Atheism and morality

[boyinasuitcase]

Why do Christians, heathen pagans, neo-voodoohoodooists, and Dionne Warwick worshippers always think you need some type of metaphysical belief system in order to have values (such as human decency, morality, kindness, love, etc.)?

 

Recently on another site, my "friend" was discussing his belief system (heathen paganism), and he expressed guilt over how he treated his past friends and so forth. He also wrote how he would be afraid to face these friends in the afterlife, and how God would judge him, etc. If you really want to read his painful, tortured thinking, here's the link.

 

Anyway, I respond with "there is no God" etc. etc., so he should stop being so hard on himself. His response: Even if one doesn't believe God exists, I think it's still good to practise decency, kindness, love and respect towards one's fellow humans. They are values everyone should follow no matter what their beliefs.

 

To that, I responded with: Well, yeah, exactly. And those traits do exist, inherently, in humans—not God. It has nothing to do with his/her existence. In fact, the people who are the most moral are atheists: they have no belief in a God, have a more humanistic approach to life, and have more respect for fellow mankind. JMO, of course.

 

To me, anyway, it seemed like he was implying that without God, or the concept of God, one cannot live a decent and moral life. I argue the contrary: I think for one to be completely moral, they have to not believe in a God, an afterlife, spiritualism, and reincarnation. To me that's nonsense. An atheist suspects that we're only here on earth once, so it's best to treat everyone with respect and compassion. Christians and spiritualists, on the other hand, believe in an afterlife, so to me it seems they can use that as an excuse to apologize for their immoral behavior NOW, e.g., God is the ultimate judge, God forgives all our sins...

 

To be moral, I think, you have to live in the real world, and not pretend otherwise. Anyone else agree, or disagree?

[Clergicide]

To be moral, I think, you have to live in the real world, and not pretend otherwise. Anyone else agree, or disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree that morality exists independantly of anything supernatural. Immanuel Kant, I think, is largely responsible for sparking the 'moral argument' amongst the Christians. It became quite popular in the late 19th century. But there are huge populaces of the planet that don't attribute morality to a God, and they aren't running around like lunatics killing, stealing, and fornicating everything in sight. Brittain has had a massive atheist movement, but they aren't raping and slaughtering each other in the streets. The people that claim this are, frankly, morons.

 

If I asked anyone in my parents generation why they behaved when they were kids, the answer sure as hell isn't going to be because it would make Jesus cry, it would be 'I behaved because if I didn't my parents would beat me within an inch of my life!', and the same would be true of my grandparents generation. So these people like the idea that morality comes from God, but if they actually got down to thinking about it, they'd realize just how fucking stupid that sounds.

[Caretaker]

It's a marketing gig..... many religions try to find a way to make people think they need it.

[Dianka]

I have met moral Atheists and immoral Christians. I have also met asshole Atheists and Christians who I still look up to.

 

Morality doesn't come from being a Christian, but Atheists aren't automatically moral either.

 

My mind is too small to ever know where we get our morals, but faith and lack of faith are only are only manifestations of the morality that is already there.

 

Oh, yeah baby.

[snookums]

For me this is how come I find god people so irritating - there seems to be a hell of a ponderance for a self righteous attitude.

 

Moral lessons begin at home..........from what I've experienced xianity hasn't been all that 'moral'...

 

I'm coming from an 'experienalist' perceptive.....can anyone back that up? or do I have to turn to the historical perceptive as well.....The inquisition, the witch burning, and so on...

what about the theological perspective.....the bible contains mountains of not nice things god does to people and people to people acts of not nice things.

 

yeah its self promotion and a marketing ploy.

[woodsmoke]

Clergicide and Mermaid are right. Morality exists independent of any kind of supernatural being or authority, but harboring no belief in such doesn't necessarily guarantee morality.

 

Most of my neighbors are Mormons, and they're also damn good folks. Though I've changed in many ways shince shedding my beliefs three years ago, most of my values never did (my reason for having them may have, but that's beside the point). Near as I can tell, one has absolutely no bearing on the other.

[boyinasuitcase]

Clergicide and Mermaid are right. Morality exists independent of any kind of supernatural being or authority, but harboring no belief in such doesn't necessarily guarantee morality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I agree morality exists independently of any supernatural being, and that a lack of belief in those things doesn't necessarily ensure morality; however, to the extent that you let religion guide you, you are necessarily irrational, unscientific and immoral.

 

And acting on religious beliefs is immoral, and failing to act on them while still espousing them is only somewhat less immoral.

[woodsmoke]

Oh, I agree morality exists independently of any supernatural being, and that a lack of belief in those things doesn't necessarily ensure morality; however, to the extent that you let religion guide you, you are necessarily irrational, unscientific and immoral.

 

Unscientific maybe. Not necessarily immoral or irrational. Morality itself is in no way correlative to religious belief, and therefore is not necessarily ruled by one's choice of faith. Believers in the world's currently dominating monotheisms prove this every day by failing or opting not to obey some of the more draconian commandments found in their sacred texts.

 

Additionally, it is possible for a religion not to be totally devoid of any form of rationality. The most obvious example of this being Deism.

 

And acting on religious beliefs is immoral, and failing to act on them while still espousing them is only somewhat less immoral.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Acting on religious belief, in and of itself, cannot be immoral. The belief may espouse immoral values, and the action may be immoral as well, but acting on religious belief is no more explicitly immoral than acting on instinct.

 

I don't know that giving lip-service to a set of beliefs you don't live by is necessarily immoral, but I do agree it's not necessarily something to promote as a positive value. On the whole, I'd rather someone espoused loyalty to an inhuman belief system with no intention of acting on that than take it to heart and begin a personal crusade. Optimally, of course, I'd rather they do neither, but the world being as it is I'm willing to accept the "lesser of two evils" as a first step toward leaving behind said evil altogether.

 

All that said, morality is a very tricky thing, and I'd honestly be shocked to learn my values even come anywhere near mirroring your own.

[boyinasuitcase]

Acting on religious belief, in and of itself, cannot be immoral.

I disagree 100%. Throughout history, Christians have murdered and persecuted those who didn't practice their religion, and even murdered those they suspected were not true Christians. To act on those beliefs, while failing to question those beliefs, and using "faith" to justify their actions, is immoral.

[BlueGiant]

I tend to focus on ethics, not morals (and in fact, I consider myself amoral). A lot of what is tied to what depends on the definition used. What definition of moral is being used here?

[Clergicide]

I tend to focus on ethics, not morals (and in fact, I consider myself amoral).  A lot of what is tied to what depends on the definition used.  What definition of moral is being used here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For the purpose of discussion I was misusing it the way Christians do to mean ethics.

 

Morality exists independent of any kind of supernatural being or authority, but harboring no belief in such doesn't necessarily guarantee morality.

 

Of course it doesn't guarantee morality. It does, however, at least open the door for someone to develope their own personal ethics and, even if this freedom is poorly utilized, I would say the vast majority of cases end up with something far more responsible then a prepacked set of church beliefs. That's what is so difficult about the current red-state climate, these people don't think for themselves, they readily agree with everything FOX news and their respective church leaders say. Therefore someone who has critically analyized religions and rejected them are certainly in a better position to develope a more responsible moral system.

 

Doesn't mean they will..it's just radically more likely.

[woodsmoke]

I tend to focus on ethics, not morals (and in fact, I consider myself amoral).  A lot of what is tied to what depends on the definition used.  What definition of moral is being used here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point. I get the feeling I should be doing the same.

 

I disagree 100%. Throughout history, Christians have murdered and persecuted those who didn't practice their religion, and even murdered those they suspected were not true Christians. To act on those beliefs, while failing to question those beliefs, and using "faith" to justify their actions, is immoral.

 

You should have included this in your first post; when you put it this way I completely agree with you.

 

At any rate, my head is starting to spin from all this "philosophical" discussion, so I'm going to bow out of this one and leave the moral and ethical thinking to those with the grey matter to handle it.

[Dianka]

What other definitions of the word "moral" are out there? And how do morality and ethics differ?

 

"Acting on a religious belief in and of itself cannot be immoral."

 

I don't know about this statment because to me, religion is the same thing as nationalism except religion has no borders. There is pride in affiliation with any religion, and to act on a belief based on a system who's foundation consists of pride is to act, at least partially, out of pride.

[Guest ~@-@]

I believe nature brings us our morals - it is inherent in all animals to take care of their own kind, it's a natural way to help keep the species alive. For us humans, with our massive brain power (or in some, massively NO brain power, haha), we have lots of ways we can figure out how to take care of people (dentistry, doctor, surgeon, etc).

 

Not only that, morals are taught to us by our parents, just as a foal is taught how to walk. The problem can also lie with parental teachings as well - since we are so impressionable as youths, we can learn things that are inherently wrong by our parents that we would take as being okay in our own minds. This is where people interject and say "The Bible teaches you right from wrong!". That's when I hold up a book called "Hop on Pop" and say "Even Dr. Seuss can tell you that it's wrong to jump on your dad. 'Nuff said."

[Dianka]

~@~@ <----spermies

Anyway, your argument of morality being innate for the purpose of survival of the species is what I am sayin.

 

It just makes so much sense when we study Psychology and Biology.

 

I have a cadaver class now, the connection of all of our systems, and functions astounds me! Our bodies have evolved to such a complex degree because of evolution.

 

It only makes sense that our minds would adapt in the same way our bodies have in order to protect us. Our brains have gotten bigger, our neurotransmitters have become more complex, and we are more capable of complex though today.

 

 

It only makes sense that, in addtion to the rest of our body, morality and our need for survival have adapted to protect us. Religion is the direct result of these causes.

 

The only problem I have with presenting this argument to Christians is that they immediately argue their "craftman" dribble. They say that God intended for faith to be innate because he works much like anyone else who creates something. Faith is like the Divine Logo then.

[boyinasuitcase]

I believe nature brings us our morals - it is inherent in all animals to take care of their own kind, it's a natural way to help keep the species alive. For us humans, with our massive brain power (or in some, massively NO brain power, haha), we have lots of ways we can figure out how to take care of people (dentistry, doctor, surgeon, etc).

 

Not only that, morals are taught to us by our parents, just as a foal is taught how to walk. The problem can also lie with parental teachings as well - since we are so impressionable as youths, we can learn things that are inherently wrong by our parents that we would take as being okay in our own minds. This is where people interject and say "The Bible teaches you right from wrong!". That's when I hold up a book called "Hop on Pop" and say "Even Dr. Seuss can tell you that it's wrong to jump on your dad. 'Nuff said."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point, and I agree with you. The main problem I have, though, when dealing with Christians or neo-voodoohoodooists, is that they think humans cannot achieve morality on their own, i.e., there HAS to be a higher power somewhere that is "giving" us our morals or something like that, so to speak. But I think that's all pomo nonsense.

[Guest ~@-@]

Indeed. There are those that assume that Religion gives us the tools to survive, and while religion does give those who are down in the dumps a little pick me up, it is definitely not recommended to devote your life to it - as it can be disillusioning in the long run. And those who say that without religion you can't have morals, that's retarded to say, and you're making yourself look like an idiot.