Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

[RandFan]

YOU ARE WRONG. An agnostic is not a fence-sitter. (S)he is merely one who asserts that (s)he does not have KNOWLEDGE of some particular god. And, yes, there are shades to this stance, but that is basically it.

Thank you. I'm happily agnostic. I was once theistic then deist and now agnostic. I simply have no reason to believe that there is a god. I would not put myself as "in the middle". I don't refer to myself as atheist because I see a slight distinction but I concede that technically I am one and don't mind others referring to me as such. To be in the middle one would have to argue from ignorance. I can't do that. So I'm not "in the middle" when it comes to the Easter bunny either.

 

[severin]

You may have heard on the news that there had just been a major terrorist attack in London. It will be interesting to hear how world leaders respond to this both on a moral and practical level. There will be knee-jerk reactions but let's hope that the real culprits are targetted rather than the nearest Arab country.

 

[RandFan]

There will be knee-jerk reactions but let's hope that the real culprits are targetted rather than the nearest Arab country.

??? What? How is this relevant to the thread and what are you talking about?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You may have heard on the news that there had just been a major terrorist attack in London.

I hadn't heard.

You just stopped my heart, do you realise that?

You could at least have given more information.

I have the news on the TV now.

 

[jjramsey]

But, Flick, the bible is NOT offered up as a source of morality based on society's mores 5000 years ago. It is proffered as god's word, "timeless truth" and all kinds of similar phrases.

Depends on who you ask. If you ask a pastor trained in a seminary, they will tend to say that while the Bible contains "timeless truth," this truth is embedded in documents that are highly culture-dependent, so one has to tease out what is timeless and what are artifacts of the times in which the Bible was written. The fancy word for this is "hermeneutics."

 

[RandFan]

I hadn't heard.

You just stopped my heart, do you realise that?

You could at least have given more information.

I have the news on the TV now.

There is a thread in the Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues forum on this very tragic event.

Blasts close entire London Underground

 

[Bri]

The divine authority is just how he claims to have arrived at a certain set of morals- but as an atheist I obviously don't take this claim seriously since he would have to show that a god indeed exists in order to verify this claimed divine authority.

Are you saying that as an atheist you don't believe in anything that is unprovable? Is that true of all atheists? Doesn't that preclude belief in free will, which is fundamentally unprovable? Isn't free will necessary for any meaningful system of morality/ethics, which assumes that a person is responsible for his or her actions.

-Bri

 

[FreeChile]

Atlas, you've made some excellent points and I want to get back to them...but right now I am on the run. I just want to take a moment to respond to this:

For me, this ranks right up there with the silliest posts on record. Can you cite, FreeChile, examples where an atheist was acting as a "missionary" trying to convert others to their perspective. And, note, that merely expousing their point of view is NOT synonymous with prostlying. Find an athiest that is the counterpoint to, say, a Farwell who is quite prepared to assert that those atheists who disagree with him are destined to the lake of fire. You can't because there is no atheist analog, but give it a shot.

It suites your needs to maintain such a narrow definition of “proselytize.” Webster’s definition is “to induce someone to convert to one's faith” or “to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.” Now, since you’re talking about fire and requesting an example, you need not go too far back in history to note incidents of persecution and the burning of literature (religious or otherwise) by both theists and atheists alike. Among the first things that Marxists, communists, Nazis, and socialists have done in their conversion process is burn any literature that contradicts their beliefs. It’s a simple process of assimilation: conversion or death.

To give you something more contemporary, have you ever read the seven pillars of Brianism. What is the 3rd Pillar?

Seven Pillars of Brianism

Propagation

To preserve intelligent life in the universe, we must eventually spread to other worlds, systems, galaxies or perhaps even dimensions. We may be the only intelligent life that will ever be - so having all our eggs in the one basket of a single habitable planet is very risky. This is of course a long-term goal and the immediate propagation of Brianism depends upon the conversion and retention of Brianists.

"Spread the word. Interstellar propagation depends on the majority will. We need to go much farther than our single world. This is a long term goal, but there is a lot to be done before we are ready."

The Book of Brian. Sura 1, Verse 3

 

[stamenflicker]

jj,

"hermeneutics."

I think your reply is fairly indicative of my response, however I would point out that hermeneutics cross disciplines and it isn't just a theological construction.

Flick

 

[Christian]

I have yet to find from an atheist who happens to be a materialist (MA) a satisfactory response of why he or she needs to be moral.

I do have an answer why a Christian believes he or she needs to be moral. Basically, Christians find a double motivation why they need to be moral. The Score Keeper is just like Santa. He makes a list and checks it twice and you get prices or you get consequences.

 

[Atlas]

I have yet to find from an atheist who happens to be a materialist (MA) a satisfactory response of why he or she needs to be moral.

I do have an answer why a Christian believes he or she needs to be moral. Basically, Christians find a double motivation why they need to be moral. The Score Keeper is just like Santa. He makes a list and checks it twice and you get prices or you get consequences.

What you are saying would be true for the "good works" Christian only.

It says nothing about the evil man who plans on a death bed conversion. It says nothing about the those saved through faith and it says nothing about those who are saved through grace.

In fact it speaks to a low form of morality. Not doing right and good for its own sake - but because mommy will give you a cookie. You're saying Christians don't give two hoots about goodness and morality for what they are, you'll do whatever you have to to get into heaven. This leaves you open to the persuasive and insidious authoritarian who can convince you that God wants you to strap on a bomb and become a martyr for your heavenly reward.

We don't raise our kids to live rightly just because it keeps them out of jail. We teach them to live rightly because it will enable them to live well and take care of those they love doing their part to leave the world a tiny bit better than they found it.

Morality leads to trust, friendship and strong bonds between people as well as good and productive ways of thinking. Immorality leads to less productive ways of thinking that lead in turn often to counterproductive behaviors that over time hurt the individual and those he cares for.

 

[Christian]

What you are saying would be true for the "good works" Christian only.

You are assuming things I have not said.

It says nothing about the evil man who plans on a death bed conversion. It says nothing about the those saved through faith and it says nothing about those who are saved through grace.

Exactly, I'm not talking about this.

In fact it speaks to a low form of morality. Not doing right and good for its own sake - but because mommy will give you a cookie.

Low form of morality? By who's standards? Who has the moral higher ground to make this judgement? Explain this to me.

You're saying Christians don't give two hoots about goodness and morality for what they are, you'll do whatever you have to to get into heaven.

Nope, I said no such thing.

This leaves you open to the persuasive and insidious authoritarian who can convince you that God wants you to strap on a bomb and become a martyr for your heavenly reward.

Strawman.

We don't raise our kids to live rightly just because it keeps them out of jail. We teach them to live rightly because it will enable them to live well and take care of those they love doing their part to leave the world a tiny bit better than they found it.

You contradict yourself here. You say *jail*, that is one posible negative consequence. So is the reverse of living well. You see what you have done? I will rephrase your statement:

We teach them to live rightly because it will prevent them from a bad life.

Same thing, right?

And the last part of your sentence does not follow. Taking care of those we love (from the MA perspective) does not result in a better world. If so, please provide the evidence of this.

Morality leads to trust, friendship and strong bonds between people as well as good and productive ways of thinking.

From the MA perspective, there should be no connection, no causality. From the MA perspective, morality can lead to distrust, enemies and weak bonds. Your's is wishful thinking not based on solid evidence.

Immorality leads to less productive ways of thinking that lead in turn often to counterproductive behaviors that over time hurt the individual and those he cares for.

You want to believe this. As an MA, there should be no reason to believe this. Immorality can be the best strategy for the most productive behavior. History shows this time and again.

 

[Yahweh]

I have yet to find from an atheist who happens to be a materialist (MA) a satisfactory response of why he or she needs to be moral.

Hmmm...

In some ways, asking "why should someone behave morally" is like asking "why should someone be rational", or literally like asking "what are the reasons for doing something desirable".

The answers to these questions are superfluous, as far as any MA (or any person who cares about ethics) is concerned, the justification for any moral principle by definition provides a reason for following that moral principle.

 

[RandFan]

What you are saying would be true for the "good works" Christian only.

It says nothing about the evil man who plans on a death bed conversion. It says nothing about the those saved through faith and it says nothing about those who are saved through grace.

In fact it speaks to a low form of morality. Not doing right and good for its own sake - but because mommy will give you a cookie. You're saying Christians don't give two hoots about goodness and morality for what they are, you'll do whatever you have to to get into heaven. This leaves you open to the persuasive and insidious authoritarian who can convince you that God wants you to strap on a bomb and become a martyr for your heavenly reward.

We don't raise our kids to live rightly just because it keeps them out of jail. We teach them to live rightly because it will enable them to live well and take care of those they love doing their part to leave the world a tiny bit better than they found it.

Morality leads to trust, friendship and strong bonds between people as well as good and productive ways of thinking. Immorality leads to less productive ways of thinking that lead in turn often to counterproductive behaviors that over time hurt the individual and those he cares for.

I was raised Mormon and Mormons believe that you are saved by grace after all you can do. In other words what one does is important. However doing good solely for the sake of being saved won't save you and the concept that goodness must transcend simpl obedience is common in Christian churches as I understand it.

It's tempting to demonize Christians and suggest they are of low moral character but it is wrong. It's ironic since many are resentful of the notion that Christians are morally superior.

I find the religious folks are by and large good and decent people. That they are moral and believe in being good for its own sake.

 

[Atlas]

... It's tempting to demonize Christians and suggest they are of low moral character but it is wrong. It's ironic since many are resentful of the notion that Christians are morally superior.

I find the religious folks are by and large good and decent people. That they are moral and believe in being good for its own sake.

Perhaps I should have chosen a better descriptor than "low". I seem to have introduced a confusion.

Let me change the description of Christian's morality, which he describes as one of prizes and consequences as "first-form". That sounds better than "low", doesn't it? It's a "Do what I say, or else" morality. It's a law giver morality. It's a "Thou shalt not" morality.

Jesus changed the commandment morality base, to "Love". It's a positive message. Love God and your neighbor. Whatever you do to the least among you, you do to me. Live your life with love as your guide. Not Hell... not even heaven... love. That's the only law you need to concern yourself with.

It happens to be something that atheists and Christians can agree on. Caring for our loved ones, our children, friends, community, and country is enough to make us better people and, in our actions, indistinguishable from those who include God in their list.

Morality is a complex notion. I'm no expert but the problem with "first form" morality, the morality of laws, rewards and punishments is that no one can know all the laws. Christianity has 30,000 sects or something like that. Jesus, rightly in my opinion, offered an empowering alternative to his followers. Keep it simple. Act out of the love in your heart.

This is where I think Christian is mixed up. He has latched onto the punishment/reward aspect of Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality as the reason to be moral. It blinds him to the higher form Jesus spoke of. Atheists have ideals and feel love, it's a human thing. We can all find our morality in the exploration of our ideal.

 

[Atlas]

Low form of morality? By who's standards? Who has the moral higher ground to make this judgement? Explain this to me.

Christian, I've given my answer to this part of your post to RandFan. Your post deserves a larger response but I'm off to a reunion. I hope to give this more attention tomorrow.

In another thread I gave my thoughts on how an atheist would answer why it is a good thing to lead a good life. This I think is a rewording of your original question. I came up with this: A life well lived is its own reward.

At the time when I embraced the idea some 20-30 years ago, I liked it for articulating the thought in terms of reward because I, like you, was operating with the same idea of heavenly reward and hellish consequence you allude to in your post. That is, I was a Christian wondering why atheists don't murder and rape - was it only laws or something more.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps I should have chosen a better descriptor than "low". I seem to have introduced a confusion.

Let me change the description of Christian's morality, which he describes as one of prizes and consequences as "first-form". That sounds better than "low", doesn't it? It's a "Do what I say, or else" morality. It's a law giver morality. It's a "Thou shalt not" morality.

Jesus changed the commandment morality base, to "Love". It's a positive message. Love God and your neighbor. Whatever you do to the least among you, you do to me. Live your life with love as your guide. Not Hell... not even heaven... love. That's the only law you need to concern yourself with.

It happens to be something that atheists and Christians can agree on. Caring for our loved ones, our children, friends, community, and country is enough to make us better people and, in our actions, indistinguishable from those who include God in their list.

Morality is a complex notion. I'm no expert but the problem with "first form" morality, the morality of laws, rewards and punishments is that no one can know all the laws. Christianity has 30,000 sects or something like that. Jesus, rightly in my opinion, offered an empowering alternative to his followers. Keep it simple. Act out of the love in your heart.

This is where I think Christian is mixed up. He has latched onto the punishment/reward aspect of Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality as the reason to be moral. It blinds him to the higher form Jesus spoke of. Atheists have ideals and feel love, it's a human thing. We can all find our morality in the exploration of our ideal.

No argument. Well said.

 

[Yahweh]

Are you saying that as an atheist you don't believe in anything that is unprovable? Is that true of all atheists? Doesn't that preclude belief in free will, which is fundamentally unprovable? Isn't free will necessary for any meaningful system of morality/ethics, which assumes that a person is responsible for his or her actions.

Moral responsibility implies two things:
(1) that a person knows what he or she is doing
(2) that a persons actions were relevant in the consequences of his or her actions

Thats all there is to it, freewill (however that is defined) is superfluous.

 

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yah
Hmmm...

In some ways, asking "why should someone behave morally" is like asking "why should someone be rational", or literally like asking "what are the reasons for doing something desirable".

I have not asked that. And it is very easy to demonstrate why someone *needs* to behave rationally or desirable. Why an atheist *needs* to be moral, I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. But, that doesn't mean there isn't one. Yours, simply isn't.

The answers to these questions are superfluous, as far as any MA (or any person who cares about ethics) is concerned, the justification for any moral principle by definition provides a reason for following that moral principle.

I don't get this answer at all. What does the justification for any moral principle by definition provides a reason for following that moral principle mean? Can you give an example?

 

[Christian]

This is where I think Christian is mixed up. He has latched onto the punishment/reward aspect of Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality as the reason to be moral. It blinds him to the higher form Jesus spoke of. Atheists have ideals and feel love, it's a human thing. We can all find our morality in the exploration of our ideal.

There can be many reasons to be moral. That is not my point. My point is that Christian see the *need* to be moral. It is imperative to be moral because of the rewards and punishments. MAs rationally should feel absolutely no *need* to be moral. Sure, they can be if they want to, but that is just a preferences. No imperatives there.

And no, that does not make an MA more moral. To an MA it should be a choice between chocolate or vanilla.