The atheist and morality

[Dogdoctor]

But why should they have to? Why should any group be required to organize itself and "prove" that they are not immoral, when there is no evidence that they are immoral? The theoretical argument that atheists can't possibly be moral because nobody would behave without Sky Daddy to punish them has been amply responded to, and there is no empirical evidence that atheists behave any less morally than theists (unless you define moral as "going to church" and such).

Reality is as it is. If you can't find a good reason that atheists should have to prove anything does that mean they don't have to prove it?

The burden of proof should be on the people making the accusation. If someone claims that blacks are lazy, is your response that blacks shouldn't complain about such remarks until they get together and adopt a "work ethic code" and prove their industriousness.

Is the world a fair place? There is something called eminent domain, they are in charge.

So if someone says "you know, blacks seem lazy to me," that's ok?
So what if it's a "personal observation"? It's still an assertion of fact. And the vagueness of it makes it worse. If you cited actual evidence of atheists being immoral, it could be evaluated and responded to. But claiming that atheists "seem" immoral based on your "personal observation" implies that you have evidence, but not in any form that we can examine or rebut.

Well if you consider that every time I post on this board , to these atheists that numerous atheists fight tooth and nail against adopting a moral code like you are doing, there must be some reason. No one presents any logical arguments against adopting a set of moral codes and instead attack my character and call me names and try to make excuses for not doing so.

I won't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't make me "feel bad." Baseless insults don't make me feel bad. But it does concern me because this fallacy can be used to discriminate against atheists

I actually agree with you here. I am often discriminated against also for my beliefs but I don't loose any sleep at night over it. I am quite used to it.

 

[CrossHair]

You have it all backwards. Morality is a subset of philosophy that involves the concepts of good and bad , wrong and right, just and unjust. In war there are moral principles and we as a country along with many countries hold the belief that you can mistreat the enemy. Morality should stop us from mistreating the enemy and when it doesn't then that is a lack of morality. By the way I don't beleive in a god or that morality comes from god.

Morality is a MAN MADE concept that we find convienient to use within society. It sums up many social conventions and does involve the concepts of "good and bad, wrong and right, just and unjust", which themselves are VERY 'mushy' concepts. "Concepts" are Man's (and Woman's) creations and have no 'hard' truth outside of our brains. These concepts do describe, in a loose way, common held beliefs and practices within a society.
That said, you are certainly declairing that those within our leadership which allow torture and mistreat the enemy are immoral (lack of morality). This is fine, and I don't disagree, but a HUGE portion of this society will not agree that they are immoral and certainly, these leaders themselves do NOT see themselves as lacking any morality. This is what I am referring to in my previous post and I am describing why they, and many others, do not see they have any lack of morality.
I believe the original complaint of this thread was concerning the lack of understanding the religious types have concerning atheists (in particular Scottie99) and morality. Everyone thinks that they are frigging moral within their own little world, the problem is the concept of morality is used BY MANY, not all, to view the 'others' as immoral, just like you just did (BTW I am not suggesting you are right/wrong).
Also, By the way, I did not mean to imply that you "beleive in a god or that morality comes from god", that is what the happy face was for. Just that you seemed to fall into the same trap of apealing for someone with "authority" here. For many people, the ultimate authority is God.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Morality is more than man made and it is a part of our genetic makeup. Monkeys and apes have some behaviors that resemble morality of humans and we have no reason to think they are not the same. However with our greater mental abilities we can expand the scope of moral behavior and do so when we are not struggling to survive ourselves. Our urge to do this is I believe an instinct of sorts ( I presented a paper in college on this topic). In addition developing moral codes and living by them makes sense from a social perspective. It makes us as a group reliable to a degree depending on what percentage of our group accepts those moral codes. This allows someone wishing to interact with us or us interacting with each other a little assurance that our behavior will likely be within certain confines which makes for smoother more reliable interactions.

 

[Dunstan]

Well if you consider that every time I post on this board , to these atheists that numerous atheists fight tooth and nail against adopting a moral code like you are doing, there must be some reason. No one presents any logical arguments against adopting a set of moral codes and instead attack my character and call me names and try to make excuses for not doing so.

Well, here's a couple of reasons:

1. It's organizationally impractical. Atheists are not organized, so there's no group or leader or committee that has the authority to speak for us. Nor is that likely to change. And what's the penalty for non-compliance with the Atheist Code of Morality? Ex-communication? Can you be a lapsed atheist?

2. It's philosophically impractical. You've heard the expression that atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby? Well, trying to come up with a comprehensive moral code for atheists would be like trying to come up with an agreed-upon list of activities for non-stamp-collectors. So the best you could do is to come up with some very general principles.

3. Most organized religions either (a) don't have a specific code of ethics, and/or (b) don't follow or enforce it. What's the Lutheran Code of Ethics? The Presbyterian? Don't just say "follow God's word," because the Bible is hopelessly contradictory and most religions don't follow huge chunks of it. The religion I know of that has the most clearly-defined set of rules is the Roman Catholic Church, and don't get me started on that. I've had premarital sex using birth control with quite a few Catholic women.

4. The central premise of the "atheists can't be moral" argument is not that nobody's bothered to write down a moral code and enforce it by some earthly agency. The "point" is that without fear of an omniscient entity that sees all of our "sins" and will inerrantly punish them, atheists have (according to theists) no reason to follow _any_ code of ethics.

So let's suppose, for argument's sake, that I convene the First Worldwide Atheist Convention. We can't agree on issues like capital punishment, abortion, premarital sex, ior euthanasia, so we end up adopting an Atheist Code of Morality that is essentially the Bill and Ted Code: "Be Excellent to Each Other." Every atheist on the planet signs a document promising to abide by this code.

What happens? Do theists suddenly stop claiming that atheists can't be moral?

 

[Pup]

I think the problem is not that atheists aren't organized, it's that religious people have a history of thinking that anyone who doesn't think or act like they do is a sinner destined for eternal punishment.

They gang up in mix-and-match groups, depending on the need. The smaller sects will fight with each other, but they'll join together in ecumenical hatred of a larger common enemy, like Christians against Muslims. When they're combined into the largest possible group, where even the spiritualistic new-ager, the Jew and the Catholic have something in common, there's still no room for the atheist, who doesn't believe in any higher power that will reward or punish after death. Even someone who's converted from one religion to another is considered more morally stable than someone who has never believed in a religion at all (despite how illogical it is to think that someone who's changed their whole worldview is more trustworthy than someone who hasn't).

And so in the end, if a religious person needs a spiritual enemy, the atheist is always a safe bet to turn one's prejudice against, since there's always a chance to find at least a tiny bit of common ground with everyone else.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How it looks to others has nothing to do with morality.

I very much disagree. When someone accuses another person of being "immoral" they are trying to intimidate upon that other person how to act. Immoral people are those people who would do things that YOU don't agree is right.

It is your mindset including what you call integrity.

Yes, the more integrity a person has, the more likely he'll make the same decisions (ethically) whether he thinks people will find out or not.

Morality tends to be something people like to wear as a badge, something they brag about. The Religious Right like to claim that they are moral and other people are immoral, when in reality, most of them are hypocrits that have no integrity.

 

[Piggy]

An amoral atheist speaks out

The most distressing problem, from my POV, is that if one believes that God is the source of all morality, and therefore Godless persons are inherently immoral, then one is justified in treating that person as a threat to morality itself. (See related thread.)

In my experience, the position of the morality-depends-on-God (mdog) folks runs like this:

1. Only God knows everything. Humans are fallible. We are subject to deceit and temptation from the Devil and our own fallen natures. Therefore, we are prone to making wrong choices when we rely only on our own lights.

2. God has given us His holy Word as a guide. It is there that we can discover God's Will. And through prayer, and through fellowship in the church (the Body of Christ) we can come to know God's will for our individual lives.

3. Atheists, who have shut God completely out of their lives, are relying on their own fallen natures. They have no defense against the deceptions of the Enemy. They have no means to hear God's word -- they don't pray, don't read scripture with an attitude of faith, don't participate in Christian fellowship.

4. Therefore, it is inevitable that atheists, however well-intentioned some of them may be, will have a disfunctional moral compass. And being the relativists that they are, they have no solid pole of authority to orient it, so they don't even know that it's broken. As a result, they wander aimlessly, certain that they are on the right path.

Personally, my position is quite radical. I have no morals that I know of, although I do think in terms of ethics. I use the terms "right" and "wrong" casually, but to me, they're just human inventions. My definition of "evil" is intentional harm to the innocent.

So why is it that I obey the law, don't hurt people, am kind to animals, hold a productive job, care whether my staff is happy, and so forth?

The primary reason, as I see it, is that my brain is built to want these things. We're a social species. It would be odd if we did not have certain concepts of justice, fairness, cooperation and the like hardwired into us. It would be odd if we were not inclined toward a desire for stable societies.

Also, it makes sense. It pays off.

But from a Xian POV, that's not enough, really. Sure, I choose to do the right thing, but I don't recognize God as the source of righteousness, and I'm not moral "at heart". And they're right about that.

 

[CrossHair]

So why is it that I obey the law, don't hurt people, am kind to animals, hold a productive job, care whether my staff is happy, and so forth?

The primary reason, as I see it, is that my brain is built to want these things. We're a social species. It would be odd if we did not have certain concepts of justice, fairness, cooperation and the like hardwired into us. It would be odd if we were not inclined toward a desire for stable societies.

Also, it makes sense. It pays off.

It's just your selfish Gene's. Most of the concept and priciples we are discussing relate to cooperation and efficiency of large social groups. "It pays off" that we don't all try to kill one another and this leads to benefits for all. People that like this then pass this trait on. In this way those unselfish traits which don't benefit us directly, help us in the long-run and some of those traits we dump into a conceptual bucket and call morality.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I very much disagree. When someone accuses another person of being "immoral" they are trying to intimidate upon that other person how to act. Immoral people are those people who would do things that YOU don't agree is right.



Yes, the more integrity a person has, the more likely he'll make the same decisions (ethically) whether he thinks people will find out or not.

Morality tends to be something people like to wear as a badge, something they brag about. The Religious Right like to claim that they are moral and other people are immoral, when in reality, most of them are hypocrits that have no integrity.

Every one has their own moral code that they follow (except possibly a psychotic individual). Ethicists and moralists are philosophers who study morality. They argue about things similarly to other philosophers with different base concepts. Each moral issue can be logically argued similar to philosophy. People may choose to ignore logic and so arguing with them is pointless but it doesn't make them right. You have a narrow view of morality probably due to discussing it only with religious fundies. Most people break their own moral codes from time to time. It is like a goal and a not an absolute. It is how you should be and not necessarily how you are. We are all fallible (except for me ) People are not really immoral or moral but they do things which are moral or immoral.

 

[Dogdoctor]

So basically you are saying that atheists are a bunch of lazy, disorganised people who can't even agree on what they think is right and wrong and don't really care about morality in the first place?

Well, here's a couple of reasons:

1. It's organizationally impractical. Atheists are not organized, so there's no group or leader or committee that has the authority to speak for us. Nor is that likely to change. And what's the penalty for non-compliance with the Atheist Code of Morality? Ex-communication? Can you be a lapsed atheist?

2. It's philosophically impractical. You've heard the expression that atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby? Well, trying to come up with a comprehensive moral code for atheists would be like trying to come up with an agreed-upon list of activities for non-stamp-collectors. So the best you could do is to come up with some very general principles.

3. Most organized religions either (a) don't have a specific code of ethics, and/or (b) don't follow or enforce it. What's the Lutheran Code of Ethics? The Presbyterian? Don't just say "follow God's word," because the Bible is hopelessly contradictory and most religions don't follow huge chunks of it. The religion I know of that has the most clearly-defined set of rules is the Roman Catholic Church, and don't get me started on that. I've had premarital sex using birth control with quite a few Catholic women.

4. The central premise of the "atheists can't be moral" argument is not that nobody's bothered to write down a moral code and enforce it by some earthly agency. The "point" is that without fear of an omniscient entity that sees all of our "sins" and will inerrantly punish them, atheists have (according to theists) no reason to follow _any_ code of ethics.

So let's suppose, for argument's sake, that I convene the First Worldwide Atheist Convention. We can't agree on issues like capital punishment, abortion, premarital sex, ior euthanasia, so we end up adopting an Atheist Code of Morality that is essentially the Bill and Ted Code: "Be Excellent to Each Other." Every atheist on the planet signs a document promising to abide by this code.

What happens? Do theists suddenly stop claiming that atheists can't be moral?

 

[Ryokan]

I do most of my travel by bicycle. Why? Middle East, gas prices, global warming, exercise. I really think this is a no brainier...

Why do you hate Norway?

 

[CrossHair]

Most people break their own moral codes from time to time. It is like a goal and a not an absolute. It is how you should be and not necessarily how you are. We are all fallible (except for me ) People are not really immoral or moral but they do things which are moral or immoral.

I see it more as being dependent on the situation and the social structure you find yourself in. What is accepted as "moral" (I hate to use the term because it is so misleading) depends on your social class (in some countries), if you are a soldier, if you are a cop, etc... I really don't see many absolutes accross the board. Your genes should tell you to do what is in your own best interrest in the short, and in the long, term. This will include secondary selfless activities sometimes and killing someone other times. What always fascinated me was how you can influence, what are basically normal, peaceful people to kill. The big conceptual bucket called "morality" seems to play a huge role here (as in the evil people are immoral so lets treat them to what they deserve at their level).

 

[Dogdoctor]

There are no evil people. People are products of their environment and their parents DNA.

 

[I less than three logic]

So basically you are saying that atheists are a bunch of lazy, disorganised people who can't even agree on what they think is right and wrong and don't really care about morality in the first place?

Do you think about this stuff before you post it? Perhaps you think about how to make it as offensive as possible?

The theists are really organized as well, aren’t they? Perhaps you could tell me just how many religions exist in this little world of ours. I’ve honestly lost count. I’ll even lower the bar for you, how many exist of just the Christian variety?

So basically, theists are a bunch of lazy, disorganized people, who can't even agree on what they think is right and wrong?

So if atheist and theists are those things, I guess that makes just about everyone lazy, disorganized, and unable to decide on what is right and wrong.

Oh wait a second, I see where the difference comes in, and it’s in the last part of your sentence. I guess we atheist don’t care. However, the theists do, or at least pretend to. Well of course they do, they get punished if they don’t you know.

 

[Gayle]

Personal Experience (hope it's not a derail)

This is an extremely interesting thread. I offer my sympathy to those people who have felt attacked or demeaned in any way due to their lack of religious beliefs.

I've been an atheist since I was about 8 years old. Umm ... that's almost 50 years. During my teens and twenties, I was aggressively atheistic. I slowly became less aggressive to the point where I now seldom talk about my lack of religious belief, except to my close friends and family.

Many people have disagreed with me, some have witnessed to me out of concern for my everlasting soul, some have felt scorn or pity or deep sorrow for me. But no one has ever questioned my morality. Not once in nearly half a century.

No one has ever asked me how I can be a moral person without a belief in god or a religion. It's never been a topic of conversation or even been slightly hinted at, even as Baptists or Evangelicals (friends) have witnessed their religion to me in the hope of converting me.

I live in Oregon USA, in a community that has been slowly converted to evangelical christiantiy as more people move here from other states. Oregon has had the distinction of having the lowest church attendence in the nation, but that's probably changing as the population changes.

Religious people often say they will pray for me. I say, "Thank you," and let it drop. But no one ever says, "How can you be a moral person if you don't believe in god?"

Is my experience unusual, or do other atheists (actually, I call myself a non-theist) have similar experiences to mine?

In my normal day-to-day life, I find no need to defend my morality or to say that I'm a good person. Some of my behaviors are deemed good and some of my behaviors are deemed bad and many are deemed of no moral significance at all. I am, in fact, a fallible human being who makes many mistakes and sometimes I do things I later regret. Other times I do things I'd be very happy to repeat.

Just as a side note with some more personal experience: I have worked extensively with criminals.

According to Yochelson and Samenow, who wrote about the criminal mind, one of the distiguishing features of the criminal personality is the belief that he/she is really a good person, regardless of their behavior or harmful acts toward others.

Yokelson and Samenow did long-term research with criminals confined at St. Elizebeths Hospital (the institution where Ronald Reagan's attempted assassin is housed, although to my knowledge they did not work with him.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568211058/103-7940214-6583008?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...0214-6583008?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568212445/103-7940214-6583008?v=glance&n=283155

In my work, I certainly found that individuals who committed the most heinous acts of violence against other people, including murder, were the most likely to proclaim with sincere conviction, anger or tears: "I am a good person."

And, interestingly enough, many of them could point to "good" things, even heroic things, they had done. They would give the shirt off their back to some needy stranger they met in a bar ... while their own family went without. Saw it over and over again. It probably has something to do with impulsivity and instant ego gratification.

The point is this: Whenever I hear someone say, "I am a good person," I can't help but think of Yokelson and Samenow. And I'm not the only one. Their work is used extensively to train mental health and correctional workers.

So ... be careful out there as you defend your honor. If you're a "good" person, it'll show. Best not advertise it with a phrase that has become code for criminality.


Gayle, sometimes good, sometimes bad, mostly somewhere in between

edited for repeated words

 

[thaiboxerken]

So basically you are saying that atheists are a bunch of lazy, disorganised people who can't even agree on what they think is right and wrong and don't really care about morality in the first place?

I think what you've missed the point completely. Atheists are not a "group" of people anymore than people who don't believe in Santa Clause are a group of people. Atheism is a state of being, a state of not believing in gods. That is the ONLY common tie between atheists. Some atheists may think that killing over women is good, most probably don't. Some atheists may think religion is good for society, many don't. Some atheists think drinking beer is bad, others don't.

There is no atheist belief system, thus there cannot be an atheist morality system. There can be morality systems that are atheistic, in which no gods are invoked as a reason, but atheism itself cannot produce belief systems, philosophical systems or ethics system.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Atheists are not a "group" of people anymore than people who don't believe in Santa Clause are a group of people.

Of course atheists are a group of people. If an atheist is a person, then atheists are more than one person.

That is the ONLY common tie between atheists.

Most people in a group/club/organization share at least one common interest, I agree.

 

[CrossHair]

No one has ever asked me how I can be a moral person without a belief in god or a religion. It's never been a topic of conversation or even been slightly hinted at, even as Baptists or Evangelicals (friends) have witnessed their religion to me in the hope of converting me.

According to Yochelson and Samenow, who wrote about the criminal mind, one of the distiguishing features of the criminal personality is the belief that he/she is really a good person, regardless of their behavior or harmful acts toward others.

Thanks for the personal experience Gayle, I enjoyed reading it. I think you are largely right, but Scottie99's experience I am sure is not an isolated one either.
Also, what you state is somewhat at odds with the survey results which resulted in the tread previously pointed to here:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54116
I am really wondering if atheists are really that "distrusted" or if the survey was very faulty. I am not familiar with the details of the survey or if other surveys have shown similar results. Maybe the survey sample included a majority of Texans!

 

[Dogdoctor]

I think what you've missed the point completely. Atheists are not a "group" of people anymore than people who don't believe in Santa Clause are a group of people. Atheism is a state of being, a state of not believing in gods. That is the ONLY common tie between atheists. Some atheists may think that killing over women is good, most probably don't. Some atheists may think religion is good for society, many don't. Some atheists think drinking beer is bad, others don't.

There is no atheist belief system, thus there cannot be an atheist morality system. There can be morality systems that are atheistic, in which no gods are invoked as a reason, but atheism itself cannot produce belief systems, philosophical systems or ethics system.

Sounds like everyone is making excuses. It sounds like everyone is proving the point that atheists have less morals behavior than religious people. I am not missing the point. I am well aware of what atheism is and isn't. I guess I am learning what atheists are to my dismay. It seems to me to be pointless to cry about what religion does to atheists when atheists aren't willing to go to the next step and become something more than a bunch of whiny individuals who can't get together to fight for their own rights. Prove me wrong, prove the religious people wrong or look at yourself for the source of your problems with religion since it is you who have the problem, not me. I get the feeling there is a kind of sour grapes attitude about morality with many atheists. Religious fundies says morality is out of their reach of atheists so atheists assume it is something they don't want or need. Give me something more than excuses for not being better people.

 

[Dunstan]

So basically you are saying that atheists are a bunch of lazy, disorganised people who can't even agree on what they think is right and wrong and don't really care about morality in the first place?

That is such a blatant mischaracterization of my post that I can only conclude you are not arguing in good faith.

Please answer my question. If atheists did somehow agree on and adopt a moral code, would it change the belief of (some) theists that atheists cannot be moral? Wouldn't these people still claim that such an Atheist Code of Morality is meaningless without the fear of eternal damnation by an omniscient entity?