Poll: Atheist Morality

[Akai Shizuku]

Without religion and principle, everything becomes subjective and thus there is rarely a strong moral backbone that is invariably followed.

 

[WayOutThere]

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.

I've never heard that "common grace" thing before but okay except for one thing. Not everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Psychopaths are people born without such a sense.

This might not actually be a flaw with the idea of "common grace" but it is something to be aware of.

Without religion and principle, everything becomes subjective and thus there is rarely a strong moral backbone that is invariably followed.

Why would a moral code built through reason that is also deeply held be rare?

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.

This is one way.

I've sure you've heard this before:

Posit 1: Socrates is man
Posit 2: Man is mortal
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

The same thing can be done with morality:

Posit 1: The only reason for someone to value their own life is because they are conscious (they can feel pain and joy). Any other reason is based on false premises (God favors me, genetic superiority, etc)

Posit 2: Everyone is conscious

Conclusion: No one can assign value to their own life without assigning value to everyones life

The conclusion is inevitable. That's pretty decisive.

 

[Razorback0z]

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.

The notion that in the abscence of religion we would all revert to raping and pillaging.... says a lot more about the people making that claim than it does about Atheists.

If you watch "The War on Science" Dawkins interviews an English christian school teacher and asks him this question. The christian school teacher answers that "in the abscence of a belief in god, everyone would run out and rape and kill" Dawkins puts it to him that what he has said is that the only thing stopping him from raping and killing was his faith in god. The gentleman had basically no response, he realised quite quickly that you can not have this argument both ways.

If you asert that abscence of religion results in anarchsitic behaviour, you need to accept that you are saying that your faith stops you from being a rapsit and murderer.

For those of us without faith, who do not feel compelled to rape and murder, we worry about you folks and you scare us with your lack of self control and need for an external influence to stop you rampaging.

Not very christian at all really.

 

[dragonburner]

I think that you can have morality without "God" but a lot of the general knowledge of what is moral came from the ideas in the ten commandments from "God." But, I think the idea of morality is individual to every person.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip*

You do realize that much of our current moral system (especially the Human Rights) has its basis in ancient Greek morality based on rationality and logic (attributed to people such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)?

Without religion and principle, everything becomes subjective and thus there is rarely a strong moral backbone that is invariably followed.

It's true that morality is subjective, but it's always this way. Just because a large number of people follow a certain creed of morality (based on their religion) does not make it objectively moral (there is no such thing).
I agree with you, however, that it's easier for a society to live together when everybody shares the same subjective morals.
There are other ways of morality to consider besides the religious ones, though.

 

[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.

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

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

 

[KarumaK]

Of course. If there is a god, then it would probably be unable to understand our morality. If you can bring things to life, then killing has no lasting value for you.

Morality is not a creation of God, but of men.

 

[Shynobee]

*snip*

You do realize that much of our current moral system (especially the Human Rights) has its basis in ancient Greek morality based on rationality and logic (attributed to people such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)?

Incorrect sir! Ancient Greeks, while being very progressive in their own way still had many flaws. Including, but not limited to, slavery as a standard means of sustaining ones living, an extremely male dominated society, extreme disdain for the poor, and there are others.

Most of the changes in our society were originally taught by Jesus believe it or not. Some of the main reasons people hated Jesus in his time were because he socialized and even accepted people like, women, slaves, and the poor!

 

[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...

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

 

[Skeleon]

Incorrect sir! Ancient Greeks, while being very progressive in their own way still had many flaws. Including, but not limited to, slavery as a standard means of sustaining ones living, an extremely male dominated society, extreme disdain for the poor, and there are others.

Most of the changes in our society were originally taught by Jesus believe it or not. Some of the main reasons people hated Jesus in his time were because he socialized and even accepted people like, women, slaves, and the poor!

Not incorrect. Yes, the Greeks applied a double standard. But our Human Rights are based on the moral systems for free Greek citizens. And I never said the ancient Greeks were flawless, I just said that our Western moral system is based on theirs.

And while Jesus may have represtented several of those values as well, his teachings are not the basis.

I would like to further point out that Human Rights were severely surpressed until the Age of Enlightenment, which witnessed a resurrection of logic, doubt and rationality, a beginning separation from the Church and the first major bloom of science since the Roman Empire collapsed.

 

[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.

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

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

I'm pretty sure they would have. A strong religious background has little impact on one's need to tell a story, their imagination, or the ability to reach out to children and parents alike, and simultaneously at that, since the tales were originally passed down in the means of warnings and cautions of why not to play with things that are dangerous. That the stories don't focus at all on the anger or charity of God means they come down to this: common sense. Things you should know if you're going to survive in the world (Slow and steady means quality in your work, never trust salesmen, don't punch tar, etc). Those same lessons became the ethics and morals for those listening to the tales as they grew up (never be cruel to an old lady in need, always spare a drink of water and a bite to eat if you're capable, and so on and so forth). The tale-tellers might have had a strong influence, but that doesn't mean the stories need it. Think a chocolate bar that's processed in the same place that processes peanuts--only the products affected by peanuts really need to know that there's peanuts inside, but that doesn't mean that there's peanuts in every bar that comes out of the factory.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

 

[Yeager942]

Yay, another religion thread *rolls eyes*

 

[Shynobee]

Incorrect sir! Ancient Greeks, while being very progressive in their own way still had many flaws. Including, but not limited to, slavery as a standard means of sustaining ones living, an extremely male dominated society, extreme disdain for the poor, and there are others.

Most of the changes in our society were originally taught by Jesus believe it or not. Some of the main reasons people hated Jesus in his time were because he socialized and even accepted people like, women, slaves, and the poor!

Not incorrect. Yes, the Greeks applied a double standard. But our Human Rights are based on the moral systems for free Greek citizens. And I never said the ancient Greeks were flawless, I just said that our Western moral system is based on theirs.

And while Jesus may have represtented several of those values as well, his teachings are not the basis.

I would like to further point out that Human Rights were severely surpressed until the Age of Enlightenment, which witnessed a resurrection of logic, doubt and rationality, a beginning separation from the Church and the first bloom of science since the Roman Empire collapsed.

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

 

[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...

Actually, I do know that. I also know that there was no figure analogous to God in any of the stories. It was only the characters that interacted with each other, and their actions in either an ill or favorable light force their surroundings or other characters to either enact retribution or reward them, for the appropriate deeds. The surroundings were often blanked off as either mystical, magical, or terrific (and these were back in the days when that word meant terror-inspiring, not better than good). So, while they had a fair religious background, that background was not utilized in almost any of the stories written. They relied on forces other than religion to teach a lesson.

I'm pretty sure they would have. A strong religious background has little impact on one's need to tell a story, their imagination, or the ability to reach out to children and parents alike, and simultaneously at that, since the tales were originally passed down in the means of warnings and cautions of why not to play with things that are dangerous. That the stories don't focus at all on the anger or charity of God means they come down to this: common sense. Things you should know if you're going to survive in the world (Slow and steady means quality in your work, never trust salesmen, don't punch tar, etc). Those same lessons became the ethics and morals for those listening to the tales as they grew up (never be cruel to an old lady in need, always spare a drink of water and a bite to eat if you're capable, and so on and so forth). The tale-tellers might have had a strong influence, but that doesn't mean the stories need it. Think a chocolate bar that's processed in the same place that processes peanuts--only the products affected by peanuts really need to know that there's peanuts inside, but that doesn't mean that there's peanuts in every bar that comes out of the factory.

This is true, but my point was, (and I'll admit, i didn't do a very good job of making it) that without their strong religious backgrounds, would these poets have even made what they did? We'll never know of course, it was just food for thought.

you misquoted me a bit there, but I'll let that slide, because we are now currently arguing a moot point. Its now simply a matter of what you will choose to believe. I think that the strong religious influence inspired these writers to do what they did, and you believe otherwise. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so lets just leave it at that.

 

[WayOutThere]

Yay, another religion thread *rolls eyes*

Thank you, so much, for your imput.

If you want there to be less religous threads you should not post on one and validate its existence. No, you didn't come here to discourage religous threads you're just enjoying being pompous.

 

[Skeleon]

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

Hm, okay, I can't say much about America's moral system.
Talking about Europe here. Think of France, for example.
But as I said, I don't know enough about America (except for hearsay) to properly evaluate this. I would've imagined that it'd have been similar for America, but I could definitely be wrong.

Well, but that's a major failing of organized religion, isn't it? It always leads to an intrusion on the "worldly plane", if you will, because a religion is trying to grow, become more powerful and influential.
It's not so much about morality as it is about imposing your will and values, no matter how objectively "good"/desirable they are. This, of course, is not a problem specific to religion but to anything that influences masses of people on a similar level of fervor (think of political orientations or whatever).

Don't forget about the monarchs who, at that time, were very keen on funding promising young scientists. It's true that many scientists were monks but I don't really see the relevance since what matters is whether or not they applied the scientific method. They were not scientifically active because they were religious but because they were learnt.

Anyway, back to my original point: The Western moral system (maybe more specifically the European one, I can't tell), was based upon the ancient Greeks' ideas, which were "rediscovered" during the Age of Enlightenment and influence us to this day. Christianity may, in theory, have held similar prospects, but in reality it counteracted any free moral developments until its significance diminished somewhat. Whether or not that was "intended" doesn't really matter now. It definitely did.

 

[Drakmeire]

I'm a very spiritual person so if I didn't believed there was a higher purpose, I would just go nuts and destroy the planet.

 

[Shynobee]

And again I say to you, Incorrect!

America's current LEGAL system has heavy Greek influence, but our MORALs on the other hand our based much more heavily on the Christian faith of the the Founding fathers!

Also, in response to you're enlightenment statement, yes, human rights were surpressed up until that time, but it was the Church as an orginization that did this, the people in charge became corrupt with a power that they were never supposed to happen in the first place.

As for that "bloom of science" the majority of those scientists were Christian monks, as Monastaries were the only sources of written knowledge at that time. Who do you think kept all the Ancient Roman documents?

Hm, okay, I can't say much about America's moral system.
Talking about Europe here. Think of France, for example.
But as I said, I don't know enough about America (except for hearsay) to properly evaluate this. I would've imagined that it'd have been similar for America, but I could definitely be wrong.

Well, but that's a major failing of organized religion, isn't it? It always leads to an intrusion on the "worldly plane", if you will, because a religion is trying to grow, become more powerful and influential.
It's not so much about morality as it is about imposing your will and values, no matter how objectively "good"/desirable they are. This, of course, is not a problem specific to religion but to anything that influences masses of people on a similar level of fervor (think of political orientations or whatever).

Don't forget about the monarchs who, at that time, were very keen on funding promising young scientists. It's true that many scientists were monks but I don't really see the relevance since what matters is whether or not they applied the scientific method. They were not scientifically active because they were religious but because they were learnt.

Anyway, back to my original point: The Western moral system (maybe more specifically the European one, I can't tell), was based upon the ancient Greeks' ideas, which were "rediscovered" during the Age of Enlightenment and influence us to this day. Christianity may, in theory, have held similar prospects, but in reality it counteracted any free moral developments until its significance diminished somewhat. Whether or not that was "intended" doesn't really matter now. It definitely did.

You do make excellent arguments. Especially on your comment of orginized religion, but honestly, that's just human fallibility there.

As to your continued argument on Greeks moral system, I still think you are a bit confused. The Greek moral system was quite different compared to what we live with today. Slavery, eye for an eye, etc etc etc, were all commonplace in ancient Greece. If we still held to those morals today, well honestly, I don't even want to think of what world we'd be living in now.

I believe you are refrencing the great Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. While all three were remarkably brilliant, they didn't present any truly revolutionary moral ideals, all they did was create new ways of thought and different world views on things such as politics.

If you could elaborate and give me an example of ancient Greek morality that is still widely accepted today, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Sayvara]

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?

All you need to do is look at little children to realize that what we call "morals" are something every human can easilly agree on, because we don't like the acts that morals forbid.

Take a toy or a stuffed animal from a child... the child will cry. We don't like having stuff stolen from us.

Hit a child... the child will cry and cringe. We don't like being hurt.

So we can go on and on about this and find that all these actions we condemn as immoral all stem from stuff we simply don't like being done to us. When someone hits me, it hurts, and I don't like that. So in order to protect myself, I invent the "moral" that says it's wrong to hit me.

Finaly... reciprocality: if a child sees you do something, it will assume it is allright to do so. If someone does something, it's diffucult motivate that the child cannot do that thing as well.

So... in order for me to say to someone, "You can't hit me", I must also say "I can't hit you"... or he'll think it's unfair and not follow the morals I set up for him. We universalize this... and we end up with "Don't hit anyone".

So simple... and no God was necessary to arrive at this.

/S