How do atheists have morals?

Sam Vimes · 09-10-2009 06:01PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:04PM

This is a very silly question.

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

Sam Vimes · 09-10-2009 06:08PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:19PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:20PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:22PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:23PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:25PM

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 · 09-10-2009 06:54PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:00PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:13PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:15PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:22PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:34PM

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 · 09-10-2009 07:42PM

If I misunderstood your previous statement, no problem.

smcgiff · 09-10-2009 07:44PM

gosplan wrote: »

You might as well ask how do atheists love?

With Condoms the heathen fiends!

My glib comment aside, very interesting thread.

Dave! · 09-10-2009 07:47PM

Welcome to boards, doctoremma

Good to have you aboard

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 07:48PM

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 · 09-10-2009 08:06PM

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 · 09-10-2009 08:07PM

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.

doctoremma · 09-10-2009 08:10PM

opinion guy wrote: »

no pretty much i see atheism, religion, science, whatever as things we choose to believe or not believe.

Do you "believe" in gravity? On what basis do you choose to "believe" in gravity?

liamw · 09-10-2009 08:42PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Careful now, you're treading near group based selection there

Blackhorse Slim · 09-10-2009 08:47PM

doctoremma wrote: »

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...

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.

I don't think it's that simple. People don't kill/hate each other simply because of their religion, but because of their background/culture/community and a sense (fostered by those with vested interests) that "they" did something to "us", they are bad and we are good.

liamw · 09-10-2009 08:58PM

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple. People don't kill/hate each other simply because of their religion, but because of their background/culture/community and a sense (fostered by those with vested interests) that "they" did something to "us", they are bad and we are good.

It's not religion. It's labelling. And labelling is what religion does best

Dades · 09-10-2009 08:59PM

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.

We don't really - only in small social enclaves maybe. In Malasia Muslims can be caned for having sex in a car (as per a recent thread in Humanities) which isn't consistant with many socities. There is no universal morality really. Morals will be different in 100 years even in our community.

So when someone asks where did you get your morality - that's exactly what is is - yours. You get it from yourself and share it with nobody.

dvpower · 09-10-2009 09:01PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Can an atheist have morals?

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.

(many) Theists believe that if they break the rules, they can be punished by an eternity in hell. They also believe that the rules come from their creator. And yet they still break the rules. If they *really* took it seriously, then theists should be far more moral that the rest of us; which doesn't appear to be the case.

I'd be asking theists, given the absolute source of their morals and the absolute punishment for failure, why don't they have absolute morals?

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 09:09PM

5uspect wrote: »

and psychology is a...

Not sure what your point is with that, but i'd think its a theory of human cognition, no?

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.
......

Yes I read it and yes I got it. you're not getting my point. Oh my god u said it urself - if it wasn't religion it may well be somthing else. Point is Northen Ireland is NOT NOT NOT NOT as simple as religion. Its as much about land, histroy, money, power etc etc etc. AS you point out they could very well use another excuse. Thus Dawkins' conclusion that Northern problem is a fault of relgiion is a logical fallacy.

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you "believe" in gravity? On what basis do you choose to "believe" in gravity?

You see you've left words out of what you are asking me. What you actually mean to say is - do you believe in the theory of gravity. BIG difference. To believe in gravity is just as ludicrous as to believe in purple. Now knowing that a theory means an idea thought up by humans and tested by experiment and found to be roughlt accurate. Thou as with all scientific theories, I recognise that the theory is incomplete and that I in my humble position as a limited creature don't have the capacity to understand the universe in its totality. So I reason that to believe in gravity, or religion, or whatever is basically self-defeating since my beliefs are by definition incomplete. I reason, to adopt fixed beliefs of any sort is basically illogical. But i'm a pragmatist and I realise I can't go around questioning everything all the time. So I try to minimise any beliefs, but do loosely adopt beliefs on occasion as suits my needs. If I find those beliefs outlive there usefullness, I change them. Thus I don't become a slave to my beliefs and in fact try to make them useful to me

5uspect · 09-10-2009 09:33PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Not sure what your point is with that, but i'd think its a theory of human cognition, no?

It's a science.

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

Your argument is somewhat circular. You dismiss everything as something we simply choose to believe, including science then claim it is a science.
So is science inside or outside the belief box?

Yes I read it and yes I got it. you're not getting my point. Oh my god u said it urself - if it wasn't religion it may well be somthing else. Point is Northen Ireland is NOT NOT NOT NOT as simple as religion. Its as much about land, histroy, money, power etc etc etc. AS you point out they could very well use another excuse. Thus Dawkins' conclusion that Northern problem is a fault of relgiion is a logical fallacy.

He doesn't say it is as simple as religion. Where exactly does he say it?
It's the labelling of two distinct groups, through religion that prevents one group from even contemplating even speaking to another.

You should watch this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mgaRKsIR_U&feature=video_response

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 10:11PM

It's a science.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I suggest you learn more about both science and psychology

Mena · 09-10-2009 10:18PM

opinion guy wrote: »

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
I suggest you learn more about both science and psychology

You're going to have to expand on this... lololol doesn't quite do it.

The floor is yours.

How do atheists have morals?

Comments