Atheism and morals...

[Atheist.85]

Do you think atheists can be moral people? Why, or why not? And, where do you get your morality from? Whether your opinions are personally or religiously based I would like to see what some of you have to say. I am pressed for time tonight and won't be able to write my views on this, but once I'm off work tomorrow I would like to express my opinions on this subject when I have a bit more time to write. Nevertheless I am interested in the christian view of atheism and morality.

 

[Lunar]

I think that atheists can definitely be moral. Most of the most important moral imperatives are not unique to any one religion, culture or belief set. All one needs to be moral is a basic concern for the wellbeing of others; almost every major moral belief, Christian or otherwise, simply falls naturally out of that.Of course, there are some exceptions - homosexuality for instance - but let's not go there.This is, of course, speaking only with respect to person-to-person ethical subjects. Many religious people would say that there are moral imperatives towards God like prayer or ritualized ceremony which obviously atheists would not pursue. But if the question is "would society implode under the strain of rampant moral relativism if we were all atheists" - no, I don't think so at all.

 

[Jon-Marc]

By human standards (or lack thereof) anyone can live a good, moral life. By God's standards we fall far short of what he demands of us. "We should obey God rather than men."

 

[ForYou]

First lets look at the definition of being moral!moral |ˈmôrəl; ˈmär-|adjectiveconcerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human characterAnybody can be moral,You can know right from wrong,wrong from right,good from bad,bad from good. You could be the nicest greatest man/women alive and still be destined to hell, Atheist could be as moral as another christian,But there is something that splits the two,See being moral will not save you from a life destined to hell,and that is something a atheist will probably never understand,EPHESIANS 2:8-9 "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done. so none of us can boast about it." So doing be moral doing good things etc will not save you from hell,because God does not care,What he cares about is we repent for our sins and have faith in the LORD,not how many great things we have done!!!For God so loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. JOHN 3:16I hope I helped,anybody who disagrees I would like to hear their opinion

 

[His By Grace]

Hello, atheist. I think we can all appear to be moral or good on the outside, but truth be told, none of us are good. We can make moral choices. We can start by choosing Christ as our Savior and having Him cover our sins. In Jeremiah 13:9, it says,"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" I would surely hate for people to read my mind at times. I constantly have to renew my mind and pray for the Lord to take over the evil thoughts. I don't see how an unbeliever survives. It must be upbringing or sheer determination. But God sees the inside-the heart-the motive. That's what matters. What is your true character? What is your true integrity? It's who you are when no one is looking.

 

[Siskim]

Hey Atheist, Are you the one who was disturbed about getting all the animals into the Ark? And now we're onto morals? When I say this, I will include myself first, because I have seen in me, as well as I see in others, that we make judgements often about alot of things, based on: lack of knowledge, limited knowledge, assumption, subjective feelings, ideas, etc...Interesting to hear on a documentary this info...that no, Noah did not journey this entire planet to collect 2 of each kind of animal. I mean if even I was thinking...how would he do that? And also the whole earth was not flooded but his providence. I bet there were not the multitude of animals then that there are now but anyway....Before anyone jumps now to the conclusion that it's all a hoax because the Bible says this or that, to begin with we all jump so often without clear or full knowledge. Even if a person could historically and with current knowledgable evidence convince you about the Ark, would that honestly make any affect on you? I doubt it. It's a pointless arguement, if you are the one who brought it up.How about we Reason about something more substantial, like whether the Ressurrection was real? And if it was, was does this mean to man? And if wasn't what "Would" this mean to this world today! As far as Morality, there are alot of Moral people; alot of very good people who either don't know God or don't believe in Him. So what does this mean? Your answer. Hey brother...I do realize that alot of christians take on the same antagonistic spirit as the ones they argue with...even if sounds like it, it's not where I'm coming from. You believe what you believe just as I do...based on all the things that have led us to our position today right? You feel what you do...and you DO feel it, and how can I despise you for that? I got an idea...you want to participate? I am a long time Christian, since age 19...aimless pothead before that...God help me. Not a newbie...life full of growing experiences...and now after so much at age 46, find myself in Bible College on road to my highest desire and also sense of ministry purpose...Marriage & Family counceling. Nurse presently. I have to do research paper and make presentation to my choice of religion or cult, etc...one to attempt to show or convince a certain group of the Truth of God. It's a challenge. If you like to....I will think of you....if you care...to dig inside yourself and speak out the Real and deep issues or questions or whatever...that have you in this Atheistic position....and also if you think of why you are there....Why is it that you spend time debating with christians or their beliefs? I'm just looking for what really is at the root of your position and what your motive is...is it to prove us wrong? Is it to get someone to come up with some real truth or facts if there are any? Honestly curious.If you will or like...I can use it as a purpose for me...and maybe find some reasonable answers for you....it might be fun....if not...Ok. Kim

 

[Wakka]

Our morals come from the standards that God sets.God's laws are perfect, and our founding fathers recognized that and applied it to the Constitution. Only today we problems because the Constitution has been re-written many times. Take times before the 1960's and compare it to today, which do you think is better. And don't take into account the Great Depression.

 

[Lunar]

(Siskim;34096)
I have to do research paper and make presentation to my choice of religion or cult, etc...one to attempt to show or convince a certain group of the Truth of God. It's a challenge.
I'd be very interested to here this. Not in this thread, obviously, but sometime. It sounds fascinating.

 

[IcanOnlyImagine]

siskim, What do you mean by "alot of very good people " in your post above?IcanOnlyImagine

 

[Ek Pyros]

(Atheist.85;33794)
Do you think atheists can be moral people? Why, or why not?
Yes; because they are.But the real question is what do morals matter without God? Ask yourself this question: is there ever any moral obligation without and ultimate, objective Moral Lawgiver?

 

[Siskim]

Ek Pyros, I agree, there's always another or better question...and really, are we assuming morals have some relevance and if so what? And to what? As you have pointed out.....Lunar...Thanks for interest...Ok, will make a post later...Quite a challenge yes, and newly seeing as a necessary one...to be able to always give a "Reason" to the faith that's in us...and Reason is the key word...And at one time being more narrow minded defender, now seeing inside new door of a knowledge that says Faith and Reason are friends. Is this possible? Can I only prove or attempt to prove Truth by my subjective or personal feelings, knowledge, perseptions, etc...or is Truth Objective so that it proves itself by it's own Reason to anyone? Does Reason lead to ultimate Truth or is reason just something we use to try to prove what individually we believe, feel, think? And what is Truth? Is it what works for me; is it what I think, feel, or choose to believe, or is there an ultimate Truth? And does objective reason lead to it? Oh boy! Debating between secular humanism and Islam...and obviously need knowledge of these to even attempt to Reason. Icanonlyimagine....Did not mean anything really deep by it...and probably spiked some question by using the word "good." While being one who believes "there is none good, no not one," used it more as meaning...I have stopped in places where it was impossible to reason or be heard, but only slashed and judged without being heard...seems to be some people here who will not only speak but listen...who are willing to give thought not only to what they say or think but to what others say or think...if we don't or won't then what's the use of even talking? That's more of what I was thinking while probably not expressing with correct word. I like Reason, maybe I should change my name. kim

 

[Ek Pyros]

Without God, morality becomes brainwashing, preference, anti-perversion, or just disappears and people operate on the basis of pragmatisim and self-centeredness. That is, if atheists were honest with themselves.

 

[Lunar]

(Ek Pyros;34322)
Without God, morality becomes brainwashing, preference, anti-perversion, or just disappears and people operate on the basis of pragmatisim and self-centeredness. That is, if atheists were honest with themselves.
Now, there's something I'll disagree with. All you need is a basic concern for the welfare of others in order to start formulating your own moral system. And you can object "But why ought you to feel concern for others without belief in God?" but frankly, this is completely besides the point, because the fact of the matter is that every atheist I have ever encountered does have concern for others. One could argue that this is "unjustified," although I'm sure the atheist could turn around make the same claims about the Christian's faith. For both the theist and the atheist, all that matters is that they have these strongly held beliefs - whether they're rooted in Christian ethics, or humanism, or whatever else - that they are willing to act upon.

 

[Faithful]

(Atheist.85;33794)
Do you think atheists can be moral people? Why, or why not? And, where do you get your morality from? Whether your opinions are personally or religiously based I would like to see what some of you have to say. I am pressed for time tonight and won't be able to write my views on this, but once I'm off work tomorrow I would like to express my opinions on this subject when I have a bit more time to write. Nevertheless I am interested in the christian view of atheism and morality.
Hi aTHEIST 85,Atheist can be moral but they also believe being moral can be doing things no longer classed as immoral.Morality is based on right and wrong. Adultery is immoral and so we see that morality can be regarded differently from culture to culture. Even country to country. I believe in faith that morality is a moral code of conduct in that we base everything on loving God and our neighbour. So our code means we would not covet our neighbours things or sleep with their wife or husband.But it is all based in loving God first and putting others before ourselves.An atheist would do things based on what they wanted and what pleased them. They are based on two different kinds of love.Agape for the believer done from selfless motives. In the case of the atheist eros because it is about seeking for what self wants and feels right with.Hence there is so much adultery and immorality amongst atheist. It is about pleasing self.Faithful.

 

[Lunar]

(Faithful;34381)
Agape for the believer done from selfless motives. In the case of the atheist eros because it is about seeking for what self wants and feels right with.Hence there is so much adultery and immorality amongst atheist. It is about pleasing self.Faithful.
That is a very strong claim. Do you have any statistics to back up rampant adultery among atheists? Every statistic that I've looked at says that, sadly, atheists actually have divorce rates that are at worst equal to and in some cases lower than most Christians.http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/divorce.htmIt strikes me as very wrong to say that atheists are necessarily acting selfishly. How do you reach that conclusion? Not all atheists are ethical egoists. If you have ever interacted with one you will know that most of them are very concerned with interests other than their own.

 

[Ek Pyros]

(Lunar;34376)
Now, there's something I'll disagree with. All you need is a basic concern for the welfare of others in order to start formulating your own moral system. And you can object "But why ought you to feel concern for others without belief in God?" but frankly, this is completely besides the point, because the fact of the matter is that every atheist I have ever encountered does have concern for others. One could argue that this is "unjustified," although I'm sure the atheist could turn around make the same claims about the Christian's faith. For both the theist and the atheist, all that matters is that they have these strongly held beliefs - whether they're rooted in Christian ethics, or humanism, or whatever else - that they are willing to act upon.
You completely, and I don't mean this to be offensive, missed the point.I was not suggesting that atheists do not or cannot have morals. I was also not suggesting that they can't have sound morals. Nor do I take issue (though I could) with why they ought to or ought not feel concern for others. It would seem natural to feel concern for others.But here's the kicker: it's not logical to do so. It is not rational to have concern for others if morals are not objective (and/or from an ultimate source). This has nothing to do with whether it's moral to have concerns for others; it is not even a question of morality. It would be, if atheists carried their ideology to its fullest extent, a question of pragmatism and never of morality. Why? Because morality implies objectivity.Sure, still call virtuous acts "moral" if you'd like. But atheism needs to realize that all their morality is is preference. And my whole point is that it's irrational preference. Pragmatism should win out EVERY time. That is, a self-centered pragmatism.Let me give you a link and an excerpt. I'm taking this from William Lane Craig's website--ReasonableFaith.org.(William Lane Craig)
Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one's actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky rightly said: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."7The state torturers in Soviet prisons understood this all too well. Richard Wurmbrand reports,

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners.8​

Given the finality of death, it really does not matter how you live. So what do you say to someone who concludes that we may as well just live as we please, out of pure self-interest? This presents a pretty grim picture for an atheistic ethicist like Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary. He writes,

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.9​

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier or even a Donald Trump, then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality 'pays off' in his social life or makes him 'feel good.' There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him."10Acts of self-sacrifice become particularly inept on a naturalistic world view. Why should you sacrifice your self-interest and especially your life for the sake of someone else? There can be no good reason for adopting such a self-negating course of action on the naturalistic world view. Considered from the socio-biological point of view, such altruistic behavior is merely the result of evolutionary conditioning which helps to perpetuate the species. A mother rushing into a burning house to rescue her children or a soldier throwing his body over a hand grenade to save his comrades does nothing more significant or praiseworthy, morally speaking, than a fighter ant which sacrifices itself for the sake of the ant hill. Common sense dictates that we should resist, if we can, the socio-biological pressures to such self-destructive activity and choose instead to act in our best self-interest. The philosopher of religion John Hick invites us to imagine an ant suddenly endowed with the insights of socio-biology and the freedom to make personal decisions. He writes:

Suppose him to be called upon to immolate himself for the sake of the ant-hill. He feels the powerful pressure of instinct pushing him towards this self-destruction. But he asks himself why he should voluntarily . . . carry out the suicidal programme to which instinct prompts him? Why should he regard the future existence of a million million other ants as more important to him than his own continued existence? . . . Since all that he is and has or ever can have is his own present existence, surely in so far as he is free from the domination of the blind force of instinct he will opt for life--his own life.11​

Now why should we choose any differently? Life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person is just stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability from the philosophy of naturalism makes an ethic of compassion and self-sacrifice a hollow abstraction. R. Z. Friedman, a philosopher of the University of Toronto, concludes, "Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."12We thus come to radically different perspectives on morality depending upon whether or not God exists. If God exists, there is a sound foundation for morality. If God does not exist, then, as Nietzsche saw, we are ultimately landed in nihilism.
You should read the whole article--he discusses God and morality in more positive light than just that excerpt.

 

[Lunar]

(Ek Pyros;34443)
But here's the kicker: it's not logical to do so. It is not rational to have concern for others if morals are not objective (and/or from an ultimate source). This has nothing to do with whether it's moral to have concerns for others; it is not even a question of morality. It would be, if atheists carried their ideology to its fullest extent, a question of pragmatism and never of morality. Why? Because morality implies objectivity.
Yes, I've heard this argument made countless times, and it never gets any more convincing. I object to it on two levels. Firstly, insofar as both Christians and atheists are (supposedly) acting morally, their systems are equally useful in informing their behavior, regardless of how "logical" it might be. The extent to which it is logical is somewhat besides the point with respect to how it actually gets them to behave, which frankly is what is really important.But that's not likely to convince you. You want your system to be logical; rationality is a virtue in and of itself. That's fine, I can identify with that. The second objection is the meatier one, and the objection is this: Ultimately, Christian ethics are no more "objective" than atheist ethics. Here the theist usually objects - "But God is an objective, ultimate source of morality! Atheists have no such source!" But here's the thing - did you arrive at your belief in God rationally? Was it from some proof? Was it from empirical observation? No - the whole point is that you arrived at it through faith. Once you did, God became your objective standard, of course - but the process through which you did was by no means objective.And that's the real catch - claiming God as the "objective" standard of morality simply pushes the necessary threshold of objectivity back one more step. Atheistic morality is in almost exactly the same place as theistic morality. They both need to make a subjective, irrational judgment call to form a foundation for their ethics. For an atheist, perhaps it's humanism (this is the most likely case). And yes, there is no rational reason to adopt humanism; it's something you need to make a faith call about - just like God. And once they adopt humanism as the "truth," just as we Christians faithfully adopt God as the "truth," it operates as an objective source of morality.Do you see? They're both equally justified. Christianity is the ultimate source of truth in my (and I presume yours as well) ethical system, but I make no pretensions of having arrived at Christianity through some objective process. In just the same way, all the atheist needs is one similar leap of faith towards an ethical foundation to have a coherent, rational, internally consistent, non-nihilistic moral compass.

 

[Garbage Man]

(Ek Pyros;34257)
Yes; because they are.But the real question is what do morals matter without God? Ask yourself this question: is there ever any moral obligation without and ultimate, objective Moral Lawgiver?
Let me ask you something. What is the difference between:A.) An atheist who tries to live well and help others, but always runs the risk of losing sight of actual good and going off on an errant path, andB.) A faithful christian who, as I'm sure you'll agree, is going to fail and hurt others many times in his/her life, despite keeping his/her eyes on God's law, because no human is capable of perfection?I think it takes more strength of character to do things solely because you believe it is right and have no other guidance, than to do things because you believe God definitely wants you to. But my understanding of "faith" in God is that it isn't really "faith" unless you continually understand and acknowledge the fact that you don't actually know that God is real and wants you to have Christian morals. Isn't it true that God's existence/intent can never really be proven or known to us here on Earth? I say if a person can say they "know" God's law is real with a straight face, then they have already defeated the purpose of faith... after all, how can you understand the significance of faith unless you understand the weight of the potential consequences of being wrong about believing in God?

 

[Ek Pyros]

Faith in no way contradicts or disposes of reason. That is not a sound premise. If you want to go into that more, I'll give you some great links on the matter.I can show you God exists with 100% rational certainty, if you'd like. I KNOW with my MIND God exists. The faith part has more to do with His promises to me.After all, the fool is the one who denies God's existence. I don't think the Psalmist needed much faith that God IS. Just that He IS who He says He IS.

 

[Lunar]

(Ek Pyros;34483)
I can show you God exists with 100% rational certainty, if you'd like.
I'd be very interested to see this.