Are There "ethics" Or "morals" In Atheism?

[Guest Birdstrike]

Hello all:

 

'Just curious:

 

Is there any basis for a system of ethics in Atheism? Are there any morals? Is there any right and wrong?

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

Birdstrike

[Jun]

Hello all:

 

'Just curious:

 

Is there any basis for a system of ethics in Atheism? Are there any morals? Is there any right and wrong?

 

Thanks,

 

Birdstrike

 

"In" Atheism?

 

You sound as if Atheism is to you a religion or a doctrine. I suggest you Google around or see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Vigile]

There's no need. Atheism is only a position on the god question, not a frame of reference for ethics. Ethics are stand alone. You can establish ethics via reason without the need of a philosophical or religious paradigm.

[Japedo]

Hello all:

 

'Just curious:

 

Is there any basis for a system of ethics in Atheism? Are there any morals? Is there any right and wrong?

 

I'm just curious, are Christians dumbasses? The year is 2007 for gawds sake. If you don't know that people outside of your cult can have morals or ethics... well... anything we tell you isn't going to help. Why would you believe people you view as having no morals or ethics anyways? Anything we say surly is a lie..

 

 

Why not try looking up Secular Humanism and other types of philosophies.

[Ouroboros]

Is there any basis for a system of ethics in Atheism? Are there any morals? Is there any right and wrong?

You have it all wrong.

 

That is just like asking how many pounds of fresh fruit you can find in an empty shoe box! Do you really expect to find fruit in a shoe box?

 

Atheist is the absence of a belief in God or a supreme natural being for morality. It's the empty box of belief. It doesn't believe or build or think about morality per se, it only stipulates how someone believe in a deity or not.

 

From this, most atheists build a worldview based on different philosophical ideas and theories. For instance humanism, or naturalism, or ...

 

So you see, Atheism doesn't even touch the subject of morality, but it will definitely lead a person into questioning and figure out what morality is and is not. But that is a second step, or a second subject, and not all atheists agree on everything there. All atheists agree on one thing, that they don't believe in a god.

 

But if your question is how an atheist can argue for morality etc, then I think you should look into yourself first. If you argue that God gave you morality, then I'd ask you to specify exactly what he gave you. If you say the Bible, then we have some gruesome verses of law in there that you would find scary and immoral. If you say revelation through the Holy Spirit, then you can't explain why atheists act moral and ethical just as much as Christians, and that you can find Christians doing evil things. If you say that God planted it (programmed it) to our soul, then why do you even ask if an atheist can be moral or not, if he already has it in his soul? If you say it's only by being saved by Jesus, then we're not just talking about believing in a God, but a very specific theology, and it still doesn't match reality with so many Christians doing bad things, and many non-Christians acting good.

[Amethyst]

Depends on the Atheist, just like Christian morals depend on the Christian. Each person is different and reasons differently. Also -- this is not an Atheist only site. Not all Exers are Atheists. Some are Buddhist, some are Pagan, some are Agnostic, and some have converted to other religions as well. Please don't make the mistake of assuming all Exers are Atheists.

[Kuroikaze]

There are several questions here, First:

 

Is there any basis for a system of ethics in Atheism?

 

Nope there isn't any, this is because Atheism is nothing more than a lack of believe in gods. However, You will find most Atheists are Secular humanists of some sort, though some embrace ideas from non-theistic religions as well.

 

Theists often assert that the only good basis for a system of ethics is a belief in god.

I personally think that it is the worst basis for a system of ethics, because it tends to encourage a dogmatc view of ethics.

 

That being said, I don't really think that what a person thinks, or doesn't think, about god makes them a good or bad person, instead it is what people think about other people that really affects ones actions. So I don't think Athiesm has anything to do with ethics at all. And a belief in god is only bad for ethics when said belief is tied to dogmatic asserstions.

 

Are there any morals?

 

everyone has morals of some kind, though you may not agree with them. Morals, in my opinion, should be derived from observations of cause and effect along with empathy and the need for people within a society to get along with one another. In many cases, people ignore much of this and simple go with what they are told by religious or political leadears, parents, and so on.

 

If you tell yourself you got a sense of right and from a god, then you are just fooling yourself, we all get our moralty from the same basic places.

 

If you mean do I believe in some absolute morality then no I do not. Morality is nothing more than the "best way we have found to get things done"

 

Is there any right and wrong?

 

what do you mean by right and wrong? Absolutes? there aren't any, for you or me. However, things are essentally the same for an Athiest as a thiest, we all still feel pain and happiness, and we both have a desire for one and not the other. I don't need to be a genius to tell the difference.

[Guest Birdstrike]

I appreciate your responses.

 

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

 

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

 

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

 

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Birdstrike

[Vigile]

Judeo Christian ethics is one of the worst models out there. Morality is not based on absolutes, it is true, but that does not mean that we are not all moral animals. You do not need god to establish morality, society and natural, evolutionary impulses guide us quite well.

 

You can have your xian ethos. We don't need it, nor can the world suffer much more of it.

 

As for the strawmen you built in your post, we've already debunked these to death. Do a search or wait for someone else to deal with your appauling ignorance, I don't have the time or the gumption.

[Jun]

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

 

Your "higher authority" is man-made, a human fiction. So man has always been his own authority.

 

With Christianity and the other Abrahamic cults, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead also.

 

What's the point of existence?

 

Well, it's not to bow down before fictitious gods and give up one's own ability to live life and to at least try to help other's to enjoy their lives also.

 

Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

 

And your model of behaviour would be the christian god who in total kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered for not following his orders or believing in him - Look it up in your bible and count them.

You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God,

 

Smarter than the average bear, I never bought this fiction to begin with. God (all of them from all religions) are made in the likeness of man.

 

........but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

 

Ah, and who's the self-righteous prick then? You want to talk about destruction of resources and culture come join me in my next trip to the Philippines and see just how destructive your religion is to other cultures.

 

Let's have a look at Judeo-Christian ethics -

 

Child abuse:

 

Genesis 22:9 & 10 "And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac. To put a knife up to your son's throat is child abuse.

 

I Kings 3:24-25 "And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other." This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was. Christians view this king as a wise man. I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith.

 

Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15 God commands repeatedly that you beat your children.

 

Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don't slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)

 

Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

 

The murdering of children:

 

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

 

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

 

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance "0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

 

2 Kings 6:28-29 "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."

 

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

 

Judges 19:24-29 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel." To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.

 

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh's actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler's forced action?

 

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

 

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone "bald head" is far from being worthy of death.

 

Leviticus 26:30 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."

 

1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God's commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.) At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one.

 

I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates.

 

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will "thrust you through," smash your children "to pieces" before your eyes, and rape your wife.

 

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

 

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

 

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

 

 

No thanks!

[Evolution_beyond]

I appreciate your responses.

 

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

 

There is such a thing as empathy - the ability to put yourself in the shoes of other people. It is logical to behave towards other human beings in the same way that you would like to be treated and to uphold a set of ethical values that would allow human beings to live in peace with one another and allow freedom of choice and opportunity for all. The only other alternative is complete chaos and unhappiness for everyone. Self-interest itself demands a kind of co-operation between human beings.

 

There is a whole branch of philosophy devoted to ethics. So ethical considerations do not need faith in a God in order to make sense to people.

 

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

 

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

 

Oh dear. Darwinian natural selection doesn't just favour 'might is right'. There are plenty of examples in the natural world where different species of animals have learnt to live in symbiosis. Sometimes co-operation can be the best strategy for survival.

 

No species is ever at an advantage by behaving with wilfull destruction. Uncontrolled destructive behaviour would involve using up all resources to the point where the species itself would become extinct. For similar reasons species tend not to act too destructively to other members of the same species either.

 

Humans can use reasoning to reach these conclusions rather than relying on natural selection to make extinct those that behave in too much of a destructive manner. But we are poor learners and so we may yet become extinct if we don't learn to live and co-operate with one another.

 

Anyway, natural selection does not in any way mean that ethics are not important. There is a balance and a harmony in the world of nature, despite the need sometimes for 'tooth and claw' behaviour (which is mostly a practical matter of creatures needing to eat).

 

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Birdstrike

 

The problem with religious sources for ethics is that they are blind obedience to someone else's laws - and are based on the motives of fear of hell or desire for heaven.

 

This is a false morality. It is not based on love, it is not based on reason, it is not based on empathy. It is based on obedience, fear and selfish desire.

 

Only a morality based on the need for co-operation between human beings (otherwise it will be unpleasant for everyone) and also on the observation that other human beings are just like us - only that kind of morality is based on empathy for others and on rational consideration of what is best for everyone.

[Warrior_of_god]

Are there any morals?

Only the kind that should come with being human.

 

...concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

Right and wrong depend upon the situation. One shouldnt just say I will do X in all situations...thats just not wise.

 

Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

And you never considered the fact that these men killed tens of millions of members of our species...thus reducing our chances of survival at least statistically, in direct opposition to natural laws?

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority

And that scares you...? Thats the way it has always been.

[Ouroboros]

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

The reason why you assume what you do is because you think your religion makes you moral. But there's no evidence that religious people are more moral then non-religious.

 

I will give you an example:

 

USA: 70% Christians, 20% other religions, 10% non-religious - High crime rate

Sweden: 70% Agnostic/Atheists, 30% different religions - lower crime rate

 

So religion doesn't make a country safer, which it would if you were right.

 

I have a couple of questions to you:

 

Is it moral to kill your son if he is unruly? (The Bible say so, but I think it is immoral)

 

Is it moral to free a slave? (The Bible does NOT say so, but I think it is)

 

Is the Bible clear about the issue of abortion?

 

What's your view here, and how do you support the answers to these questions?

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

The problem is that you don't know what your higher authority say. Explain to me why so many Christians disagree to how to interpret the Bible, and they also disagree what the Bible says are the right and wrong actions. Does God hate gays for instance? Why does some Christians believe that and some don't?

 

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

You're missing the point. And Atheist is not necessarily a Darwinist. I have examples of Atheists that don't support Evolution. So you need a reality check because you are way of from how the world is. Come back to Earth mister.

 

And natural law is not what makes right or wrong, now you even insulted me. I could explain to you not only why but how I argue for right and wrong actions, based on a rational system, but it has *nothing* to do with natural selection. I'm really insulted, because you talk like you think you're clever, but you're nothing but a DDD.

 

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

If you were right, we would see a world where religious people were living in peace, and the atheists were living like monkeys in the tree, naked and having sex all day long and not caring for the world. Answer me now, why is it that we don't see that?

 

Am I correct here?

No.

 

You missed the mark 100%. Missing the mark according to your religion is equated with "sin". So you have sinned against truth, reason, reality and rational thought.

 

Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What is specifically Judeo-Christian ethics?

 

"Thou shalt not murder" existed in older law books than Exodus.

 

Do you remember Abraham? He came from Ur, right? Here's the first laws from the law book there:

 

1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.

It's from the Code of Ur-Nammu, and it's dated to 2500 BCE, while Exodus (if it happened) was 1200 BCE or so.

 

So the law books with the correct morality existed at least 1300 years before the Judeo-Christian ethics were (possible) invented. Where do you think Moses got the ideas from?

 

--edit--

 

And now I want you to consider this situation:

 

There's a rail road track. The track splits up into two rails. There's five people stuck on one track, and one person stuck on the other. The train is comming, and switch is set to kill the five people. You happen to be at the switch and can change it so the train would kill the single person. What would you do? Or more accurately, what is the moral thing to do here, and I want you to explain it from the Bible or based on God's authority and what he says.

[Japedo]

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

 

 

 

 

Turn about is fair play. What's the point of your existence? To kiss gods ass for all of eternity or fear burning? Hate yourself while your here, hate all those who don't agree with you while your here.. just to earn a get out of hell free card? To reject any rational thought over an emotion? To volunteer yourself to fall under mind control because hell you're just to evil to think for yourself. We all know before you were saved you were just teetering on the brink of committing egregious crimes.. right? Judge not least ye be judged .. Or is that only pertaining to fellow cult members?

 

For the last time Adolf Hitler was a Catholic and has NOT EVER BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE CHURCH, not even after his atrocity's were known.

 

Stalin being a brutal insane man didn't kill in the name of atheism, He killed in the name of the state. Get your facts right, it of course would actually require you to do your own research and reading and not relying upon bullshit lies from the pulpit.

 

Darwinian is not a religious leader, Many of us here have a wide variety of religions and beliefs or lack there of. I follow zero doctrine. None. I have my own moral code which I'm sure will outshine yours. You follow an abusive cult with an abusive leader who hates and loathes his creation. You follow a god who murdered his own half god/human child and come here claming we lack morals? Unbelievable.

 

 

 

 

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

If I followed your Creation hating gawd I might be just as miserable as yourself. I have much higher standards and better ethics then most Christian dogma allows. I would never strong arm the poor to my way of thinking for food. I'd never tell someone who was gay they were lowlife sinners unworthy of air. I would never advocate the death or destruction of anyone due to what made them happy. I'd never encourage a women to stay with an abusive man and claim it was because of god. I'd never encourage a rape victim to keep the evil seed. I'd never blame the rape victim for brining it on herself.. or convince her it was gawds will. I'd never subject a child to unimaginable fear and torment of their loved ones being burned alive for all of eternity for lack of believing. I'd never view those who don't think like me as mere animals. I judge a person based upon their character, based upon their deeds not what they believe. I'm more graceful then your god and apparently capable of making better judgments then him. I'd never advocate the murder of tribes of villages for my own vanity. I'd never murder my own child, nor glorify those who do. I could go on about your "Morals"... but I digress..

[Kuroikaze]

I appreciate your responses.

 

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

 

Do you realize how many times we have heard this argument? Do you realize how stupid this argument is? I even, knowing you would attempt this argument, tried to explain why I felt it was faulty in my other post. Atheism doesn't preclude morality, end of story.

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

 

And the poor and needy have ever come out ahead because of religion? don't kid yourself. I don't really see the problem with man being his own authority. Better than giving authority to an unknown god that nobody actually "KNOWS" anything about.

 

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

 

Ugh...again with evolution. Survival of the fittest does give a good explanation as to how morality evolved. the people you mentioned are not touted by atheists as having good morality...nor would I say they were successful by Darwinian standards. Tyrants tend to be killed and have their governments toppled...

 

Your understanding of both evolution and secular ethics are just plain bad.

 

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

 

I don't remember trying ever trying to exalt myself...this seems like you just read a copy of some bad apologetics book and have a lot of preconceived notions about who we are without really listening to anything we said.

 

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

We agree with Judeo-Christian ethics? where did you get that idea? I can tell you that I think Judeo-Christian suck...they are one of the worst system of ethics still in use today, right up there with the Islamic system of ethics.

 

Again, I don't think that ethics are just a matter of opinion. Ethics can be decided by an objective and rational observation of reality without depending on god...or simply saying that everything ok.

[Robbobrob]

Morality and ethics should not be based on the whims of anyone, even a god. Higher Authority? I hold authorities to a higher standard than your God meets.

[Jun]

I hold authorities to a higher standard than your God meets.

 

Now that's a great statement!

[Kuroikaze]

I also think this poster was a bit dishonest in his first post, he starts out by saying he is "just curious" as if he is actually interested in a rational discourse, but his 2nd post sounds like just another diatribe from an uneducated preacher who is totally uninterested in why other people believe what they believe.

[Heimdall]

Birdstrike evidentially needs a refresher course in Anthropology 101. While most religions do advocate morals, they are not the originator of those morals – society is! Morals are nothing more than the set of rules originated by a society that allows the societal members to interact in a manner that ensures the survival of that society and its members. In simple terms, morals are the lubricant of social intercourse/interaction.

 

Religion has nothing to do with it, in the 35,000 years between the appearance of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the first archaeological indications of true religion (Cayonu, Catalhoyuk, Hacilar, Norsuntepe and Kosk in modern Anatolia) about 10,000 years ago, mankind would have had to have a system of rules of conduct to allow his society (albeit Neolithic and primitive) to function in a manner that was beneficial to society and its members. This would effectively put a damper on the Christ Cultist’s contention that morals come from god. If morals come from the Cult’s god (that triunal monster Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Spook), why then did mankind manage to exist without them for 32,400 years without a total societal meltdown. Strangely, the most immoral period of recorded history, a period where the majority of humanity was little better than underfed abused slaves occurred from around 475 CE to the 16th century, the Middle Ages! During this period, the Christ Cult reigned supreme with Christian morals allowing the nobility to visit want, suffering and early death to the vast majority of humanity in Western society! Please Birdstrike, if you are going to make such claims, study the history of your religion first before you make a total ass of yourself again! - Heimdall

[Taphophilia]

It really irritates me how Christians can't come up with anything original. Like a true cult member, he choses to believe the propaganda that his cult instills in it's members. No thinking required; they tell him how and what to think.

 

Judeo-Christian ethics is an oxymoron.

[WilliamFWN]

I appreciate your responses.

After reading all of this, the feeling was not mutual, I assure you.

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

Do you have any evidence for such an assertion? Are you then arrogant enough to say that all of the morality systems not based on a belief in a god are not morality systems at all? Do you have any evidence that many of us have concluded that there really is no right and wrong? No evidence... Oh, that's right, you have no idea what morality systems anyone here does follow, and have no substantial proof other than your assertion in the latter part of the second sentence which can hardly be called "proof" at all.

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

You forget that humans *are* their own authority. What do you think laws are for? Suntans? Human dignity and rights have come from the laws of other men; they can be taken away by other men: see your later reference to Hitler and the whole happy crew. And the last sentence is correct as well, unless, of course, someone of a higher social and/or economic (usually one-in-the-same in the U.S.) standing helps them. God certainly doesn't. I've not seen God fly down on his fire-chariot and donate to charity. If you have, you should go see someone about that...

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

First of all, no. You think social Darwinism is the same thing as evolution, therefore equate them within the paragraph. Sadly enough, you do not even have a basic understanding of evolution or social Darwinism. As a matter of the fact, "might makes right" is more Nietzschean than Darwinian. And not even Nietzsche would like Hitler (he had an extreme hatred of antisemites, you know). Even then, might does not make right in either a Nietzschean or social Darwinian point of view. Hitler was a complete failure by Darwinian standards, as he failed to reproduce (as far as we know, at least). The rest still were terrible in the view of evolution, due to their mass murders, as such a thing does not help the *species* at all. Natural selection and survival of the fittest applies to species, and not to individuals. That's the greatest misunderstanding about evolution and even social Darwinism you seem to possess, which permeates this whole paragraph.

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

You know, if you didn't say what you did in the first sentence, I might not have responded. You assume too much, know too little, and spew forth voluminous amounts of filth here. Reading the paragraph almost makes me want to take a bath to wipe off the nasty grime you brought in. To answer, the first sentence has absolutely no point. Even if it were true, so what? The fact that it isn't makes it doubly as pointless, as no one has attempted to "exalt" oneself with the statement in the next sentence, and no one would be any lower than before for doing so. After all, the person is still the same, no matter how the person views himself. Perhaps your response to the "any gods?" question should say "father, son & holy spite". I never found it better to be in the image of a god. The assertion that such a thing would be "better" is complete garbage. Why should one image be better than another? As to the "glorified animal" bit, there's not much to say. Wouldn't one still be a "glorified animal", even if one is in the "image of god"? Humans are animals, and it doesn't matter what one thinks they are like or not like. Also, it doesn't lend any credence to what you say when you paint yourself as a misanthrope in the last part of the said paragraph.

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No. The ethics are still "optional" to those who follow Christianity, a la David Vitter and Ted Haggard. I don't even care to know what you're arguing for anymore. That people in power are different from people not in power? Pointless, but I'll agree that such people are different in at least one regard (the one of which I'm speaking should be rather obvious). I can't think of anyone off the cuff that agrees with Judeo-Christian ethics, inasmuch as ethics in other morality systems can overlap with Judeo-Christian "ethics". This last paragraph would only follow if the former paragraph was right, but it wasn't so I shall skip the rest of this hogwash. By the way, you stand corrected.

Birdstrike

In this case, you neither had a birdy (as you've failed for the second time to make any coherent point), nor did you strike at anything in particular. I guess the real point I'm trying to make is that when you come up with non sequiturs and excrete other forms of nonsense here, you will be proven wrong as many others before you have been. If you would have searched around the website for a bit, you would have found a similar argument somewhere: that I can guarantee. You certainly have not given one reasonable argument that would make me want to become a Christian again, nor have you given an argument that will withstand any sort of rigor. Rather, you have simply given me another reason to assume that fundamentalists are the self-righteous bigots I have thought them to be. Perhaps the assumption is wrong, but you have given me no reason to doubt it, considering your nigh, if not completely, sickening posts.

 

Have a nice day,

WilliamFWN.

[Evolution_beyond]

but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal

 

What you got against animals anyway? I love the animal world.

[sheri butterfly]

IMO the standard of behaving is set to low in the bible to suit my needs.....

[Antlerman]

I appreciate your responses.

 

Most of you agree that atheism is distinct from "morality"/"ethics". But I argue that atheism precludes any morality - and many of you have already realized this, concluding that there really is no right and wrong.

You obviously haven’t met our resident Objectivist, Asimov. He is an atheist who believes in absolutes in ethics.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with being a moral relativist or not. Just a being a theist doesn’t either.

 

Without a higher authority, man now becomes his own authority. And if human dignity and rights come simply from other men, then of course, they can obviously be taken away by other men as well. In this scheme, you can bet that it won't be the poor and the needy that come out ahead.

I hate to shatter where you’re going with this (not really actually), but despite the claim from religious absolutists that morality comes from God, you cannot get away from humans interpreting what that morality actually is. So therefore, it too comes from men.

 

Do all Christians agree 100%. Of course not. Neither do those who use a non-theistic approach to morality. God is nothing more that a symbol to hang those codes of moral conduct on that man decided in favor of himself.

 

You're left with Darwin.

A naturalist? What the heck does a naturalist have to do with philosophy and ethics?

 

What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right? Accordingly, the very models of behavior in your world would logically be Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Tung; they were undeniably most successful by Darwinian standards.

You are ignorant to think Darwin’s original theory of the origin of the species creates despots. Let’s look at Christianity and the Great Inquisition if you want to play that way.

 

I accept the findings science, but it does not dictate to me one damned thing about my moral choices. I have other philosophies that help with those sorts of questions. Attacking Darwin is trying to put him like some sort of authoritative voice on ethics like Jesus Christ. He’s a scientist!

 

The problem you’re having is that you see answers coming from a authority. I don’t. Most of the world doesn’t. You are projecting that system of thinking on the rest of us and it doesn’t apply. I am the source. We all are.

 

In an attempt to exalt yourselves, you have lowered yourselves instead (how Biblical!). You once might have fancied yourselves as being created in the image and likeness of God, but now you fancy yourself to be just a glorified animal - and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that.

That’s your ideas only. Not mine. I see man as the Creator of God Himself! Fantastic creatures we are. What mere beast of the field has done this?

 

Am I correct here? Some of you might claim to agree with Judeo-Christian ethics - but they're all "optional" right? At least if you're in power, or if you don't get caught. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Birdstrike

Correction, some of us agree with the human ethics that some in the Judeo-Christian world themselves also adopted. My ethics are only optional if I don’t care about; 1) upholding the ideals of my personal philosophy on life; 2) I don’t care about being rejected by the society I depend on for my protection and relational fulfillment 3) I don’t care if I get put into prison for acting badly in society.

 

There you go. No need for God anywhere in there. So, yes you are wrong.

 

Why do you need God to tell you how to live? Don’t you have ethics? Should I be afraid of you?

[Antlerman]

Birdstrike

Dear insincere ass,

 

I noticed you had one post as the setup, then a second to try to make your "point", which of course was obliterated by those of us who are far more able than you in intelligent discussion. Now the point I want to make here is your insincerity.

 

You are insincere. Christians like you are insincere, and in fact are an affront to the name Christian which you claim to uphold. You make people like us happy to stick our middle fingers up in your face and say you know nothing of respect of others, nothing of sincerity, humility, wisdom, knowledge, or even dare we say intelligence. Why am I so harsh on you, and those of your foul brethren who defile the name of higher ideals? Because you are insincere.

 

Your set up, "pitch", then lack of follow-up response was obvious and weak. You presume yourself as superior in righteousness and insight, when in reality, your treatment of us as humans show your inferiority, your lack of grace, your lack of wisdom, and beyond all, your lack of maturity.

 

If you wish to ask us as humans a question, or to ask sincerely why we think differently than you, you will be met by us as an equal and treated with dignity and respect - the opposite of what you have demonstrated in your "clever" setup and exit that you have so un-cleverly executed. The distaste your "Christian" self righteousness has left in my mouth, of which you are far from the first or last, has left me wishing to spew out your vileness with all disdain and say "Fuck You" for your you insults to us to have wasted our time.

 

If there is a hell, surely the God you think you serve will use your carcass as its fuel for those like you to burn in their own dung. You are your own God's worst enemy. Ponder that in your moments of smugness, you insincere creep.