Of course you don't need a believe in any gods to be moral.
Hell, I'd say non-belief-based morals are actually better because they're not overshadowed by that idea of rewards/punishments but based on a concept of intrinsic values instead.
I remember reading about this "ladder" of morality back in ethics classes (unfortunately I don't remember the author).
Anyway, the jist was that moral behaviour based on fear of punishment/wish for reward is several steps below moral behaviour based upon universal principles. And I agree with this view.

EDIT: Ah, found it after all:
"Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development".

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Rehash...Rehash...Rehash...

Morality and ethics do not rely on religion, they rely on principle. An adaptation of the same stories without the religious influence can be told for the same effect: to teach a moral lesson. Aesop's fairytales did it, Mother Goose did it, the other fairytales from the Brothers Grimm all did it, and those are just fairytales.

 

[ben---neb]

it's really scary when someone says that it's God that stops them killing other people, what happens if they become atheist?!?! i am so worried

Just to clear this issue up. Christians believe that God extend his "common grace" too all people's no matter whether or not they believe in him. This common grace consists not only of a person's natural abilities but also an inbuilt sense of right and wrong (ie. a conscience). Athiests don't believe in God yet he still extends his common grace to them and in giving then a sense of morality prevents them (and all of humanity reagrdless of religion or lack thereof) from falling into even more sin.

Of course this doesn't mean that no murders will ever take place. It is within an indiduals freedom to ignore his sense of morality and do whatever he pleases. Hope this makes you feel better.

 

[WayOutThere]

how moral can a person be if his actions are based on a fear of punishment rather then an understanding of human suffering ?

Therin' lies the thing, few religonists say fear of hell is the basis of their morality. Instead, they say "objective morality" exists. This is the idea that some things are right and somethings are wrong because that is how the universe is. It is the attempt to make morality true in the same sense the laws of physics are.

 

[Shynobee]

First, let me ask you this, what moral system do you currently subscribe to? For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that you beleive in the modern western world view of morality.

Ok, with that out of the way, lets get to the meat of this issue. My answer to your question is a resounding NO. Let me explain as to why this is the case.

I'll begin by saying that the current western world view of morality was founded by Christianity. Yes it was and you can argue with me on that point if you like, but whether you want to believe it or not, it is true. So to put it simply, today's standards of "all people are equal" and "everyone is special" etc etc etc all came from a religious orginization.

So, based on that point i strongly believe, that with out a religious foundation, the morals above it cannot and will not stand the test of time. For example, I see it in the following way:

Immagine you built a beautiful castle on top of some extremely strong bedrock, but a few yeaar down the road, you think it'll be a good idea to demolish said bed rock, but you still expect your castle to be in good shape. (in case you weren't aware, the castle in that scenario were morals, and the bedrock was religion)

My second point as to why are current morals will fail without religion is the common sense argument. Lately, I've been hearing alot of people going on about how "common sense will always allow people to make the right decisions." And frankly, this is just not the case. Common sense is not so common as most people believe, and honestly, we currently believe many things that don't follow the rules of common sense. Allow me to explain.

My first point on common sense's actually rarity is a little difficult to prove to most, but when you think about it, people all over the world do things that don't follow common sense, and this generally applies to people acting in their own self interest. Consider the person who goes out to a bar to drink. They end up overdrinking and being hungover and in pain the next day. Common sense says to not do that again, but will they? Of course they will!

My second point on common sense is that we believe alot of things that contradict common sense. For example, common sense says that the earth is standing still and the sun and moon rotate around it. But, we have all come to accept that the earth is hurtling at ridiculously fast speeds through the universe and that the sun is a giant ball of fire billions of miles away. Why do we believe this? Not common sense, but because our teachers told us so. In a way, we take it on blind faith that this is so. I doubt that many of us have actually gone into orbit to verify this fact.

So, getting back on topic, common sense really wouldn't be that great of a moral compass if it ever were to replace religion.

I could go on to explain why atheism is wrong and that there is a God and Galileo was wrong, but then I'd be here all night.

 

[Kriptonite]

Of course there can. It depends on the person, not some omniscient, omnipotent being.

 

[Magic Muffin Man]

I'm agnostic and pretty moral, so yes, morals can exist without some bearded superman in the sky.

 

[MBFCPresident]

If you don't believe in any higher power, it seems questionable to me why you would have a decisive moral stance on any issue.

 

[Shynobee]

And actually, for my part, I don`t really buy that argument either. Morality is inherently logical: it is logical to develop a society where people are raised to know that murder is unacceptable behaviour, or that someone who steals from others should be made to accept restitution. If this argument were the only one upon which people base their belief in the existence of God, it would be flimsy to say the least.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. To say that morality is intrinsically logical is a big leap in my eyes. Today's current beliefs of how stealing and murder are viewed have not been around forever, and in fact, they are quite recent. For example, in ancient Greece, Infanticide was a regular occurance. Any one who has seen 300 would know that. For those of you who haven't, Spartan parents would regularly kill babies who appeared weak in any way.

Also, looting and stealing were common place among any ancient country at war. Robbing the enemy was expect of the victor. But try that today and you get thrown in a court martial.

 

[Shynobee]

Rehash...Rehash...Rehash...

Morality and ethics do not rely on religion, they rely on principle. An adaptation of the same stories without the religious influence can be told for the same effect: to teach a moral lesson. Aesop's fairytales did it, Mother Goose did it, the other fairytales from the Brothers Grimm all did it, and those are just fairytales.

Ah, but little do you know, all of those listed poets had strong religious backgrounds...