How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Have you met many humans that lack religion? There are some, it is true, but they are very few in number. One in a hundred thousand, perhaps. Maybe one in a million.

I’m not suggesting all religions are good or are equal. I could invent one tomorrow and unless it stands the test of time it is worthless.

What these religions provide is a morality based on 1000s of years of use, and not just one man pulling something out of his butt. It also provides a very strong tool called faith that motivates people more to follow that morality.

Kant suggests a man will do good or bad based on the advantages either provides. Religion tells people to do good even if they have zero advantage from it. Charity is more faith based event for example.

But yes, there are a few without religion. Very, very, very few.

Religion is a byproduct of our ability to think in the abstract. We create things everyday from only thoughts and make it reality. That is who humans are and to remove religion would basically take cutting out what makes humans, human.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

In religion you live and do to please some imaginary created person that you believe judges you.

I'll stick with personal responsibility every day.

I guess we don’t need laws since everyone is so good with personal responsibility.😂

Faith is a strong force though.

Faith in what exactly?

I wouldn't bring up laws -- you might be accused of Socialism.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Atheism requires personal responsibility.

I have no need to follow.

This isn’t about you or what you like or dislike. It’s about what has more effect on people to maintain a level of morality. Faith is very strong in doing that.

I am a people.

And "Nones" are on the rise.

Logic not judgment, oppression, and fantasy.

It really peeves me how much religion has interfered with progress.

OCTOBER 9, 2012 -- The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling. www.pewresearch.org...

www.pewresearch.org...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Atheism requires personal responsibility.

I have no need to follow.

This isn’t about you or what you like or dislike. It’s about what has more effect on people to maintain a level of morality. Faith is very strong in doing that.

I am a people.

And "Nones" are on the rise.

Logic not judgment, oppression, and fantasy.

It really peeves me how much religion has interfered with progress.

Are you kidding me? We would be hardly farmers from 6000 years ago without religion.

Doesn't this all just boil down to morality being a basic human social construct?

Does it really matter if the rules of a society are crafted by a Pope, a King, a Dictator or a tribal chief?

Morality is fluid, changes with times and locations. But does it not really just boil down to what is, and what isn't, acceptable social behavior?

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Doesn't this all just boil down to morality being a basic human social construct?

Does it really matter if the rules of a society are crafted by a Pope, a King, a Dictator or a tribal chief?

Morality is fluid, changes with times and locations. But does it not really just boil down to what is, and what isn't, acceptable social behavior?

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

Yes.

As posters have previously mentioned other mammals have a social code -- like wolves and elephants.

Humanity does not need religion (which is man made for control anyway).

Humanity will figure it out without some imaginary being.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee

Atheism requires personal responsibility.

I have no need to follow.

This isn’t about you or what you like or dislike. It’s about what has more effect on people to maintain a level of morality. Faith is very strong in doing that.

I am a people.

And "Nones" are on the rise.

Logic not judgment, oppression, and fantasy.

It really peeves me how much religion has interfered with progress.

Are you kidding me? We would be hardly farmers from 6000 years ago without religion.

Feel free to explain that one.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Doesn't this all just boil down to morality being a basic human social construct?

Does it really matter if the rules of a society are crafted by a Pope, a King, a Dictator or a tribal chief?

Morality is fluid, changes with times and locations. But does it not really just boil down to what is, and what isn't, acceptable social behavior?

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

Yes.

As posters have previously mentioned other mammals have a social code -- like wolves and elephants.

Humanity does not need religion (which is man made for control anyway).

Humanity will figure it out without some imaginary being.

Pretty sure you're right. North Korea is an atheist state, yet we don't see them living in absolute chaos. We can debate about thier overall quality of life, but whatever it is, it hasn't been bad enough for them to overthrow thier government, and they still hold morals in relationships with one another.

a reply to: Freeborn

I agree with everything you said there.

It's really not hard to understand, though as you said, sometimes it can be challenging in practice.

And to answer your question. The only good communist, of course, is a dead communist.

originally posted by: HKMarrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: HKMarrow
Doesn't this all just boil down to morality being a basic human social construct?

Does it really matter if the rules of a society are crafted by a Pope, a King, a Dictator or a tribal chief?

Morality is fluid, changes with times and locations. But does it not really just boil down to what is, and what isn't, acceptable social behavior?

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

Yes.

As posters have previously mentioned other mammals have a social code -- like wolves and elephants.

Humanity does not need religion (which is man made for control anyway).

Humanity will figure it out without some imaginary being.

Pretty sure you're right. North Korea is an atheist state, yet we don't see them living in absolute chaos. We can debate about thier overall quality of life, but whatever it is, it hasn't been bad enough for them to overthrow thier government, and they still hold morals in relationships with one another.

North Korea is a dictatorship.

How about Australia, Norway, Finland, Japan, Denmark, Estonia, Sweden, and other atheistic countries.

a reply to: Annee
Even a dictatorship has morals, I only mention NK because it's a rather extreme example. The places you listed are all great examples though

originally posted by: HKMarrow

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

It's like herd immunity... My point is what happens when a large population bases their morality on things not so good. Pol Pok is a good example of a whole society going from calm to evil insane because of what one man says. They stopped shooting people to save bullets and just beat them to death. They took schools and turned them into torture places using the school children to do it. They were just tortured to death for no point.

originally posted by: Annee

North Korea is a dictatorship.

How about Australia, Norway, Finland, Japan, Denmark, Estonia, Sweden, and other atheistic countries.

Each country runs about 25% or less atheist. Many are 60%+ Christian, so I do not know what you mean by atheistic countries...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

The important one is "irreligiousity". Some of its mandated (China), but China as atheist? Just dont pay attention to their Hungry Ghosts and dragons.

I think irreligiousity and atheism figures get conflated.



So one can say 90% of Sweden does not consider religion very important. Sweden is definitely not a "religious country". One could equate that as 90% atheist/agnostic, but it's just irreligious.

Though, if you really observe their pop-culture, I think they have decided which "religion" is really most popular. Many of the Nordic countries. Recapturing the heathens within, they are.



ETA: This could now be a Swedish national hymn by now.



On a side note, I love how Swedish Metal still retains a lot of Abba.

Look, I have spiritual believes, none religious, but I believe in life after death, reincarnation etc.

But someone who thinks we just die and that's IT, what is wrong with that? You can still be a moral person. If you can't see that, something going wrong in thy head!

I am a person who doesnt believe in gods

yet i am moral.

Right from wrong isnt a religion

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: HKMarrow

As such, it's rather naive to suggest that an atheist can have no code of conduct. That atheist is still going to be a part of some larger social situation, and that social situation will by nature have some set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

It's like herd immunity... My point is what happens when a large population bases their morality on things not so good. Pol Pok is a good example of a whole society going from calm to evil insane because of what one man says. They stopped shooting people to save bullets and just beat them to death. They took schools and turned them into torture places using the school children to do it. They were just tortured to death for no point.

Yes indeed. And the same fun flavors of things can happen in the name of God or religion, as history, and the Bible, clearly show. Inquisition, anyone? Witch trails? How about the KKK... I'll leave the mass murder and human trafficking in the Bible out of this response, that horse has been beaten quite to death already.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: HKMarrow

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
Tell me, how can you have morality without an objective standard of good when morality is defined as the distinction between good and evil?

So, what you're saying is, if someone catagorically and empirically proves that religion is completely man made (which, it is) and there is no God(s), which then means none of the "morality" you have derived is devine or devinely imparted -- will you now go out and rape and kill and steal?

Is that what keeps neoholographicpart2 from murdering and abusing children? Religion?

Because for me, as an atheist, without 'religious morality' - I've raped and killed and abused exactly the number of people I've always wanted to: which is ZERO.

Give me a break.. Morality, derived from archaic, draconian texts written by scared, ill educated men? You can keep it.

I'll derive my sense or morals and ethics from living in society.

Good points

Living in a western society today means you inherited a sense of morality from Christianity.
No getting around that.
And in recent times it becomes galvanized from world wars.
World wars seem to either bind or separate people along religious beliefs and concepts. This includes any religion predominant in any society.
So it could be said wars define morals and ethics in society based upon presupposed ideals leading to war and emulating those ideals after a war.
In times of extended peace we tend to digress away from morals, ethics and lofty ideals in pursuit of leisure and power over others. In times of peace society tends to regress into selfish pursuits unless governed by inner dialogue that seeks higher ideals than wealth and leisure. Religion seems to be the only option for that whether it be true or false religion.
Rape and murder being one extreme and empathy and care for others being another.
In seeing the breakup of the nuclear family and our inability to Covenant with one another also is adding to the downward decline in social cohesiveness where we all seek to do what is right in our own eyes rather than a higher ideal of preparing a future for our progeny by how we live selflessly for our family and neighbors.
Imagine how much precedent is required beforehand of a crisis and breakdown in societies values caused by war is needed in order for people to resist the selfish desire to rob and pillage your neighbors belongings when hungry.
In those times people murder their neighbors and justify it with "but I have a family I have to provide for" "it is him or me".
When in reality the family becomes an excuse for the ultimate in selfish behavior.
I am already experiencing this phenomena.
When I hear a man claims but I have a family I am responsible forces an excuse as to why they acted immoral and coveted and stole I know that man is vacuous and empty inside and cannot be trusted.
Anyone who claims their ethics and morals come from society means you are grading on a curve.
Your ethics and morals will shift under mob rule where everything becomes justified from "living in that society".
So when men are truly tested.
Can you put others first?
That day is drawing nigh and for me, I fear my fellow man. They only do what they deem right in their own eyes.
They now justify everything in pursuit of mammon and charity no longer exists and we are in times of leisure.
Deep down in all of us we are murderers and thieves.
And this cannot be fully tested in times of extended peace, only in war.
And then we can judge a societies moral fortitude if it is peripheral or within.

Present society teaches "greed is good".
What a lie we lead when society governs our morals.
This becomes tested by war, which becomes inevitable in times of leisure

Which special morals, inherited from Christianity, does the West have that say, China does not? Honest question, not an attempt at sarcasm.

originally posted by: HKMarrow
a reply to: Annee
Even a dictatorship has morals, I only mention NK because it's a rather extreme example. The places you listed are all great examples though

Yes.

I get that. I just didn't want it to stand alone.

Like only a dictatorship could be atheist by force.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Xtrozero

The important one is "irreligiousity".

Why I referred to "Nones"

Not atheist or anti-religious.

Just "Nones".