The atheist and morality

[I less than three logic]

So why tell him/her you're an athiest? Why not keep your religious beliefs to yourself?

Alas, if we could only get those that have religious beliefs to do this it would be good advice.

I see no reason why it should be acceptable for a religious person to convey their beliefs, yet an Atheist should be expected to keep his or hers to themselves. When someone makes a statement like, “The war is God's will.” They have already expressed their religious beliefs, and used the belief to lend some form of support towards the war.

Incidently, I've always found it odd that so many people associate atheism with things like paganism or devil worshipper, which require belief in a supernatural god/goddess that is worshipped?

The answer to this is simple, ignorance and credulity. These traits are, unfortunately, rather abundant within many religious communities, and are practically required for the strongly devoted ones.

 

[Jimbo07]

I see no reason why it should be acceptable for a religious person to convey their beliefs, yet an Atheist should be expected to keep his or hers to themselves.

Taking the moral high road?

Not starting a pointless fight?

etc.?

 

[I less than three logic]

Taking the moral high road?

Not starting a pointless fight?

etc.?

Those are good reasons why we should, and do in many cases. They don’t, however, address why one is considered an acceptable practice while the other is not.

 

[SkepticScott]

This is a very complex subject, and most answers are too long to post here. If you want to refute someone's "atheists can't be moral" misconception, I suggest reading
* "The Atheist Debater's Handbook", B.C. Johnson, chapter 10, God and Morality
* "Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism", Paul Kurtz
* "The Science of Good & Evil", Michael Shermer
* "Breaking the Spell", Daniel Dennett, chapter 10, Morality and Religion

There's no evidence of any positive correllation between religiousity and morality. Religions disagree as to what's moral behavior. Atheists are under represented in our prisons; in other words, religous people are more likely to be in jail.

"The Atheist Debater's handbook" has one very telling point. Assume humans are so immoral that they cannot determine what is moral. Assume that we have to rely on God to tell us what is moral. How do we know that relying on God is moral? The assumptions above tell us that we have to rely on God to tell us that relying on him to tell us what is moral, is moral. And we have to rely on God to tell us that relying on him to tell us that relying on him to tell us what is moral, is moral, is moral. And so on ad infinitum.

 

[Errata]

Then he said something that I'll never forget: "Well, it's clear that you are fine, christian folks. I'm a minister, and I can recognize good people when I meet them."

Well, my wife and I are flattered, of course, but, dude, christian folks? Um, ok. I guess my wife goes to Catholic church every once in a while, and I'll go with the family on holidays, without believing a word of it. But I'd like to think he's right, that we are indeed good people, lack of christianess and all. OTOH, I laughed about that "good, christian folks" thing all the way home. It still makes me laugh.

I actually think that plays a major role in the whole "atheists are immoral" perception. People don't always know what other people believe. So its very easy for a Christian to casually know someone nice and assume they are Christian or to casually know someone mean and assume they are atheist, allowing themselves to reinforce their prejudices through insufficient data.

I beg your pardon but atheists can do anything they want to do. You are playing down morality by trying to excuse atheists from having a set of agreed upon moral guidelines.

You're just not making any sense. Its not a movement or an organization or a religion. There is no set or rules, charter, holy book, grand leader, etc.

You know what I think? I think if redheads want to be taken seriously they should all get together and come to a consensus on a grand plan of action. Red heads shouldn't just muddle along without any direction, while other hair colors are productive members of society.

 

[Dogdoctor]

You're just not making any sense. Its not a movement or an organization or a religion. There is no set or rules, charter, holy book, grand leader, etc.

You know what I think? I think if redheads want to be taken seriously they should all get together and come to a consensus on a grand plan of action. Red heads shouldn't just muddle along without any direction, while other hair colors are productive members of society.

Christian religions have in place mechanisms to encourage and promote their version of moral behavior. Within the religion you can tell a good Christian from a bad one. Some are good and some are not. There may be some disagreement within a religion but too much and a new religion is formed. Atheists are not organized since atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. This is true but they could get organized and in fact they would get organized if they valued morality. Atheists seem to prefer to ignore morality and let it occur however it occurs without any concern. This is in part due to a lack of data on how morality operates within a society. The argument that atheists are immoral will not go away without atheists showing the religious world that is not true by being as moral than the rest of the world and documenting it. That atheists are under represented in prisons is a clue to something but not necessarily morality. You can say atheists are as moral as anyone else but you can't prove it. However even if atheists were as moral as everyone else what would be the source of their morality? What I think and from what I have read from people studying this, most people get their basic morals from society who generally belong to some prevailing religion and so adopt morals that closely resemble that of the prevailing religion (even atheists). So if that is the case and atheists would like to remove religion from it's stronghold then they would have to adopt and a moral code or some system of determining and teaching morality which can be used to supplant religions current position. Otherwise just get used to living in a religious world.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Morality, often, seems to be not so much opinion on how you act yourself, but how you think other people should act.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Morality, often, seems to be not so much opinion on how you act yourself, but how you think other people should act.

That is true in a way. It is apparently important for people to predict how others will act or to predict that others will act within certain moral guidelines for productive human interaction to take place. There needs to be somewhat of an agreement for the majority of a population on what is moral or not for that to happen. But really morality is about how you act and not others.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree, I think it's about how you "should" act in the opinions of others. People do what they do, it's deemed that their actions are moral or immoral by other people. I don't think too many people act "immoral" in their own eyes.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I don't agree, I think it's about how you "should" act in the opinions of others. People do what they do, it's deemed that their actions are moral or immoral by other people. I don't think too many people act "immoral" in their own eyes.

Morality has to do with how you will act without anyone around to see what you do. For instance you find $20 on the shrub between your yard and your neighbor and you know your neighbor said he lost $20 . No one is around when you found it. There is no way anyone can say you took it. Do you keep it or check to see if the neighbor found his $20? If people are around to see then the operating force may be social pressure and not morality. People do things they know are wrong but they may or may not make excuses (rationalizations) for that behavior.

 

[Dunstan]

Christian religions have in place mechanisms to encourage and promote their version of moral behavior. Within the religion you can tell a good Christian from a bad one.

Sort of like how you can tell the true Scotsmen from the fake ones?

Atheists are not organized since atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. This is true but they could get organized and in fact they would get organized if they valued morality.

Redheads are not organized since redheads are simply those who happen to have a particular hair color. This is true but they could get organized and in fact they would get organized if they valued morality.

Atheists seem to prefer to ignore morality and let it occur however it occurs without any concern.

What an ignorant, offensive statement. Evidence, please?

The argument that atheists are immoral will not go away without atheists showing the religious world that is not true by being as moral than the rest of the world and documenting it.

Yes, because theists are so receptive to evidence.

You can say atheists are as moral as anyone else but you can't prove it.

Can you prove otherwise?

However even if atheists were as moral as everyone else what would be the source of their morality? What I think and from what I have read from people studying this, most people get their basic morals from society who generally belong to some prevailing religion and so adopt morals that closely resemble that of the prevailing religion (even atheists).

Others have posted plenty of links and arguments regarding sources of atheist morality, so I won't repeat them.

Otherwise just get used to living in a religious world.

Yeah, you told me! Suck it up, atheists! You're outnumbered, so nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

Darn, so much for my five-year plan to convert the entire world to atheism. Really, Dogdoctor, us atheists are pretty reconciled to the idea of living in a religious world.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Morality has to do with how you will act without anyone around to see what you do. For instance you find $20 on the shrub between your yard and your neighbor and you know your neighbor said he lost $20 . No one is around when you found it. There is no way anyone can say you took it. Do you keep it or check to see if the neighbor found his $20?

That's not morality, it's a personal decision. How you make those decisions would be influenced by morality, AKA how society tells you how you should act. Integrity would fit your example more. "Do you act different when you can get away with it or not?"

 

[CurtC]

Ultimately, we bought the painting that won the award, and it now hangs in our living room, along with our Thomas Kinkade (which we got a little later).

Yeah, that Thomas Kinkade is a good Christian.

Then he said something that I'll never forget: "Well, it's clear that you are fine, christian folks. I'm a minister, and I can recognize good people when I meet them."

I know it's not always easy, but that would have been a good opportunity for you to act as an ambassador for the atheists, to demonstrate for this man that fine people can have any beliefs.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I know it's not always easy, but that would have been a good opportunity for you to act as an ambassador for the atheists, to demonstrate for this man that fine people can have any beliefs.

At that point, he would've probably said something to the effect of "Jesus leads you, whether you know it or not."

 

[Dogdoctor]

That's not morality, it's a personal decision. How you make those decisions would be influenced by morality, AKA how society tells you how you should act. Integrity would fit your example more. "Do you act different when you can get away with it or not?"

Ok we need someone with authority here to a to give a definition of morality since you reject mine and I have studied it a lot. How it looks to others has nothing to do with morality. It is your mindset including what you call integrity. It doesn't involve anyone evaluating you. You are thinking of giving an air of morality and not morality. Perhaps what bothers you is that different people have different ideas about what is moral?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Sort of like how you can tell the true Scotsmen from the fake ones?

Well if Scotsmen have a set of moral values that they typically follow then yes.

Redheads are not organized since redheads are simply those who happen to have a particular hair color. This is true but they could get organized and in fact they would get organized if they valued morality.

If redheads want to get people to stop saying that redheads ar immoral that would hold also

What an ignorant, offensive statement. Evidence, please?

If you read closely you will see the word seem. What that means is it is a personal observation. If you take offense so be it no offense meant.

Yes, because theists are so receptive to evidence.

Actually most theist are logical rational individuals and receptive to evidence.

Can you prove otherwise?

This whole thread is about feeling bad because of being accused of having no morals due to atheism. I don't need to prove otherwise. People are going to say that till there is proof to the opposite and after that point only the irrational people will persist in that belief.

Others have posted plenty of links and arguments regarding sources of atheist morality, so I won't repeat them.

I have read those and come up with nothing in support of anything other than what I am saying. If you want to go look at them yourself you might be able to bring up a specific point.

Yeah, you told me! Suck it up, atheists! You're outnumbered, so nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

Darn, so much for my five-year plan to convert the entire world to atheism. Really, Dogdoctor, us atheists are pretty reconciled to the idea of living in a religious world

.
Is this supposed to mean something to me or are you trying to make fun of me?

 

[pgwenthold]

I actually think that plays a major role in the whole "atheists are immoral" perception. People don't always know what other people believe. So its very easy for a Christian to casually know someone nice and assume they are Christian or to casually know someone mean and assume they are atheist, allowing themselves to reinforce their prejudices through insufficient data.

See the discussion above about Beth's questions, "Why tell them you are atheist? Why not keep your religious beliefs to yourself?"

I do tend to keep my religious beliefs to myself. It was the religious dude who felt the need to not only mention his religion, but project his beliefs on me.

Personally, I don't begrudge people to act as they will in this regard (that's why my response was basically to get a lifetime of chuckles). And if atheists who reveal their atheism were in any way out of the norm in terms of what people do, then it would be different. But when plenty of religious people pronounce their religiousness all over the place, it is royal hubris to think that atheists should have to keep it quiet.

Of course, they often do, anyway, for various reasons. But I don't begrudge them when they don't.

You want to see an example? Go over to blogger.com, and start flipping through the blogs using the random jump. Count how many blogs are by either people who pronounce their christianity, or are even dedicated to their praise of god. Meanwhile, count how many are by professed atheists. And then talk to us about "keeping your religious beliefs to yourself."

 

[CrossHair]

Ok we need someone with authority here to a to give a definition of morality since you reject mine and I have studied it a lot.... . Perhaps what bothers you is that different people have different ideas about what is moral?

I am not sure what "authority" you are apealing to here? Perhaps a GOD?
Seems like the problem we are complaining about! I have yet another view on what "morality" is that I am sure is different from all those mentioned so far. Morality is a symbol used to incapsulate the what we in a society feel proud about in our humanity. There are some fairly basic ones that we should not torture others, or kill others, but these also seem to be violated quite easily in specific circumstances. We are all proud we live in a "moral" society, yet isn't every society? and yet we all manage to violate are sociatal "morality" all the time, at least lately (not to say that it doesn't bother some people, like Scottie99). My conclusion is that "morality" is actually is the mechanism which allows people to commit horrible acts! The enemy is ALWAYS IMMORAL which allows us to throw off our morality. The sense that our morality is offended leads to us violating our's. However, we do not feels we are violating our own "morality" we see it as treating other people/societies to what we believe is their own "morality". 'They are evil and have no morals, so this is what they get. We though, are still moral'

 

[Dunstan]

If redheads want to get people to stop saying that redheads ar immoral that would hold also.?

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).

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.

If you read closely you will see the word seem. What that means is it is a personal observation. If you take offense so be it no offense meant.

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.

This whole thread is about feeling bad because of being accused of having no morals due to atheism. I don't need to prove otherwise. People are going to say that till there is proof to the opposite and after that point only the irrational people will persist in that belief.

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.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I am not sure what "authority" you are apealing to here? Perhaps a GOD?
Seems like the problem we are complaining about! I have yet another view on what "morality" is that I am sure is different from all those mentioned so far. Morality is a symbol used to incapsulate the what we in a society feel proud about in our humanity. There are some fairly basic ones that we should not torture others, or kill others, but these also seem to be violated quite easily in specific circumstances. We are all proud we live in a "moral" society, yet isn't every society? and yet we all manage to violate are sociatal "morality" all the time, at least lately (not to say that it doesn't bother some people, like Scottie99). My conclusion is that "morality" is actually is the mechanism which allows people to commit horrible acts! The enemy is ALWAYS IMMORAL which allows us to throw off our morality. The sense that our morality is offended leads to us violating our's. However, we do not feels we are violating our own "morality" we see it as treating other people/societies to what we believe is their own "morality". 'They are evil and have no morals, so this is what they get. We though, are still moral'

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.