How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

My kids aged 11 and 8 believe in Christ.

They did not get it from me nor my wife, they picked it up from school and other family members talking about things.

When they talk to me about it, I give no indication that I'm not a believer.

It helped them integrate into their social environment and their childlike belief does no harm.

When they are older and bring up more complex questions then and only then will I gently make way for my lack of belief, and only if the situation warrants it i.e constructive conversation not to discourage.

As an atheist, to ask if I have morals or not gives off vibes you're defensive and antagonistic.

Or perhaps you do not realize that it groups people together solely on lack of belief in a deity without taking into consideration that individuals decide for themselves how to conduct their own lives in relation to others in this world we find ourselves in. There is no generalized dogma or thought police.

A lot of atheists do parrot all the mainstream arguments but that's a human trait, as you have no doubt witnessed among believers as well.

I'm barely religious and got into a debate with an Atheist online.

He couldn't admit he was wrong about something he read wrong in my post. And he got a bunch of his Internet friends (or fake accounts he made himself) to lie to other people about it.

There's no morality.

a reply to: GotterDameron23

What was it he/she was wrong about they read in your post?

a reply to: daskakik

Thats it in a nutshell.

Well said.

Takes all sorts to make the world spin.

And there are good and bad people in all walks of life.

Hi folks,

In response to issues raised in THIS thread, I have written a rather lengthy thread to explore some of the problems made apparent by the attitude/approach of the OP. I argue quite comprehensively for an innate morality in Western civilisation, but I go quite deep into the nature of religious faith & how it defines the person who adopts it. I have tried to make it super-inclusive, because I just felt a bit woke this morning. But in all seriousness, I do address some particular issues that may be of significant interest to open-minded folk of all faiths or none. Please check it out, and don't be intimidated by its length (said the vicar to the housekeeper). Please see the link below.

Addressing the issue of constrained morality as Christians - are we truly good people?


Cheers & godspeed.


FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So do you think atheists can have morality?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, as the question doesn't seem that complicated.

So, all Christians will turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, judge not lest they be judged, accept people's differences without prejudice, and forgive unconditionally?

But atheists won't?

I think you'll find, more often than not, it's other way around



And if you delve into the teachings of the Old Testament then obviously the issue becomes even more extreme ....

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

I agree with you I think some fellow Christians condemn athiest but we have to try our best to show them the right path it's all we can do.

originally posted by: GotterDameron23
I'm barely religious and got into a debate with an Atheist online.

He couldn't admit he was wrong about something he read wrong in my post. And he got a bunch of his Internet friends (or fake accounts he made himself) to lie to other people about it.

There's no morality.

So you judge all atheists by the behavior of one?

Should I judge all Christians by your behavior?

a reply to: Opossum19

If the path is for them I'm sure the will find it themselves.

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.

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

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

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain

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

This would be quite the moral dilemma if your society was Nazi Germany, or perhaps a society that condones genital mutilation and gender re-assignment.

a reply to: cooperton

Maybe for you, not for me.

But if you're going to try to use religion as a counter to the morality of Nazi Germany, well, you're still probably worse off . Early Bible pages talk only about murder, killing, sacrifice and glory to god in his name via any means necessary. I would say that isn't far off from what the Nazis did to the Jews. Or Indonesia, Cambodia, Rwanda.

perhaps a society that condones genital mutilation and gender re-assignment

I would disagree and say that isn't morality but based on religion, at least the first bit.

Gender re-assignment - don't know what that has to do with morality. I couldn't care less what people want to do to themselvesm so long as it's only themselve and not forced upon children.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: neoholographicpart2

My kids aged 11 and 8 believe in Christ.

They did not get it from me nor my wife, they picked it up from school and other family members talking about things.

When they talk to me about it, I give no indication that I'm not a believer.

It helped them integrate into their social environment and their childlike belief does no harm.

When they are older and bring up more complex questions then and only then will I gently make way for my lack of belief, and only if the situation warrants it i.e constructive conversation not to discourage.

As an atheist, to ask if I have morals or not gives off vibes you're defensive and antagonistic.

Or perhaps you do not realize that it groups people together solely on lack of belief in a deity without taking into consideration that individuals decide for themselves how to conduct their own lives in relation to others in this world we find ourselves in. There is no generalized dogma or thought police.

A lot of atheists do parrot all the mainstream arguments but that's a human trait, as you have no doubt witnessed among believers as well.

I have a similar situation. Even if we were endowed with the same vocabulary and attention span, undermining their faith feels odiously self righteous unless there's a strong moral purpose to be served. They don't vote, they don't lure the young and vulnerable, and they don't ask for thousands in donations to afford a miami beach house or some malarkey. Kids having bad logic is a parent thing to deal with and my parent approach is, if you're going to pray then ask for a job so we both win.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Plenty of greed, theft, deceit, betrayal, rape, incest, filicide, murder, war crimes, and mass genocide are apparent in the Bible, never mind what present-day society teaches, so there is that.

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe for you, not for me.

But if you're going to try to use religion as a counter to the morality of Nazi Germany, well, you're still probably worse off

. Early Bible pages talk only about murder, killing, sacrifice and glory to god in his name via any means necessary. I would say that isn't far off from what the Nazis did to the Jews. Or Indonesia, Cambodia, Rwanda.

Atheist regimes take the crown for murderous rampages: Stalin and Mao sitting at 1st and 2nd place.

I would disagree and say that isn't morality but based on religion, at least the first bit.

Gender re-assignment - don't know what that has to do with morality. I couldn't care less what people want to do to themselvesm so long as it's only themselve and not forced upon children.

It's being taught in school now though. I was basing my comment off you saying morality is a societal thing.

originally posted by: cooperton
Atheist regimes take the crown for murderous rampages: Stalin and Mao sitting at 1st and 2nd place.

But 'atheism' wasn't the driving force of those regimes. It wasn't, "We believe there is no God, therefore we are going to murder millions." If you want the hot potato back, shall we list the regimes and wars all based wholly on religion? We'll be here for ages...

It's being taught in school now though. I was basing my comment off you saying morality is a societal thing.

Correct and I don't simply "take" my morals from society. Morals and ethics are **derived** from society, debating changes in socio-political aspects of change and evolution of culture and people.

Unlike religious texts, like the Bible, morals and ethics dervied from social constructs can CHANGE and ADAPT and EVOLVE. Religion cannot - it's fixed and static. Hence why I, personally, would never use religion as a base set of morals or values.

a reply to: andy06shake

Correct.
We have always been thieves, liars and murderers.