It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "Moral Atheist" Oxymoron

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
In striving to counter many of the excesses of the current age in purely secular terms, without reference to the divine, often the effort fails. Tracing the immorality of certain acts often leads one back to a "commandment" which is automatically dismissed by atheism.

Natural Law requires a source and stopping at the "law of nature" often leaves enough loopholes for the immoral to persist as somehow justifiable.

However, there do seem to be universal moral norms which people of all creeds and none accept: for example "murder is wrong." Only a psychopath would say "no it's not", so where does this moral imperative come from?

The law of nature allows "murder" all the time. The aged head of the herd can be usurped by the next generation and if not "murdered" there and then, left to starve and die. So, there must be another foundational level beyond this law of nature which makes humans, as rational beings capable of understanding the laws of nature, aware that "murder is wrong." We don't murder our older relatives to enjoy all the benefits of the "herd" (or, if someone does, we know it is wrong) - where does this moral sense come from?

"Theft is wrong" - the law of nature allows it regularly (eat a raw steak next to hungry dog to demonstrate). Where does the human knowledge that theft is wrong come from?

Crimes that horrify us regularly take place in nature. The old and abandoned adult brutalized by a crowd of younger members of the same species and killed to steal what little they have left. If that's the story of a tramp and his coins we are horrified, if it's a lion it's nature's way. Why does the tramp's murder horrify us?

In hearing that people don't need the divine to be "good" or "moral" where, without the divine, or a standard higher than the law of nature, does this sense of "good" and "moral" come from? I'm not saying that those who call themselves "atheists" can't be moral, but that moral people cannot be atheists and given that all people are moral that there cannot be atheists. In the age where "experience" (as sensing and reflecting) is king, experience as observed in others and known in the self demonstrates this morality, where does it come from if not some level beyond the law of nature?

If it is learned, why pay any heed to it if it really belongs to previous generations only because they were not as enlightened as ours.

So, "atheists", please tell me, can you be moral and if you can (without reference to anything "super"-natural) where does your morality come from? Why do atheists not murder and steal?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari

So, "atheists", please tell me, can you be moral and if you can (without reference to anything "super"-natural) where does your morality come from? Why do atheists not murder and steal?


Allow me to ask a follow up question. Why do Christians murder and steal? Knowing full well they will go into an eternity of fire if they do? Why do Jews murder and steal? Why do Muslims murder and steal?

The answer is simply that it has nothing to do with religion at all. If someone needs a reason like "god is watching over me" or "I might go to hell" to keep them from murdering and stealing than quite simply that person is insane. People from all walks of life resort to murder or theft for various reasons: psychopathy, fear, revenge, hatred, survival. Some people even steal to provide for their families or others.

I do not believe I will go to hell if I murder or steal, yet I do not. I simply act as I feel is right. And yes, I am an atheist.

There is a simple golden rule to live your life by, and if everyone would just live by it we'd all be much better off:

"Treat others only as you would want to be treated yourself."



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I'm not entirely sure what your asking, to be honest. I'm an atheist and am also a person of strong morals in the eyes of society. No criminal record, no intentions on starting one. I love my family and my friends. I help anyone who needs it whenever I can. I always choose to do right over wrong because we live in a society where it obviously benefits the greatest number of people to do so.

Quite simply, everyone doing the right thing all the time gives the greatest opportunity for the vast majority to have the highest quality of life in societies regard. So by being a good, law abiding citizen, in a round about way I'm helping to protect my loved ones by contributing to the overall good, rather than helping to build the overall bad.

I don't believe in god or anything like that. I believe the bible is nothing more than a book of moral stories. So although it's devoid of deeper meanings (ie; spiritual meanings) to me, it nonetheless is a book of great 'values' that all 'good people' should support (in essence). Religion does not own morality, nor did religion invent it. Nor even is religion bound to it, although it's supposed to be. I won't get into examples as I'm sure we all already know enough. The bottom line is all people are just people.

And as for animals, they don't commit 'murder', per se. They kill to eat, to keep the herd as strong as possible, to eliminate threats, etc. It ALL comes down to basic survival tactics. They are always making moves to increase their chances of survival, whenever and wherever possible. To me, it's that simple.

When you're not the top of the food chain, you're always in danger of being eaten. If you are on the top of food chain, then where are you in the dichotomy of the group dynamic? If you're at the top of this list too, you must know it's only until a better, stronger candidate emerges, which is inevitable. The strongest leader should rule, as it gives the entire heard the best chances of survival.


[edit on 11/13/2008 by Static Sky]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I could not have put it better! I wish I could give you applause for your response, but a star will have to do!

If everyone followed that one simple rule, the world would be a much better place overall!!




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
You may certainly ask those questions and for all those who might murder, wether they be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, their actions were immoral. You and I agree on that, now tell me why were those actions immoral?

Why was the Christian murderer wrong? Surely for more than just being hypocritical?

"Treat others only as you would want to be treated yourself." -Why? Where do you get the sense that that's the right thing to do, the right model of behaviour to follow?
Why is "get them before they get me" not your moral imperative?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 

SC-Good post
I´ve always liked (and wholeheartedly agreed with) the observation that:
´Religious beleif does not guarantee moral integrity´.
I think its plainly obvious that virtues like benevolence,compassion,empathy etc.. are completely human attributes and,in no way,religious ones-if anything many overtly religious people and radical extremists often enjoy displaying the opposite negative traits like malevolence,vindictiveness and malice.
Possibly (and quite predictably) certain organised religious institutions tried to jump on the bandwagon in the past and claim these positive virtues were their ´idea´ and their ´invention´but I think this is a patent falsehood.
We have even seen anthropological evidence of ´charity without reward´ behaviour in Bonobo chimpanzees so it looks to me like being kind and considerate is inherent in our primate nature and not a religious or supernatural concern.
Cheers Karl




[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
It's just the level of empathy a person has. The ability to put himself in the other ones shoes or the inability to not do it. No religion, no police, no nothing. Just the automatic question 'How would i feel if it happened to me?'

That is something coming out of yourself and not because you read it in a book or been tought somewhere.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harman
It's just the level of empathy a person has. The ability to put himself in the other ones shoes or the inability to not do it. No religion, no police, no nothing. Just the automatic question 'How would i feel if it happened to me?'

That is something coming out of yourself and not because you read it in a book or been tought somewhere.


This is an excellent point as well, Harman. Well done! Perhaps the sense of empathy comes with the hightened sense of self awareness that we celebrate in ourselves as a species.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
So, first let me state, that I am not an Atheist.


However, I also believe that morality isn't and shouldn't be based in religion. The reason for this, is that religious based morality, in many respects, lead to fights, which is antithetical to morality.


Morality is that which allows a person or a group of people to continue or achieve a mode of life which is desirable to that person or group.

If you look at the concept of morality around the early 1900's it had a complete different connotation. Morality is what the norms are which allow for continued personal or social life. Not a ruler to measure others with, but a guide to living a happy life.

For example, in the 1700's it was a moral thing to take a shot of whiskey once a day, as much as it was to take a daily constitutional walk.

If we go back even further to Jesus, his morality was based on treating your neighbor with kindess and mercy regardless of who they are or what they believe, or even what they practice. This was the morality of living in a pluralistic society.

So in general morality is not "YOU ARE WRONG FOR DOING THAT... QUIT IT!" Morality is the behaviors and habits that allow for a healthy life and society.

So, why would an Atheist practice morality? That depends on what you're goals are.


See the issue is that soooo many people now do things out of fear of being wrong in the eyes of their God instead of doing things for non-God related reasons.

Anyway, in a nutshell, I am not an Atheist, but I am anti-religiosity in todays world for many reasons. However I have a set of morals and they have nothing to do with religious reasons.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari
So, "atheists", please tell me, can you be moral and if you can (without reference to anything "super"-natural) where does your morality come from? Why do atheists not murder and steal?


First off I am not an atheist... but I am going to answer this one anyway...

You do not have to believe in a supernatural being dictating the morality of mankind to understand, accept and live by this:


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you


All that is needed to live well and right is simple human decency.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Well, I don't know if I qualify to reply, because although not fully "atheist", I consider myself agnostic, in the sense that my belief is this:

"I have no idea, no clue, no proof, no pictures, no fact. Neither do you."



I have my own set of morals. My morals base around this...

What's mine, is mine, what's yours is yours. I will do you no harm. You will do me no harm. Before you harm me, I will kill you. I will not steal, I will not lie, I will not interfere with your path. You will not interfere with mine.


I go to work, I bite my tongue around the religious ppl that seem like their mission in life is to get me to "accept jeeeesus chriiiist into my hearrt so I wont go to haaaaaaail."

It's everything I can do not to laugh at them and ridicule them...except....to me, that is against my morals, and also a waste of my breath and time.


You need not religion to have morals. You need morals to have spirituality.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 



Do unto others as you would like done unto yourself.



So, "atheists", please tell me, can you be moral and if you can (without reference to anything "super"-natural) where does your morality come from? Why do atheists not murder and steal?


I definitely wouldn't want my things stolen, and I wouldn't want to be murdered, therefor I shall not do it to others.



It's quite simple. Much more so than say, an invisible supernatural being told one seemingly average man on one seemingly average mountain what the rules were.

Before written language (with which he used to relay the rules to the other folks), neanderthals knew not to kill each other. Learning from their mistakes, they continually developed what we now call 'morals'.

Theology did not create morals, as morals predate theology.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


Another follow up question. If not for religion, do you think all people would be raping and murdering and stealing everything they could steal? Can you say that without these imperatives from the "divine" that you would have no morals?

Asking where morals come from is a bit like asking where ideas come from.

Your assertion that moral people cannot be atheists is simply incorrect. That's where your theory breaks down.

By the way, Only those 2 commandments (murder and theft) relate to law. There are no laws about having other gods, worshiping idols, using God's name, going to church, honoring one's parents, lying (except under oath) adultery, coveting...



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Interesting topic, Supercertari! I've tried bringing up something similar before, but I guess this is a better place to address this.

reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Originally posted by drwizardphd
If someone needs a reason like "god is watching over me" or "I might go to hell" to keep them from murdering and stealing than quite simply that person is insane.

I disagree actually. It is an incredibly sane thing to do. Nothing makes more sense than avoiding punishment.

BUT. I don't think this is what the OP was talking about. It is not a matter of whether someone does something consciously to avoid punishment (which a lot of people seem to be assuming in this thread).It is a matter of where did those morals come from in the first place. If I can understand Supercertari right, it is not about some divine being imposing laws and imperatives and commandments. It is about a divine being giving a spark of 'humanity' to humans
.

It is interesting to see the responses here. Some mention law, some mention society, some mention nature. But all of these are external influences, and I don't think morality is external.
Funny thing with mentioning law is that the situation outlined above by drwizardphd does apply if someone is only following the law to avoid being punished.

As for empathy....I don't think that is really a reason. When you see something you really, really want, is the only thing that is stopping you the realisation that you wouldn't be happy if someone took that same thing from you? Not for me, it isn't...but then again, I wouldn't know how valid my experiences are for this sort of question. I may be attempting to avoid punishment, I may have some inner 'moral compass' (of discussable origin), or I may just be a coward
.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by babloyi]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I am a religious person, but I don't believe morality is founded in religion, or certainly that all religious people act in morally good ways. When this earth passes all religions will pass away too, indeed part of the sacramental teaching of the religion I adhere to, Catholicism, teaches that the sacraments exist only until the end of days.

I do believe moral imperatives are "programmed" into creation by the Creator, that through reason we can discover the natural law and moral norms and obligations of the Creator.

The "do unto others" imperative, for example, seems to run contrary to the natural selfishness of many people, yet it is an imperative which limits many of us in what we would desire to do. People of all creeds, and none, make moral choices everyday, choices even a bonobo could not understand. If we speak of "right" and "wrong" we have to have a foundation on which to base such judgements. What is an atheist's foundation for their moral choices? Is it self-interest, and define that as broadly from "it's what I want" to "it's whats best for my genetic successors." Is it societal, and if so which society and why "cling" to those parts of our culture while rejecting others?

People knew before Moses that murder was wrong, how did they know? Was it just a fear that they would be someone else's victim? If so is "do unto others" about being "good", being "nice", or being "selfish"?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


I agree with your assesment, morality is written into the hearts of all man. It is not a set of rules or a religious thing at all. The atheists that are appealing to : "it's not based in religion" are missing the point entirely. The fact that atheists are moral is actually evidence for Gods existence, whether they acknowledge it or not.

If morality were simply a matter of instinct we should be able to observe some impulse with in us that is always "good". However there really isn't one human instinct that the moral law won't some times nag at us to get under control. Sex instinct is good in some circumstances and not in others. Ones fighting instinct maybe a good thing in one circumstance and bad in an other. Even seemingly good instincts, for example a mother can "over mother" her children into becoming immature etc.

The thing that judges between instincts and decides what is appropriate must exist outside of the impulses of instinct and it must appeal to an external standard of what is moral to make a choice. The fact that that standard exists outside of us is the point.

Now some may argue that is just a social convention that we learn form our parents. I agree that we do learn from our parents however that has nothing to do with the existence of the moral law. We learn basic math from our parents as well. Does that mean that mathematics is just a human convention and we could have made 1+1=5 if we had preferred? No... morality is not just made up. It is discovered.

The moral law exists above and beyond the simple situations of humanity. Right and wrong and burning sense of what ought to be done in spite of ones desires is evidence of a real law which we did not invent yet we feel we should obey. Because this law transcends humanity yet speaks from with in us, as a conscience, it is powerful evidence that there is an external moral force directing our behavior. The fact that atheists are moral is a testament to the existence of this moral law. Blind evolutionary forces fail to explain the sense of oughtness. My personal discovery is that force is God specifically Jesus Christ.

Premise: Moral facts exist.
Premise: Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
Premise: The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
Conclusion: Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.




[edit on 11/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I kinda "like it" when a thread like this from ATS gets "booted to the basement" (BTS).

"Down here" we are able to quote Scripture and discuss and debate the Bible.

I like that.

Phil 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
As a deeply moral person and an agnostic, I usually cite the Golden Rule to "define" my morality to people who ask, as has been done here. And, as suggested here, I believe that the origin of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is in the empathy and compassion that are intrinsic to being human.

Remember though, people sometimes do immoral things – that's true for atheists and agnostics as well as believers. And people sometimes obey laws that are not based in morality.

So to argue that the golden rule is not what determines a specific action does not negate it as the underlying force from which my morality flows. In a specific instance, I might want very much, let's say, a beautiful leather jacket that I can't afford. Yet I do not just take it. Why? not directly because I see the department store as an "other" who I should treat as I would be treated, but because I am afraid of being caught and because I recognize that stealing is wrong in general as an abstraction from stealing from an individual.

Furthermore, I think that the distinctions being made between "internal" and "external" can be challenged – I believe that nature and society are parts of what it is to be human. Thus, saying that morality comes from "society" is not saying it is external to ourselves, but that it emerges from the part within ourselves that requires others.

I think that compassion is a natural human trait, that it emerges with and from our sociability, and that compassion in the context of cooperative living drives us to form moral codes. To be human is to be a moral entity – alienation from the understanding of our interdependence drives much of the immorality in the world.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
" How would I feal if it happened to me "

Yes but that thought is grace working in your soul. Why? because God puts it there even in athiest for dilligence and so forth. Your mind is very young and you will understand later what grace is.

But when I was younger I never said to my enemies.

" what would it feal like if it were me "

No no, I grew up real, and without God and I hated my enemies. I wanted to woop their butts in school out of school ect..


When I was younger I also killed bugs on the ground with no heart. I threw things at my mother with no heart.


so not only is love learned, btw that dou unto others is directly from Christ, but it's also graces God infuses into the soul.

You are not born good, nobody is. If that's true then no murderes should exist and no criminals should exist. People with no (fealings) key word. (fealings), shouldn't exist.


so why are you athiest different?

Somewhere along the way you have either learned teachings from your parents or you have earned graces from dilligence.


this shouldn't be to deep for you souls, it's very easy to understand. And this is coming from a ruthless kid in myself who grew up without God and was heartless without him.


because.

I had few graces and never (learned) stuff like love thy enemies.


so it's all from God and all from his grace, and thus this is where humility is formed in a soul.


peace



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Crimes that horrify us regularly take place in nature. The old and abandoned adult brutalized by a crowd of younger members of the same species and killed to steal what little they have left. If that's the story of a tramp and his coins we are horrified, if it's a lion it's nature's way. Why does the tramp's murder horrify us?


I believe humans like to think they are separate from nature, or said in another way... That they are not animals.

The tramp's murder horrifies many, because the many prefer to remain ignorant.

Most people live in a nice controlled environment, beyond the risks that could break them down and eventually break through the various illusions.

Great question by the way. Thank you for asking it.







 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join