How do atheists have morals?

doctoremma

Hello.

Do any of you guys visit Richard Dawkin's website forum? I ask because someone over there linked to you guys today. Well, not to you guys specifically, more to the "Christianity" board. Anyway, I wandered over to have a peek and found a new "Atheism" forum

And again, hello!

So, my question. Can an atheist have morals? As an atheist and I think a nice person, I say "yes". I have many thoughts about how to answer this question when it's posed to me but I was wondering if you guys had any drop-dead responses. I usually argue from a biological altruism POV.

And to extend that, what are the questions that annoy you most about atheism? And your responses?

(OK, I admit, I'm gathering resources for my next encounter )

CerebralCortex

My favourite is along the lines of:

"So without God to punish you, you would <insert heinous crime here>?"

edit - Welcome to the A+A forum.

hammerfan

I think all atheists have morals. The theists are the ones who don't - they need a rule book ( bible, koran etc..) to tell them how to behave.

Blackhorse Slim

I agree with hammerfan, a better question would be whether theists have morals. If you follow rules to avoid an eternal punishment and in the hope of gaining a reward, is that truly moral? It seems purely self-serving to me.

Goduznt Xzst

It's a pity the search feature has been disabled, I could of linked to a handful of interesting threads here about this subject.

Morality comes under a completely different area outside of being an Atheist, and can vary in opinion depending on the individual.

First you need to define what kind of morality you are talking about. Is it objective? Is it universal? Does the individual believe in Divine command theory. Are they a moral relativist or moral nihilist (<-that's me)... etc and that's only really scratching the surface.

Just know that there are no "drop-dead responses", it's as subjective a subject as which flavor of ice cream you prefer.

Personally though if a Christian said to me: "As an Atheist you cannot have morals"
I'd retort: "Christian morals? You're damn right I don't. My morality goes beyond self serving kindness to secure myself with immortality"

Edit: Damn you Blackhorse Slim and your ninja skills

Rev Hellfire

Most of the major religion contain rules/morals which conform to the society/time they operate in.

Its a two way street as far as who's influencing who in my view, though my moneys on the herd dictating to the religion more than the other way around.

Max Power1

hammerfan wrote: »

I think all atheists have morals. The theists are the ones who don't - they need a rule book ( bible, koran etc..) to tell them how to behave.

+1

I dont need some old book or cloak and dagger magic tricks to tell me how to live my life

Galvasean

I'm of the opinion that a non-believer who acts morally is much more genuine than a religious person who acts morally. The non-believer doesn't have the prospect of eternal damnation lingering over his/her head to inspire them into doing good deeds. To them it is just what they do/the way they are.

From an evolutionary perspective studies have been done which have shown how morality has developed over time. When we look at apes their primitive societies are based around a sort of moral code. Similarly, we can observe such behaviour (albeit less developed) in 'leser' species like monkeys.

studiorat

Atheist here! No morals at all. Think I'll treat myself to an extra baby at dinner this evening...

darjeeling

Followers of the main monotheistic faiths have morals because they use their morals to interpret what people a long time ago who had morals wrote down about morality. Or, more straightforwardly, religion offers an ancient moral code, reinforced with supernatural threats and inducements, which can be selectively mined in accordance with the very different morality of today's society.

Many religious people tell themselves that they are actually following some objective and eternal divine moral law, but as we don't believe in their religions, we don't believe this is true. They are, in fact, doing just the same as the rest of us.

Where morality comes from is a different question, but it's one that we all must answer, not just those who don't follow a religious faith.

seamus

Biological altruism here I would say too. Without going too deeply into it, I firmly believe that almost everyone, most of the time, wants to act in a way that best serves their community. The individual will often act to get short-term gain for themselves, but rarely to the detriment of their community.

A small subset of people will always act to benefit themselves regardless of the community's wishes, and an even smaller subset will always act to benefit the community regardless of their own situation.

This wish to benefit the community is the basis of the notion of morality, and is the reason why people can be inspired en masse to commit "immoral" acts - because the act is seen as beneficial to their community. This explains how (and why) the bible is littered with celebratory tales of horrific acts.

Dades

doctoremma wrote: »

Hello.

Welcome!

doctoremma wrote: »

what are the questions that annoy you most about atheism

doctoremma wrote: »

Can an atheist have morals?

doctoremma

Sorry if I get this completely wrong - biology more my thing, philosophy attempted usually when drunk:

I would always link biological altruism with moral absolutism - to take the simplest example, it is not biologically a good idea to go around killing members of your species willy nilly. But some people think that morals are relative, suggestive that the premise "do not kill" has been decided on as a "good rule" (a "golden rule", I guess). This, I perceive, is where religious people get involved - who decided that "do not kill" was the "right" way to live?

Can moral relativism be reconciled with a biological basis for morality?

(Does that last question even make sense?)

Zillah

Atheist or believer, "moral" or no, you're all wretched creatures that would eat each other given half a chance/reason.

As a smoker who went into work today without cigarettes I'm going to be pouring my irrational fury into the internet rather than my coworkers. Pity the search function is down, you could have followed the trail of burning forums in my wake.

Would that be deemed immoral behaviour?

hammerfan

Tell you what annoys me most about atheism, at least the Dawkins version of it, is how it has become a religion in itself. It's the atheist fundamentalists, like Dawkins, who really get on my t*ts. His brand of atheism carries all the negative, self-righteous finger-jabbing aspects of religion but offers none of the benefits.

doctoremma

hammerfan wrote: »

Tell you what annoys me most about atheism, at least the Dawkins version of it, is how it has become a religion in itself. It's the atheist fundamentalists, like Dawkins, who really get on my t*ts. His brand of atheism carries all the negative, self-righteous finger-jabbing aspects of religion but offers none of the benefits.

I don't know you at all so not sure if you're joking or not... I hope the first sentence, at least, is a display of your fine sense of irony...

Atheism a religion? Please say you don't mean this...

robindch

doctoremma wrote: »

Can an atheist have morals?

If one were to be pedantic and use one of the more common definitions of "moral" which implies a fixed, conservative, decision-making, value-assigning social framework which based upon some current or past interpretation of one or more religious books, then I'd imagine that most atheists are probably fairly free of morals.

And most would probably think that's a good thing too.

opinion guy

How do atheists have morals ?

Same way as anyone else. By choosing to.

QED

hammerfan

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know you at all so not sure if you're joking or not... I hope the first sentence, at least, is a display of your fine sense of irony...

Atheism a religion? Please say you don't mean this...

Depends how you define religion I suppose. But the way people use the phrase "religious zeal" to describe someone who goes around banging on about their belief in something or other, could be applied equally well to persons such as Dawkins.

robindch

hammerfan wrote: »

His brand of atheism carries all the negative, self-righteous finger-jabbing aspects of religion but offers none of the benefits.

Well, it may not make people very happy if they've invested large chunks of their life's political, intellectual and emotional capital in a wild goose chase handed down to us, generation to generation, from the Bronze Age and beyond.

But again, it's quite arguable that this is a good thing too.

Reality is still out there whether or not one chooses to shut one's eyes and go la-la-la with lots of other people of a Sunday morning.

bnt

The term "morals" can be a bit loaded, depending on precisely what you think it means. I associate it with following orders rather than "doing the right thing", and so it amuses me to shock people by telling them "I have no Morals." Instead, I have Ethics.

Zillah

opinion guy wrote: »

How do atheists have morals ?

Same way as anyone else. By choosing to.

QED

Watched the Matrix last night or something?

hammerfan

robindch wrote: »

Reality is still out there whether or not one chooses to shut one's eyes and go la-la-la with lots of other people of a Sunday morning.

I've got no problem with people going la-la on Sunday if it makes them feel good and they get a chance for a natter afterwards. I don't like it when people get angry if their neighbour doesn't share their brand of la-la, or worse if they use their la-la as an excuse to pick a fight with someone.

If religion is defined as belief in god(s) then surely atheism should be a non-belief, meaning you don't need to go around shouting about what you believe in.

Turtwig

Yes indeedy,

If animals can have morals, so can atheists.:)

Sorta On topic:
I know it's my second time mentioning it, but this book supposedly explores animals that care for one another and things we can learn from them.

Also, I mentioned these in others posts...(think it was the creation thread) but it's pretty much a scientific fact that lots of animals have moral values.
Even piranhas!!:eek:

Turtwig

hammerfan wrote: »

If religion is defined as belief in god(s) then surely atheism should be a non-belief, meaning you don't need to go around shouting about what you believe in.

Of course not, but religion it seems like to control EVERYTHING, ever had someone give out to you for eating meat? Religion, because believers perceive it as the truth is constantly proselytised and we're excepted you either all shut up about it and live our lifes according to the way they want to.

It's our planet too ya know..

robindch

hammerfan wrote: »

If religion is defined as belief in god(s) then surely atheism should be a non-belief, meaning you don't need to go around shouting about what you believe in.

If religious people kept mum about it, then the word atheist would slip into oblivion overnight and this forum would close.

Unfortunately, religious people regard it as their sacred, express duty to bring their religion everywhere and some atheists don't like this and object to it.

Try going to Saudi and seeing if you fail to develop a deep sense of injustice at the level of nasty religious coercion going on.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

My favourite is along the lines of:

"So without God to punish you, you would <insert heinous crime here>?"

edit - Welcome to the A+A forum.

hammerfan wrote: »

I think all atheists have morals. The theists are the ones who don't - they need a rule book ( bible, koran etc..) to tell them how to behave.

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I agree with hammerfan, a better question would be whether theists have morals. If you follow rules to avoid an eternal punishment and in the hope of gaining a reward, is that truly moral? It seems purely self-serving to me.

Max Power1 wrote: »

+1

I dont need some old book or cloak and dagger magic tricks to tell me how to live my life

You all miss one of the biggest Christian arguements. Its not about the rule book. Most will argue, that because we 'ALL' have morals, atheist, theist, deist alike, that it shows that we appeal to a greater justice for want of a better term. CS Lewis talks about it in 'Mere Christianity'. I have never heard a christian say that 'Atheists can't have morals' or whatever. The atheist having morals 'Helps' our arguement. (An arguement btw I wont get into). Just clearing up the misconception.

hammerfan

Yep, agree religion likes to control everything - it's the ol' church & state thing. That's where Ireland got it so wrong, too many cardinals telling the politicians what to do.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

You all miss one of the biggest Christian arguements. Its not about the rule book. Most will argue, that because we 'ALL' have morals, atheist, theist, deist alike, that it shows that we appeal to a greater justice for want of a better term. CS Lewis talks about it in 'Mere Christianity'. I have never heard a christian say that 'Atheists can't have morals' or whatever. The atheist having morals 'Helps' our arguement. (An arguement btw I wont get into). Just clearing up the misconception.

No not really, not if you think about for a short time.

Dades

hammerfan wrote: »

If religion is defined as belief in god(s) then surely atheism should be a non-belief, meaning you don't need to go around shouting about what you believe in.

No doubt you're now off to the Vegan & Vegetarian forum to tell them that just because they don't eat meat - they should shut the hell up too.

Sam Vimes

bnt wrote: »

The term "morals" can be a bit loaded, depending on precisely what you think it means. I associate it with following orders rather than "doing the right thing", and so it amuses me to shock people by telling them "I have no Morals." Instead, I have Ethics.

Same here. When I heard of ethics I think of people doing good things for others and not killing them etc and when I think of morals I think of people poking their noses in other people's business

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You all miss one of the biggest Christian arguements. Its not about the rule book. Most will argue, that because we 'ALL' have morals, atheist, theist, deist alike, that it shows that we appeal to a greater justice for want of a better term. CS Lewis talks about it in 'Mere Christianity'. I have never heard a christian say that 'Atheists can't have morals' or whatever. The atheist having morals 'Helps' our arguement. (An arguement btw I wont get into). Just clearing up the misconception.

Atheists having moral helps the case of evolution. Other animals displaying simple morality and altruism which are clearly less developed versions of our own goes heavily against the christian argument

gosplan

This is a very silly question.

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

Sam Vimes

gosplan wrote: »

This is a very silly question.

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

You see when you think that you need a man in the sky to tell you that murdering your family and friends is a bad thing the question kind of makes sense. Atheists on the other hand see morality as an evolved trait that allowed us to live in groups for the mutual benefit of the pack and this position is supported by mountains of evidence of moral, ethical and altruistic behaviour in animals who aren't supposed to have a soul.

No magic sky man necessary

hammerfan

Dades wrote: »

No doubt you're now off to the Vegan & Vegetarian forum to tell them that just because they don't eat meat - they should shut the hell up too.

No, wont be going over there. Atheism is a special case because it's anti-belief. Therefore it is contradictory to go harping on about what you don't believe in. It works best if you leave the harping on to the theists, they do a fine job persuading people there is no god without our help.

Handsome Bob

I don't think one needs religion to have morals. Once I stopped believing I didn't feel the need to go on an immoral rampage just because I no longer lived by the catholic code. That's biological altruism for you.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No not really, not if you think about for a short time.

Well I have, but far be it from me to think it is will convince yee. I would not be so presumtuous. The point is that the 'moral' arguement has been misrepresented.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Atheists having moral helps the case of evolution. Other animals displaying simple morality and altruism which are clearly less developed versions of our own goes heavily against the christian argument

As I said, not getting into it. Hopefully though, you'll understand where the point was misrepresented.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, not getting into it. Hopefully though, you'll understand where the point was misrepresented.

It's misrepresented for some people but a substantial number of people think that morals come directly from the bible and therefore atheists don't have them

doctoremma

hammerfan wrote: »

Depends how you define religion I suppose. But the way people use the phrase "religious zeal" to describe someone who goes around banging on about their belief in something or other, could be applied equally well to persons such as Dawkins.

But Dawkins doesn't go around banging on about his belief...He doesn't have one to bang on about.

doctoremma

gosplan wrote: »

This is a very silly question.

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

Why is it a silly question? As far as I'm aware, everyone has a pretty similar definition of love. What people don't have is consistent and similar ideas about moral (ethical if you want) behaviour.

PharmerLuke

But we DO have consistent and similar ideas about morals i.e Murder, Rape etc. Everyone except the mad would be repulsed by those.

The only difference is that religion adds these "extra morals", but the vast majority don't make sense or are actually immoral if you ask even the religious. Some of them have been forgotten in the texts because we have discarded them.

We all have a common moral framework, combination of evolution & culture among a few other things. I just don't see your point. Definitely a silly question.

PharmerLuke

hammerfan wrote: »

Atheism is a special case because it's anti-belief.

I'd prefer to say "Lack of Belief", or "No belief"...not the same as "Anti-Belief"

doctoremma

PharmerLuke wrote: »

But we DO have consistent and similar ideas about morals i.e Murder, Rape etc. Everyone except the mad would be repulsed by those.

The only difference is that religion adds these "extra morals", but the vast majority don't make sense or are actually immoral if you ask even the religious. Some of them have been forgotten in the texts because we have discarded them.

We all have a common moral framework, combination of evolution & culture among a few other things. I just don't see your point. Definitely a silly question.

Sorry, the aim of the question of the thread was to highlight one of the questions I have been asked (on more than one occasion) by a believer. It in no way represents my personal view.

I am now trying, simply as a thought experiment, to reconcile the idea of moral relativism with biological altruism - any suggestions? They seem mutually exclusive - biological altruism depends on a unified code of conduct and given it exists in animals, we have to assume it stems from an inate source. If morality is inate, how can a person claim that a moral standard is contextual (by contextual, I mean, each person decides what's right and wrong for them).

doctoremma

PharmerLuke wrote: »

But we DO have consistent and similar ideas about morals i.e Murder, Rape etc. Everyone except the mad would be repulsed by those.

Sorry, on re-read, I think I've been misunderstood. When I mentioned consistent and similar ideas about morals, I was referring to how people "acquire" morals i.e. different ideas about where they come from. Not necessarily different outcomes of moral behaviour. Sure, people have similar ideas about murder and rape etc.

PharmerLuke

If I misunderstood your previous statement, no problem.

smcgiff

gosplan wrote: »

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

With Condoms the heathen fiends!

My glib comment aside, very interesting thread.

Dave!

Welcome to boards, doctoremma Good to have you aboard

opinion guy

Zillah wrote: »

Watched the Matrix last night or something?

lol....very good. no pretty much i see atheism, religion, science, whatever as things we choose to believe or not believe. its all just psychology and really doesn't merit all the fuss IMHO

doctoremma wrote: »

But Dawkins doesn't go around banging on about his belief...He doesn't have one to bang on about.

My God he fairly bangs on about something. What annoys me about Dawkins having read his God book is its full of logical fallacies. Stuff like - northern ireland, cath's kill prod's and vice versa - therefore religion is bad. seriously, this from supposed 'Britains greatest intellectual'. Hes just not the smart's all Im' saying and peddling that crap is just as bad as peddling the crap religions bandy about. I have friends who argue for atheism with far more solid arguments than he does.

5uspect

opinion guy wrote: »

lol....very good. no pretty much i see atheism, religion, science, whatever as things we choose to believe or not believe. its all just psychology and really doesn't merit all the fuss IMHO

and psychology is a...

My God he fairly bangs on about something. What annoys me about Dawkins having read his God book is its full of logical fallacies. Stuff like - northern ireland, cath's kill prod's and vice versa - therefore religion is bad. seriously, this from supposed 'Britains greatest intellectual'. Hes just not the smart's all Im' saying and peddling that crap is just as bad as peddling the crap religions bandy about. I have friends who argue for atheism with far more solid arguments than he does.

You clearly haven't read the book, or at least didn't get his point.

He says that in the North religions is used as a label to differentiate random people into recognisable groups. Easy targets for groups of angry people to attack. If it wasn't religion it may well be something else, football, race, etc.

The point is that religion is probably the most powerful label one can attach to oneself.
"The supreme being favours us, not them."
"Our war is righteous"
"This is the promised land"

Ultimately people will find a way to be cruel to those they don't like but most of use can draw the line at absurdities like racism. For some reason however religious belief must be respected without criticism. Even when it preaches such nonsense as we've seen up North.

doctoremma

opinion guy wrote: »

northern ireland, cath's kill prod's and vice versa - therefore religion is bad. seriously, this from supposed 'Britains greatest intellectual'.

At the risk of this turning into a pro .v. anti-Dawkins thread, I think his point is that people (undeniably, surely) DO kill/hate/harm each other over which magic man they believe in, or even which version of the same magic man is better. If this was a cause worth fighting for (i.e. something with a tangible and positive result for the further enhancement of society), maybe that's understandable. But it beggars belief (no pun intended, honest) that people are fighting for something they can't see/feel/provide evidence for, something which is imaginary.

Anyway.