Atheism and morality

[DanteFox]

In this thread I will make the following assertion: atheists have no reason to believe in absolute morality, therefore decrying anything as "evil" or "immoral" doesn't make sense for MOST atheists.

my premises:

1. Without God there is no reason to believe in absolute morality
2. Atheists don't believe in God

my conclusion: Atheists don't have a reason to believe in absolute morality, therefore all statements implying an absolute moral good are statements of FAITH. *gasp*

I must qualify this by saying that it is certainly possible for an atheist to believe in absolute morality, say as a property of our universe or something of that nature, but they have no evidence for this and are therefore relying totally on the faith that this is so.

*Mandatory note to reactionary atheists: I am NOT saying atheists can't be moral, nor am I saying that theists are morally superior to atheists, peace out.

why make this thread? I'm sick of atheists who think they're superior to theists because they can do good on their own and not because "some bearded man in the sky told them to." Nevermind the fact that NONE of the three monotheistic religions' conceptions of God is that of a bearded man in the sky.

 

[Xivii]

1. Without God there is no reason to believe in absolute morality

You're argument falls apart with this opening assumption. You're defining morality as something only God can determine. This is not so if we are to go by the common definition of 'morals'.

[collapse=Dictionary definitions of 'Atheist' and 'Morals']
[quote="Dictionary.com's definition of Atheist]a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [/quote]

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

[/collapse]

1. That morality is a principle of right and wrong is a fact.
2. Where morality comes from is not fact, but a belief.

An individual, including an atheist, can have morals without the belief that such morals originated from God.


I personally believe that morals cannot be assumed to be determined from God. Moral values differ from culture to culture, society to society. Two cultures may have different moral values, yet the people of these two cultures may both believe in a God. They both believe in God yet their morals values differ; therefore, we cannot assume that morals originate from God.

I believe morals originate from the most common beliefs in a society. In Iran, for example, it is considered extremely immoral to commit adultery. Women are stoned to death for committing such a crime, and in that society, punishing someone in such a way is not considered immoral, but just. In America most people do not believe adultery to be wrong enough for the person committing the act to be punished in such a way. If someone were to be stoned to death in America for committing adultery, it would be considered immoral for the stoners (hehe) to have done so because it is the belief most people in the American society hold. Where as in a place like Iran, it is considered a just act by their society.

Another example is that in America child labor is not allowed, because society see's it as immoral. However, in some countries child labor is permitted. Even if most people in such countries believe in a god as many Americans do, their morals differ from that of the majority of Americans.

 

[ballin4life]

I agree that there is no absolute morality, but recognizing this is actually the first step to determining proper morals.

As soon as one states that one has an absolute morality, then that person is essentially saying "I am objectively right". Now if every single person agrees with this given code of morality, there is no problem. But if just one single person disagrees, and instead says "No, here is the true objective code of morality", then there is no recourse to solve this disagreement.

In essence, when religions claim to be objectively right, they lose any recourse of reasoning with each other because they by definition do not accept the other's code of morality as valid. The only thing they can do is try to kill each other over their disagreements.

Believing in a relative morality allows one to understand that one's own opinion of what's right and wrong is NOT necessarily the absolute truth. This realization allows one to then come to an understanding when others do not share the same moral code.

In the end, what IS objectively right is when a group of individuals, each with his own personal moral code, comes together on the things that the individuals DO agree on. Assuming one's own morality is superior to others is the source of conflict, because it's an affront to your morality when others disagree with you.



Anyway, that's my main point with this post, but I'd also like to point out that I don't understand why God implies an objective morality. Just because God created the universe doesn't mean that his opinions are always morally right.

 

[Dre89]

Just because there's a diversity of opinions on morality doesn't mean morality isn't objective.

That'd be like saying that if everyone suddenly thought food wasn't good for us, that it actually wouldn't be good for us.

Then the skeptic says "but we can prove food is good" and I can say we can prove morality is objective.

As for the OP, I think atheists can argue for an objective code of morality, simply on the grounds that morality is based on how our nature is structured. So whatever structured our nature would be responsible for morality.

In fact, it would appear atheists are even more moral, because they do it morality's sake, not use it as a means to avoid punishment.

 

[DanteFox]

Just because there's a diversity of opinions on morality doesn't mean morality isn't objective.

That'd be like saying that if everyone suddenly thought food wasn't good for us, that it actually wouldn't be good for us.

Then the skeptic says "but we can prove food is good" and I can say we can prove morality is objective.

As for the OP, I think atheists can argue for an objective code of morality, simply on the grounds that morality is based on how our nature is structured. So whatever structured our nature would be responsible for morality.

In fact, it would appear atheists are even more moral, because they do it morality's sake, not use it as a means to avoid punishment.

I don't think we can say that for sure. Not all religious people are moral simply to avoid punishment, and there are certainly some atheists that are moral only because society tells them to be. Also, in saying that atheists are "more moral" you're presupposing an absolute morality by which to judge them against. But yes I agree, I think with respect to what I hold to be absolutely moral, someone who is moral for its own sake is more moral than someone who does it to avoid punishment.

Anyway my contention is that they can't argue for an objective morality unless they admit that the only reason they believe in objective morality is based on faith, just like religious people.

Note that when I use the term atheist I'm assuming a naturalist leaning, when it comes to atheist supernaturalists all bets are off, but the reason I don't bring those up is because they're rare.

Think about it this way, if everything we are, our body, our environment, even our universe, are the result of unguided, random processes, how can the little Jiminy Cricket in our head --that little voice of morality-- reflect an absolute, unbending morality that transcends us? It'd be no more objective than our eye color would be THE objective hair color.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also, in saying that atheists are "more moral" you're presupposing an absolute morality by which to judge them against. But yes I agree, I think with respect to what I hold to be absolutely moral, someone who is moral for its own sake is more moral than someone who does it to avoid punishment.

Although Dre argues in favour of an objective morality there's no reason to believe he's presupposing an absolute objective morality in that statement. He could be saying, they adhere to their morals better than theists, or that in his eyes they're more moral.

 

[DanteFox]

fair enough. but if that's the case it doesn't matter because it's all relative anyway! lol.

That's why I can't take moral relativism seriously.

 

[ballin4life]

Just because there's a diversity of opinions on morality doesn't mean morality isn't objective.

That'd be like saying that if everyone suddenly thought food wasn't good for us, that it actually wouldn't be good for us.

Then the skeptic says "but we can prove food is good" and I can say we can prove morality is objective.

As for the OP, I think atheists can argue for an objective code of morality, simply on the grounds that morality is based on how our nature is structured. So whatever structured our nature would be responsible for morality.

In fact, it would appear atheists are even more moral, because they do it morality's sake, not use it as a means to avoid punishment.

I don't see how that analogy applies at all. In fact, I'm not really sure what that analogy is even saying.

What is your proof that morality is objective? I say that "what is right" depends on the individual person's opinion. You and I might have different ideas of what is right.

fair enough. but if that's the case it doesn't matter because it's all relative anyway! lol.

That's why I can't take moral relativism seriously.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, can you explain?





My argument is that objective moral good is accomplished only through interactions that satisfy the subjective moral codes of the participants.

 

[DanteFox]

I don't think there's anyway to prove that objective morality exists, just like there's no way to prove it doesn't. It's all up to what you believe. What I'm arguing is that atheists (naturalists specifically) have no reason to believe in objective morality, yet they go about their daily lives as though it did exist.

 

[GwJ]

My argument is that objective moral good is accomplished only through interactions that satisfy the subjective moral codes of the participants.

If everyone agrees that a certain morality is correct, it doesn't mean that it is objective, just agreed upon. It needs to be absolute and true completely. If one guy jumped in with a new idea then your previously objective morality becomes subjective.

 

[Nicholas1024]

My question to atheists is the following:

If morality doesn't come from God, where does it come from? I think the usual answer to this question is society, but that has it's own problems. You see, different societies have conflicting moral paradigms, so which of them is right? How can you guarantee that America's famous statement, "All men are created equal" is correct instead of Nazi Germany's genocide?

(Just wanted to be 100% clear, obviously as a Christian I believe in absolute morals from the Bible, but I'm curious how an atheist approaches morality.)

 

[GwJ]

Again, we can't have an absolute morality. It's not possible for that reason.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Society.

Nicholas, you have to realize that gods have different set of morals, which is right then?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Society.

Nicholas, you have to realize that gods have different set of morals, which is right then?

Well, naturally my answer would be the Christian set, for reasons stated in the New testament thread. You need to look at the historical backing behind what you believe, and ensure that it's satisfactory.

Now a question for you Dark Horse.

If you lived in Nazi Germany during World War 2, what would you have used to determine right and wrong? Because I think we can all agree that the society from then was incorrect.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

According to your morals, it's incorrect.

There really isn't any type of moral that's superior to others.

Also, even if god exists, appeal to athority is appeal to authority.

 

[Nicholas1024]

According to our morals, it's incorrect.

There really isn't any type of moral that's superior to others.

Also, even if god exists, appeal to athority is appeal to authority.

Are you claiming that the Nazi's committing genocide were merely acting in accordance with their morals, and doing nothing wrong? Because, history disagrees with you on that point.

At the end of World War II, the Allies tried the German leaders for the crimes they had done, but ran into a problem: Under German law, the Nazis hadn't done anything wrong. So, they held the Nuremberg Trials, and tried the Nazis under an international, higher law. The Allied societies themselves were arguing that society does not make right, but that there is a higher law which trumps that of society.

Also, to look at it from another angle, Hitler's oppression of Jews was clearly unnatural. There is just nothing like it in nature. Taking their possessions and kicking them out? Fine, there's clearly a motive there. However, Hitler was doing everything possible to exterminate the Jews, for no apparent reason. In fact, the trains for the concentration camp were given priority over military trains. Why devote so much of a nation's time and resources to mass murdering a race, when there's nothing to gain? (Especially considering that you're losing a massive war at the time!)

Whoops, missed your edit. Even if I'm appealing to authority, there's a difference. You are appealing to a fallible, human construction (that is, going to Society for your morals). I am appealing to the infallible, all powerful, all knowing God.

 

[GwJ]

That you THINK is there. There's multiple gods with multiple levels of morality. Have the wrong god? Well that sucks then.

 

[Nicholas1024]

That you THINK is there. There's multiple gods with multiple levels of morality. Have the wrong god? Well that sucks then.

Oh, I'm pretty confident as far as that goes. I don't want to derail the thread here, but check my "Evidence behind the New Testament" thread if you're curious as to why.

 

[GwJ]

And what about the billions of other schmuks who think they're right?

 

[professor mgw]

Why i ask, do mods let these threads go up? If the matter even touches on god, the thread is automatically turned into a discussion "if god exist."

on topic: I have yet to meet an atheist who is open minded & not sarcastic. I wa reading a magzine called ""The Watchtower" published by jehovah witnesses, and the november issue was entitled "atheism on the march". I thought it was an excellent read

 

[Nicholas1024]

And what about the billions of other schmuks who think they're right?

If you have the right answer, you don't need to investigate the billions of wrong answers. Once we find out that 2+2 = 4, we don't need to investigate whether 2+2 = 5 or 9, because we already have the right answer.

 

[GwJ]

Religion isn't math. You don't have objective proof you're right; don't be so arrogent.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Religion isn't math. You do t have objective proof you're right; don't be so arrogent.

The same principle applies. If Christianity's concept of God is correct, then I don't need to investigate any other religions. I am completely satisfied with the evidence behind Christianity, so there you go.

In fact, atheists use the same idea at times. They are confident that evolution and Darwin is correct, so they dismiss all ideas of God or religion. Regardless, the point remains the same: If you have the right answer, you don't need to investigate the wrong answers.

 

[GwJ]

I don't base my morals, my fundimental belief of what's right or wrong, on some guy's theory of why we're here.

And again, what about everyone in the world who's confident in their belief too? The Egyptians were confident of their gods too.

 

[Sieguest]

There's the crux Nicholas1024. Unless you have something definitive to prove that Christianity's concept of God is correct then you can't dismiss the others as not worth looking at. I could easily replace Christianity with another Abrahamic religion and have the exact same statement with the exact same grounding as yours... which is none. I have the feeling you are about to lead yourself into a logical fallacy if I'm following your chain of logic correctly.

I don't base my morals, my fundimental belief of what's right or wrong, on some guy's theory of why we're here.

And again, what about everyone in the world who's confident in their belief too? The Egyptians were confident of their gods too.

To be fair, it's also true that Christianity has a lot sturdier basis in things outside of its holy text than many other religions and belief systems.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Hold on just one second.

READ THE BLASTED NEW TESTAMENT THREAD!

Thank you.

I have evidence behind my beliefs, I just don't want to derail this thread (which seems to be happening anyway )

@GWJumpman
Then please, what do you base your morals on? (This should hopefully lead us back on topic.)

 

[GwJ]

First of all, I've read your thread twice. It doesn't prove anything.

I base my morals on what I feel is right and wrong as a person. If what I'm doing makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong, it's probably wrong.

 

[Ballistics]

What a sad person you are that you need a fictional deity to stop you from being a bad person. I think these threads should be screened before they are allowed to be posted.

 

[Sieguest]

Hold on just one second.

READ THE BLASTED NEW TESTAMENT THREAD!

Thank you.


I have evidence behind my beliefs, I just don't want to derail this thread (which seems to be happening anyway )

I have. No need to post so uncouthly. And there are those who have counter examined your evidence too. There are many questions that even the evidence you present arises, none of which are easily answered. That is why proving God's existence via validating the Bible is just as winding a path as any other approach to it. Maybe I should post that post I made in the center stage in there.

@GWJumpman
Then please, what do you base your morals on? (This should hopefully lead us back on topic.)

Although the question isn't directed at me I personally base my morals on the Bible. And even though I adhere to these beliefs, I don't believe I can force them upon others... which is why I've taken a stance of moral relativism.

What a sad person you are that you need a fictional deity to stop you from being a bad person. I think these threads should be screened before they are allowed to be posted.

Ad Hominem, counter the argument, don't attack the poster.

 

[ballin4life]

If everyone agrees that a certain morality is correct, it doesn't mean that it is objective, just agreed upon. It needs to be absolute and true completely. If one guy jumped in with a new idea then your previously objective morality becomes subjective.

No that's exactly the truth. If one person doesn't agree to the way he is interacting with others, then it is not objectively morally right.

Are you claiming that the Nazi's committing genocide were merely acting in accordance with their morals, and doing nothing wrong? Because, history disagrees with you on that point.

At the end of World War II, the Allies tried the German leaders for the crimes they had done, but ran into a problem: Under German law, the Nazis hadn't done anything wrong. So, they held the Nuremberg Trials, and tried the Nazis under an international, higher law. The Allied societies themselves were arguing that society does not make right, but that there is a higher law which trumps that of society.

Also, to look at it from another angle, Hitler's oppression of Jews was clearly unnatural. There is just nothing like it in nature. Taking their possessions and kicking them out? Fine, there's clearly a motive there. However, Hitler was doing everything possible to exterminate the Jews, for no apparent reason. In fact, the trains for the concentration camp were given priority over military trains. Why devote so much of a nation's time and resources to mass murdering a race, when there's nothing to gain? (Especially considering that you're losing a massive war at the time!)

Whoops, missed your edit. Even if I'm appealing to authority, there's a difference. You are appealing to a fallible, human construction (that is, going to Society for your morals). I am appealing to the infallible, all powerful, all knowing God.

If the Christian God said the Nazis were right, would you go along with it?

I don't really know anything about the Bible, but I thought there are passages about smiting nonbelievers, killing adulterers, etc., at least, stuff that seems to go a little too far.

Also aren't there parts of the Bible that different groups interpret differently?

And what happens when you encounter a Muslim, or someone else who claims to have the cosmic key to all that is right and wrong? Since you claim to also have the true, objective morality, i.e. because your moral code contains the statement "Only this moral code is right, ever", the very existence of the other's moral code is an affront to yours.

Also watch out for the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something happens "in nature" doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Ballistics]

This is not even a valid argument its silly

 

[GwJ]

Are you saying that if a small group of people came out and say a very significant part of the bible was interpreted wrong, the fact that they are almost infinitely out numbered made them wrong?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Are you claiming that the Nazi's committing genocide were merely acting in accordance with their morals, and doing nothing wrong? Because, history disagrees with you on that point.

At the end of World War II, the Allies tried the German leaders for the crimes they had done, but ran into a problem: Under German law, the Nazis hadn't done anything wrong. So, they held the Nuremberg Trials, and tried the Nazis under an international, higher law. The Allied societies themselves were arguing that society does not make right, but that there is a higher law which trumps that of society.Also, to look at it from another angle, Hitler's oppression of Jews was clearly unnatural.

There is just nothing like it in nature. Taking their possessions and kicking them out? Fine, there's clearly a motive there. However, Hitler was doing everything possible to exterminate the Jews, for no apparent reason. In fact, the trains for the concentration camp were given priority over military trains. Why devote so much of a nation's time and resources to mass murdering a race, when there's nothing to gain? (Especially considering that you're losing a massive war at the time!)

If it was due to law, then why did you bring it up in a morality debate?

According to Nazi's morals, it was perfectly fine. Saying that other people disagreed and arrested them doesn't change it.

Whoops, missed your edit. Even if I'm appealing to authority, there's a difference. You are appealing to a fallible, human construction (that is, going to Society for your morals). I am appealing to the infallible, all powerful, all knowing God.

Ad homenim is a debate fallacy, you know.


God has failed a lot >_> If he where infallible, we wouldn't have wars, disease ,famine, and weather storms. Plants and animals wouldn't have gone extinct. We wouldn't have global warming to worry about.

If he's so powerful, then why doesn't he just do something?

 

[GwJ]

He's gotta have fun somehow I guess.

*shrug*

 

[Sieguest]

This is not even a valid argument its silly

Regardless of the validity of the argument. Making a logical fallacy in response to it just makes your own arguments less convincing.

He's gotta have fun somehow I guess.

*shrug*

In regards to this comment. Strawmanning to undermine another person's ideas doesn't do anything to progress the discussion.

Anyway, it seems inevitable that any topic involving morality, religions, or belief systems ends up becoming a God debate....

Pertaining to the subject of morality and what the OP has said. One doesn't need to adhere to Christianity or any sort of religion with a God to believe in absolute morality. The proof is as simple as asking any atheist their feelings on murder. Any moral belief a person has in general is something he/she assumes to be absolute. It's what they feel is right or wrong.

Take the statement "I believe murder is wrong". If the person didn't think of this as an absolute then they would not be offended or make judgments on others whenever they hear of someone murdering someone else. Whether or not morality can be an absolute is a totally different story than questioning whether or not a certain individual may believe in an absolute morality.

 

[GwJ]

I don't think murder is always wrong. I'm sure plenty of atheists do. Again, there is no absolute morality.

 

[Ballistics]

The Golden rule trumps all your religious laws. Its pretty much all you need.

I wanna know how many of you jesus freaks would really let someone beat you up, because you are "turning the other cheek"

Odds are you would defend yourself, because our human standards do not take that kind of crap

All humans have a built in morality, and its offensive when christians make the assertion that they are the only righteous ones

 

[Sieguest]

I don't think murder is always wrong. I'm sure plenty of atheists do. Again, there is no absolute morality.

The general idea still holds true. One would not hold a belief if they did not assume it to be absolute. Else he/she would not judge another person's actions that run contrary to their moral belief.

As I said earlier, the idea that a certain person may hold a moral to be absolute is different from whether an absolute morality actually exists.

 

[GwJ]

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing, I was just pointing that out.

I agree with what you're saying.

 

[Deleted member]

The Golden rule trumps all your religious laws. Its pretty much all you need.

I wanna know how many of you jesus freaks would really let someone beat you up, because you are "turning the other cheek"

Odds are you would defend yourself, because our human standards do not take that kind of crap

All humans have a built in morality, and its offensive when christians make the assertion that they are the only righteous ones

Hidden beneath all of the insults is a reasonable argument. (I don't agree with the whole post, but I do agree with the one part).

One thing to note is that wherever people may claim to get their moral views from, that place is almost certainly not the bible. This is clear for several reasons.

1. A quick google search shows that approximately 10% of Christians (or 10% of all people, the statistics are different with different sources) have read the bible. Quite clearly then, those 90% of Christians do not get their morality from the bible.

2. For those 10% of Christians who have read the bible, it is again clear that they do not get their morality from the bible. Another quick google search shows that the bible has remained the same for the past 1600 years or so (give or take). Despite this, the morality of Christians has undergone drastic changes (for better or for worse) over that time. I would go into detail discussing slavery and torture and whatnot, but I'm sure everybody knows what I mean.

Now the general response to this is that the change in morality is not because of distancing from the bible, but instead because of a new greater understanding of the bible. Logically however, this does not make sense. Take for example the issue of slavery. When slaves were first brought to America, for decades (possibly over a century), there was no opposition from the church to slavery. It was only later that in certain areas the church began its opposition to slavery.

Now it could very well be that it so happened that biblical scholars at the time upon reading and rereading the bible realized "my goodness, the bible in fact tells us that slavery is wrong". This is of course extremely unlikely. The far more likely explanation is that priests and pastors realized "my goodness, slavery is barbaric and wrong", and looked in the bible, and then found that it says that slavery is wrong. It would have to be a ridother iculous coincidence that so many preachers suddenly found the opposing passages in the bible without actually looking to see that slavery is wrong.

Ah, that was a bit of a rant. I'll get to the topic of where atheists get their morals from later, but I think it's important to first establish that Christians (or indeed all people) in general do not derive their morality from a particular book.