Atheism and morality vs. Christianity and morality

[Confused]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

[cholland]

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals."

Yes, of course they can. You don't have to adhere to absolute morality to say that, "there are morals" or even "this is right"/"this is wrong".

No. If morals do not exist outside of the human mind, then the most a person can say is "in my opinion, this is right. In my opinion, this is wrong." But nothing more. The Nazi cannot be condemned.

That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

I've already explained this, immaterial concepts exist in the minds of people. They can be discussed, written about, explained and misinterpreted.

The quote I think you are referring to:
"I don't know about moral facts but there certainly can be morals. Morals are concepts, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are immaterial because as with all concepts they do exist in the brain. If it can be thought, a concept cannot be immaterial."

Please clarify whether morals are material or immaterial. If it's material, how can we measure it with our senses? If it's immaterial, in the secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist in a material world?

I don't think that morals probably do exist outside of a person or people's heads. I think they're ideas, which exist in minds, which are emergent properties of brains, which are inside people's heads.

They certainly don't have to exist outside of human thought in order to exist.

If morals do not exist outside of each person's head, then they are completely subjective as Joey believes.

Not necessarily, you have to look at the origins of certain moral principles and the reasons for why they are accepted/implemented in society. These reasons often force society to accept certain moral principles as they generally hold benefit for that society.

Whether they are subjective to a person such as a child molester or subjective to a society like the Nazis, we still cannot condemn them. Again, the most an atheist can do (or group of atheists) is stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say "in my opinion, this was wrong."

Meaning we cannot condemn anything from child molestation to the Holocaust since it was right in their mind.

Why does someone considering these things right mean others can't condemn them for their actions? People condemn others all of the time based on their own opinions of right/wrong.

They do, but they are inconsistent. They are holding a person's particular action against their own subjective standard. Then condemn others such as Christians for doing the same.

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as? And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

I discussed this in my initial post on this thread, if you would like to respond to that, i would be most appreciative as I do not particularly want to repeat myself.

Sorry. Often when a non-atheist enters these forums, they have to respond to 5-6 people at once. It's noted above needs clarification on whether moral concepts are material or immaterial.

[cholland]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

Yet.... the only difference between 'Christian morals' and secular morals is the claim that Christians have that they got it from God. Their concept of what is moral changed over time..

Immaterial concepts are the product of HUMAN imagination , intelligence and need. IMO, that includes the idea of God.

Now, when it comes to Christian Morals.. will you agree that those morals changed?

First, you did not answer the question. Immaterial concepts are just that...immaterial. They are not extended in space. How then do they exist? We cannot touch, see, or taste them.

Second, of course Christian morals can change. Look at history. Humans change and Christians are no exception. But the difference is we are striving and working towards the right and the wrong. We believe there is right and wrong beyond individuals and societies. This right and wrong is immaterial in nature and therefore could not have been created by something material. Material things such as humans can discover them through philosophy, theology, anthropology, etc. Have we obtained it? Of course not and we will never do so in this life. But we know it is there. Atheists, however, are left with "in my opinion..."

[cholland]

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as?

Justice, compassion, beauty, humor, religion...

How much does justice weigh? What are the dimensions of compassion?

And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

Because brains are material, and brains do/have ideas. No brains, no ideas.

So if all humans seized to exist, the entire world would fall into oblivion since the laws of logic no longer exist? Dogs become birds, air becomes a book, red becomes a leaf? I don't think so.

I notice you ignored my point that if a Christian has "objective morals" they include genocide, infanticide and slavery being good, but two men getting married being bad. Objective morals that are evil are not very helpful, don't you agree?

I have an objective basis for my own morality. It's grounded in reality.

I'm sorry, this left me scratching my head. First, an objective moral would be, by definition, moral. It would be good. There cannot be something such as an objective moral being evil. That would require a being to declare objectively that it is not moral which it would then not be an objective moral.

Second, you're going to have to explain the last two sentences more. How exactly does that work?

[Goat]

First, you did not answer the question. Immaterial concepts are just that...immaterial. They are not extended in space. How then do they exist? We cannot touch, see, or taste them.

That is the definition of CONCEPT. Can you show me any concept that is NOT immaterial?? Isn't 'Immateral concept' redundant?

Second, of course Christian morals can change. Look at history. Humans change and Christians are no exception. But the difference is we are striving and working towards the right and the wrong. We believe there is right and wrong beyond individuals and societies. This right and wrong is immaterial in nature and therefore could not have been created by something material. Material things such as humans can discover them through philosophy, theology, anthropology, etc. Have we obtained it? Of course not and we will never do so in this life. But we know it is there. Atheists, however, are left with "in my opinion..."

You believe there is a right and wrong beyond society. Can you show that is it more than a belief? Does 'striving to right and wrong' mean that that the secular people are not?? As far as I can see 'Philosophy and theology' are immaterial..

Can you show that it 'it is there' is more than your opinion?

I personally like Dawkins response to the claim about absolute morality.

[youtube][/youtube]

[cholland]

First, you did not answer the question. Immaterial concepts are just that...immaterial. They are not extended in space. How then do they exist? We cannot touch, see, or taste them.

That is the definition of CONCEPT. Can you show me any concept that is NOT immaterial?? Isn't 'Immateral concept' redundant?

Second, of course Christian morals can change. Look at history. Humans change and Christians are no exception. But the difference is we are striving and working towards the right and the wrong. We believe there is right and wrong beyond individuals and societies. This right and wrong is immaterial in nature and therefore could not have been created by something material. Material things such as humans can discover them through philosophy, theology, anthropology, etc. Have we obtained it? Of course not and we will never do so in this life. But we know it is there. Atheists, however, are left with "in my opinion..."

You believe there is a right and wrong beyond society. Can you show that is it more than a belief? Does 'striving to right and wrong' mean that that the secular people are not?? As far as I can see 'Philosophy and theology' are immaterial..

Can you show that it 'it is there' is more than your opinion?

I personally like Dawkins response to the claim about absolute morality.

[youtube][/youtube]

You'll have to paraphrase Dawkins, youtube is blocked where I am. But to answer your question, no I can't. I have faith. Faith that there is a right and wrong and it does not exist as a product of humans. The alternative would be there is not a right or wrong and that any moral is a product of humans:

(1) I cannot condemn anybody for doing anything. Once I do, I uphold a standard which goes against my worldview. There is no standard. The Holocaust was good for the Nazis, child molestation was good for the Greeks.

(2) Atheists can surely strive towards concept X, but they would have to define what that X is and then declare it to be good. Once they have done that, they put their faith in that declaration...still a product of a material and still subjective.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals."

Yes, of course they can. You don't have to adhere to absolute morality to say that, "there are morals" or even "this is right"/"this is wrong".

No. If morals do not exist outside of the human mind, then the most a person can say is "in my opinion, this is right. In my opinion, this is wrong." But nothing more.

Could you support this with some reasoning and/or evidence?

The Nazi cannot be condemned.

Says who? I can and will condemn many of the actions performed by the Nazi party and it's adherents.

That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

I've already explained this, immaterial concepts exist in the minds of people. They can be discussed, written about, explained and misinterpreted.

The quote I think you are referring to:
"I don't know about moral facts but there certainly can be morals. Morals are concepts, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are immaterial because as with all concepts they do exist in the brain. If it can be thought, a concept cannot be immaterial."

Please clarify whether morals are material or immaterial.

You might need to explain what you mean by material and immaterial (feel free to respond to the last section of this post as I readdress the question and provide an explanation for the request).

If it's material, how can we measure it with our senses?

Do we have to measure it with our senses for something to be material?

I don't think that morals probably do exist outside of a person or people's heads. I think they're ideas, which exist in minds, which are emergent properties of brains, which are inside people's heads.

They certainly don't have to exist outside of human thought in order to exist.

If morals do not exist outside of each person's head, then they are completely subjective as Joey believes.

Not necessarily, you have to look at the origins of certain moral principles and the reasons for why they are accepted/implemented in society. These reasons often force society to accept certain moral principles as they generally hold benefit for that society.

Whether they are subjective to a person such as a child molester or subjective to a society like the Nazis, we still cannot condemn them.

This is blatantly false, many people do condemn others for certain actions and not all of them appeal to an objective morality. I would like to expand though, you missed the main point of what I wrote. Morals are a property of the material world, they have real meaning and effects among conscious organisms that inhabit the material world. Many different morals and concepts exist as a result of real gain or loss from certain actions, preferences and rules. So your claim that morals are "completely subjective" is false, there are objective traits even within a subjective system of morals.

Again, the most an atheist can do (or group of atheists) is stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say "in my opinion, this was wrong."

A theist is different? As far as I'm aware, the theist can only do the same, they might phrase it differently but it is still their opinion.

Meaning we cannot condemn anything from child molestation to the Holocaust since it was right in their mind.

Why does someone considering these things right mean others can't condemn them for their actions? People condemn others all of the time based on their own opinions of right/wrong.

They do, but they are inconsistent. They are holding a person's particular action against their own subjective standard.

How is that inconsistent?

Then condemn others such as Christians for doing the same.

Who is condemning Christians for using their subjective opinions of right and wrong as a standard?

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as? And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

I discussed this in my initial post on this thread, if you would like to respond to that, i would be most appreciative as I do not particularly want to repeat myself.

Sorry. Often when a non-atheist enters these forums, they have to respond to 5-6 people at once.

That's fine, I just really want a response to that post as it discusses the OP much more directly than this one as this is addressed to a response rather than the OP.

It's noted above needs clarification on whether moral concepts are material or immaterial.

You will first have to clarify what you mean by material and immaterial, a lot of different people have different connotations with these terms. For example, many believe Ghosts, Gods, spirits, souls and other supernatural stuff to be immaterial. While the much more accurate use of the term would be to discuss concepts, morals, emotions, feelings and other real things that do not in themselves carry a corporal form. That being said, they are properties of a material world whereas the supernatural stuff isn't (well, apart from the actual concept of the supernatural).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 105:

...
I have faith. Faith that there is a right and wrong and it does not exist as a product of humans. The alternative would be there is not a right or wrong and that any moral is a product of humans:

(1) I cannot condemn anybody for doing anything. Once I do, I uphold a standard which goes against my worldview. There is no standard. The Holocaust was good for the Nazis...

Ever met a Nazi that was sad about it?

A Jew that was happy about it?

child molestation was good for the Greeks.

What would cholland think if we started holocausting the child molesters?

What would the child molesters think if they were the ones being holocausted?

(2) Atheists can surely strive towards concept X, but they would have to define what that X is and then declare it to be good. Once they have done that, they put their faith in that declaration...still a product of a material and still subjective.

So we see the subjective is all we have in this regard.

[earendil]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

None whatsoever on all questions.

Isaiah said:

I will take out their hearts of stone and replace them with a heart of flesh...so they will know my law by their heart and not by rote.

and when Jesus came he announced that this miracle had come to pass....

Thus any person, regardless of what they profess, can have an intrinsic concept of what is right and moral...

atheists included...

Atheists are only intellectually deficient as they fail to acknowledge the source of their inclinations toward morality (provided that they are cognizant enough to realize that they have them).

[Filthy Tugboat]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

None whatsoever on all questions.

Isaiah said:

I will take out their hearts of stone and replace them with a heart of flesh...so they will know my law by their heart and not by rote.

and when Jesus came he announced that this miracle had come to pass....

Analyzing passages from an ancient text may not necessarily be the best method for answering a question such as this. Biblical texts have little to nothing to do with modern ethics or morality imo, in fact analyzing such material will probably set modern ethical interpretation back a few hundred years, it's kind of counter productive.

Thus any person, regardless of what they profess, can have an intrinsic concept of what is right and moral...

atheists included...

Although I agree on your conclusion, I most certainly disagree with your premise, could you provide some evidence/reasoning to justify your premise and it's subsequent link to your conclusion?

Atheists are only intellectually deficient as they fail to acknowledge the source of their inclinations toward morality (provided that they are cognizant enough to realize that they have them).

I contend that atheists not only are not intellectually deficient because of their failure to acknowledge this claimed source of their inclinations toward morality but that atheists are not intellectually deficient at all. Perhaps you can support the claims you have presented, if not, I will gladly dismiss them as meaningless and biased drivel.

[Artie]

Second, of course Christian morals can change. Look at history. Humans change and Christians are no exception. But the difference is we are striving and working towards the right and the wrong. We believe there is right and wrong beyond individuals and societies. This right and wrong is immaterial in nature and therefore could not have been created by something material. Material things such as humans can discover them through philosophy, theology, anthropology, etc. Have we obtained it? Of course not and we will never do so in this life. But we know it is there. Atheists, however, are left with "in my opinion..."

Atheists are the ones who are striving and working towards understanding what's right or wrong. Christians are stuck with Gods morals where genocide is moral.