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

[R. S. Martin]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're wrong. You have been corrected. Now let's hear your apology.

[Ouroboros]

You're wrong. You have been corrected. Now let's hear your apology.

I doubt that will happen. Post-n-runners don't really care for the answers or the truth, or take responsibility for their mistakes.

[R. S. Martin]

You're wrong. You have been corrected. Now let's hear your apology.

I doubt that will happen. Post-n-runners don't really care for the answers or the truth, or take responsibility for their mistakes.

 

I doubt it too.

[WilliamFWN]

You're wrong. You have been corrected. Now let's hear your apology.

I doubt that will happen. Post-n-runners don't really care for the answers or the truth, or take responsibility for their mistakes.

 

I doubt it too.

And after all of these responses.

 

How disingenuous...

[Astreja]

And after all of these responses.

 

How disingenuous...

...And how very predictable, too.

 

I'm late to this particular bash-fest, but would like to add a few points of my own.

 

Despite the alleged presence of "morals" in Christianity, there is no actual enforcement mechanism other than the good will of the believers. I see no evidence that the god of the Bible exists, let alone takes active measures to punish people with moral deficits. The faithful and the non-believers both exercise their evolution-designed and culturally-enforced knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

 

Furthermore, if a god were to exist, its moral standard for the rest of the universe would be subjective, not objective. But how would a god with no peers arrive at any concept of right and wrong? It could not develop morality through the normal give-and-take of socialization if it's the only god out there. (Which may explain why the Biblical god sounds more like a narcissistic kid with an ant farm and a magnifying glass.)

[R. S. Martin]

(Which may explain why the Biblical god sounds more like a narcissistic kid with an ant farm and a magnifying glass.)

 

I love it!

 

When I listen to myself on these forums and think about how I was raised I sometimes wonder if I am the same person. I would have been totally shocked (and terrified to hell) to know I would someday mock god. On some level it makes so sense.

[Astreja]

This just in:

 

"Gods from polytheistic systems tend to be more moral than gods from monotheistic systems because they live in a community of equally powerful beings who can keep them in line."

 

Discuss.

[Dhampir]

Seems like polytheistic gods aren't all-powerful either, which I suppose would be impossible, what with multiple gods being unable to have limitless strength at the same time.

[Mankey]

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.

There is the effects of an action and how we feel about the effects of our actions. Empathy is a part of human nature. So is altruism. Everyone wants to live. Everyone wants to avoid pain. Everyone wants pleasure. Everyone wants love and friendships. Everyone wants security. If we have a healthy respect for probability and are well rounded emotionally...all emotions are necessary...then we have better odds of getting along. Better odds at maintaining happiness. It is impossible to have a "perfect balance" emotionally and that is why forgiveness is very necessary in many many cases.

 

No deity is needed for morality.

 

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.

This only proves that human beings can maintain morality and rights, or not maintain them. This does not prove that morality does not exist. It certainly does not prove that morality comes from any deity. Morality exists, even if we are not consistent in maintaining it. It exists.

 

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.

Hahaha. Your so silly. Heh. You are obviously not an imbecile. Why not give evolution and history a fair shake? You are misrepresenting atheists so that you have something that is easier to attack. Dogmatic obedience to the state is just as evil as any other dogmatic obedience. I must admit that I am not that strong on evolution. Perhaps we can be study buddies and learn more about it. I would be more than happy to take time out for you in that. I believe that for human beings might makes right is not what makes humans so successful as a species....but then I should research for a better understanding of what scientists would say.

 

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.

We are animals. People feel differently about whether or not we are so special.

 

If you attack us in this way you also attack the bibles God. "and a destructive, ecologically invasive one at that." The bibles God has commanded destruction. He has destroyed. The bibles God commands that we multiply and subdue the earth if I remember right? I do not recall many...if any...commands relating to the environment. No commands about the right way to subdue the earth.

 

Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone.

[WilliamFWN]

This just in:

 

"Gods from polytheistic systems tend to be more moral than gods from monotheistic systems because they live in a community of equally powerful beings who can keep them in line."

 

Discuss.

Many monotheistic conceptions (Western, really) are based on a few ancient Grecians' ideas about the Greek gods, syncretized with the Jewish monotheistic tradition. Essentially, the New Testament is a mish-mash of Greek philosophy with Jewish ideas, and the influence of the Greeks becomes much more apparent when one reads about the early church.

 

I wouldn't say that the gods in polytheistic are more moral, per se, but I would say they are at the very least more consistent. And the polytheistic systems are (generally) not quite as decadent or completely dishonest (and self-contradictory) as Christianity. I guess if one happened to follow the belief system in question, the divinities would always seem more moral, but I don't think that has much to do with what is being asked.

 

I can say for a fact, though, that the older gods of the Nordic religion are nigh infinitely better than Jesus of Nazareth, if one is purely basing the valuation of a system on what the individual can admire about the gods in them.

 

Do gods from polytheistic systems tend to be more moral than those from monotheistic systems?

 

Yes, but not simply from the number of gods. The fact that the gods in polytheistic systems almost always have some sort of personality is much better than the ambiguous uber-deity without any personality conjured up by the New Testament and early Christians. God may be perfect in most monotheistic systems (like Christianity), but he's lacking in personality. That's my own opinion about polytheistic systems when compared to monotheistic systems, at least.

 

Though Jesus has a personality, it's not worth talking about.

[Mankey]

Birdstrike

 

I believe this is a very good resource on evolution.

 

talkorigins.org

 

We can start a new thread. Science vs Religion

 

You can share with us some of your understandings about evolutionary theory.

 

Then we can check out talkorigins and what ever links you think are good.

[Oldjew]

Birdstrike I was a former college educated ordained minister for many years and I have seen more Christians without morals and ethics than I have ever seen with atheist. In fact just on this forum alone I have seen far more well mannered and morally upright atheist than I have ever seen amongst theist forums with their foul mouth angry ill mannered and low ethics put together on several Christian forums than this one forum alone.

 

Who has made you the vanguard to march in here and start asking questions as to imply atheist have no morals or ethics?

 

Not that we do not invite you, quite the contrary but to imply one must be a believer to have morals and ethics is just not so.

 

In fact based on the bible its self God had neither morals or ethics as althrough the bible God commands stoning persons to death for trivia things and sacrificing innocent animals by cutting their throats just so "God will have a blood sacrifice." Now that certainly is not moral or ethical.

 

In fact if I were to want to find morals and ethics I certainly would not go to God but I would certainly come to this forum and read the posts of ex-Christians because they have a thousand times more morals and ethics in their little fingers than God has in the whole bible.

 

They are letting you in here aren't they and are debating in a rather ethical way aren't they?

 

How many Christian forums can you name that does not condemn minorities, atheists and so called abominations of mortals to the point of making them feel oppressed? How many? Name just one.

 

On the other hand from what I have read so far of this thread I can not find one statement whereas some one has out right insulted you or actually condemned you for your beliefs.

 

All I am reading they are condemning the bible because it is after all a very immoral and unethical book and if you can not see it then you are not reading it and if you are not reading it then my question to you is why you set out to imply to us that atheist have no morals or ethics?

[Grandpa Harley]

Oldjew, bubba!

 

Methinks you've just September's Indiana Jones award...

[Thurisaz]

You're left with Darwin. What's the point of existence?: Survival. Might makes right. Natural selection is your "law", right?

 

Another morontheist that (probably with great and painful effort) managed to post one somewhat polite statement and immediately after shows its true colors (those of bullshit).

 

So what else is new?

[white_raven23]

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

 

 

You are extremely wrong. See, you come from the position that "ethics" and "morality" are the by-product of religion. Your religion specifically. Like the chicken before the egg, you think a supreme being has the exist before "ethics" and "morality" can. You have it bassackwards. First rule....in order for civilization of any number from band, to tribe, to village....all the way up to metropolis to exist, there must be an understanding of some type between people that is the basis for trust. Thus the civilization stays together instead of breaking apart. If the people of a basic band or tribe do not have this basic understanding (a simple form of morality), there will be no trust in the group. If anyone can take what is yours, or kill you at any time without reprisal, you are going to go search for another group to join so you can be safe. The original group fails to thrive because it cannot hold together without the basic trust.

 

Civilization must be in place before religion can even exist either. Religion is the invention of civilization. The more developed the civilization, the more developed te religion. Your god grows as the civilization does. The complexity of a religion is a mirror of the complexity of the given civilization.

 

If you think I'm wrong, find some research on some tribal people. They have a system of morality and ethics. It probably won't be as developed as that of modern civilizations, but it doesn't have to be. Even for a basic system to exist is proof enough that morality and ethics are not dependant on belief in Zeus, Ra, or the Judeo-christian god.

 

Take a few Anthropology classes. LEARN about civilizations other than your own. Your sense of perceived superiority is undeserved and the result of your own choice not to educate yourself. Ignorance I understand. Willful ignorance I have no tolerance for.

[Grandpa Harley]

The poster of OP was Last Seen: 16th July 2007 - 03:38 AM anyone think he's not coming back?

 

 

I wonder why?

 

That's the problems with these bombers... no moral fibre...

[Thurisaz]

And no balls.

[Robbobrob]

If we are glorified animals, does that mean chimps are unglorified humans?

[Ouroboros]

The poster of OP was Last Seen: 16th July 2007 - 03:38 AM anyone think he's not coming back?

 

 

I wonder why?

 

That's the problems with these bombers... no moral fibre...

And no backbone. They're right, they didn't evolve from the monkeys, they evolved from the slugs.

[Grandpa Harley]

If we are glorified animals, does that mean chimps are unglorified humans?

 

I'd say 'humans without the pretensions'...

[Robbobrob]

Fundie Post bomber: Glorified Slug. LOL

[R. S. Martin]

The poster of OP was Last Seen: 16th July 2007 - 03:38 AM anyone think he's not coming back?

 

 

I wonder why?

 

That's the problems with these bombers... no moral fibre...

And no backbone. They're right, they didn't evolve from the monkeys, they evolved from the slugs.

 

No backbone??? But that's a prime fighting word in Christianese. How could he have not come back???

 

Oh yeah, now I get it. Scared. No backbone. Can't stand UP like a huMAN to FACE the foe. Gotta crawl around like a slug with mouth to the ground to suck up someone's ass. You know what--that really is more humble, being so lowly and all. It really is, ya know.

 

Except that it's not how the Human evolved. We didn't spend fifty thousand years evolving into an errect mamal just to creep and crawl around in the dirt like slimy slugs.

[Thurisaz]

Judging by the available evidence, they (think they) did.

[sonyaj68]

I’ve known a lot of people in my (short) 39 years, and I’ll have to say some of the nicest and some of the meanest people I’ve met are church members. I’ve also met non-Christians who have very positive, strong ethics, as well as some really rotten non-Christians. My dad would be an example of someone was a very “good man†– he had an extremely high sense of morality – but he did not become a Christian until very late in his life. I believe there are many “good†lost people and “bad†saved people, as well as the other way around. I believe people from both sides of the fence, so to speak, have their own explanations for this, so it would be senseless to try to explain it other than to say that each person should take responsibility for him or herself. I strive daily to ‘die to myself’ and let the love of the Lord show through me. I fail more than I succeed, but I’m thankful for the successful days. But morals and ethics can come from a lot of things, including how you were raised, the kind of person you want to be, etc.

[Astreja]

...it would be senseless to try to explain it other than to say that each person should take responsibility for him or herself.

I'm in agreement with you here. In my opinion, moral behaviour is initially a conscious action driven by one's own sense of responsibility.

 

Eventually, if we choose to behave consistently many times, it becomes more natural to behave that way (our "character") and internally stressful to go against the trend (our "conscience").