Athiests and morals

[JoshB]

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

We humans are organisms that from my understanding make groups, depending on one another in some way for survival. The real kicker in that group mentality is our "evolved" thinking. So we humans have created civilizations and cultures, which have cultural norms, mannerisms, and ethics. We have these ethics not for no reason, but to assist cultural progression in many areas.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[olavisjo]

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

There is no opposition from me. If an atheist wants to be moral he certainly can be, and he can gain a lot of benefit (for himself and others) in doing so.

My only concern is, if a person does not want to "be good to others" or follow the moral rules, then whose job is it to force that person to be moral? Or should we all be allowed to do whatever we want to do, as long as we feel it is making our lives easier?

[JoshB]

ApprenticeAndMaster's comments aside, this post is about him, rather than the topic. As such it is an unhelpful personal comment. Please be careful about that - it, too, is against the rules.

[font=Georgia] Totally missed my point in that post. At what point did I directly insult ApprenticeAndMaster? I discouraged the action he preformed. But instead of only seeing that as a stain on a thread, I rather gave some use to it.

Seriously dude. You TOTALLY missed the point of that post. [/font]

[realthinker]

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

There is no opposition from me. If an atheist wants to be moral he certainly can be, and he can gain a lot of benefit (for himself and others) in doing so.

My only concern is, if a person does not want to "be good to others" or follow the moral rules, then whose job is it to force that person to be moral? Or should we all be allowed to do whatever we want to do, as long as we feel it is making our lives easier?

Morality the social compulsion to sacrifice the opportunity for personal gain in return for social stability and the opportunity for future benefit from social behavior. If you don't feel there is any benefit from social stability and being part of the community, by all means, do whatever you please. But you're going to have to do it outside of the community because the community itself is going to decide that it is in their best interest to protect themselves from your antisocial behavior.

Morality is situational and it applies only to those who are part of the social group with which we identify. It's within our morally acceptable behavior to kill someone who is attacking us or our community. At times in history some societies have considered it morally acceptable to invade another country to gain what they thought they needed -- resources or security. It's why we, as a community, are behaving morally when we incarcerate or kill seriously antisocial people. We forcibly remove the immoral individual from our community. The situational and localized nature of morality is why we can ignore events happening to anonymous people far away but find ourselves devastated by the same event happening to us or a neighbor. Hundreds of murders in Mexico are no big deal, but a local drunk driver killing one other person in your community sets off a storm of local reaction. The murders were a deliberate act by despicable people, but the local event was an accident and a result of one incident of bad judgment. We're morally compelled to do something about the local event but not about the remote.

[olavisjo]

by all means, do whatever you please.

Such a response is rare and honest.

I think that you have answered the op, your response tells me that there is no such thing as morality on it's own. Nothing is really right or wrong, some acts are just desirable or undesirable to those that are in power. So if you have enough power you can make any rules you want and those rules will pass as morality. And this is exactly the reason that some claim that atheists have no basis for morality. (although in my opinion they do have a basis and that basis is the Law of the Jungle)

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

ApprenticeAndMaster's comments aside, this post is about him, rather than the topic. As such it is an unhelpful personal comment. Please be careful about that - it, too, is against the rules.

[font=Georgia] Totally missed my point in that post. At what point did I directly insult ApprenticeAndMaster? I discouraged the action he preformed. But instead of only seeing that as a stain on a thread, I rather gave some use to it.

Seriously dude. You TOTALLY missed the point of that post. [/font]

Please remember that challenges or questions about moderator actions should be made via Personal Message to one of the mods, and not in the thread, per the rules.

[realthinker]

by all means, do whatever you please.

Such a response is rare and honest.

I think that you have answered the op, your response tells me that there is no such thing as morality on it's own. Nothing is really right or wrong, some acts are just desirable or undesirable to those that are in power. So if you have enough power you can make any rules you want and those rules will pass as morality. And this is exactly the reason that some claim that atheists have no basis for morality. (although in my opinion they do have a basis and that basis is the Law of the Jungle)

Not the law of the jungle, but the law of social benefit. If you want a group of people to behave consistently to the benefit of others you have to have a situation that returns greater from society than the contribution of the individuals. Those people will protect that situation.

Religion's benefit to society and the evolution of humanity is that its fictitious consequences, all applied after death, has been to maintain the illusion that there is benefit to maintaining the group for the long term when near term consequences suggest that serving the personal need is more advantageous. God rewards those who sacrifice for the good of the people. When people sacrifice society prospers. Most of those sacrificing are older, people whose contribution to the group is mostly made. Their sacrifice improves the odds that the next generation lives and prospers. God evidently likes that.

I guess in short, religion is not the basis of morality, but is a mechanism that sustains the community in times where morality would break down and society might otherwise dissolve.

[JoshB]

Moderator Warning

Please remember that challenges or questions about moderator actions should be made via Personal Message to one of the mods, and not in the thread, per the rules.

[font=Georgia]Touche...I will remember this in the future...[/font]

I guess in short, religion is not the basis of morality, but is a mechanism that sustains the community in times where morality would break down and society might otherwise dissolve.

[font=Georgia]Touche...I will remember this in the future...[/font]

[ApprenticeAndMaster]

I'm sick of reading your posts. You're ceaseless verbalized observations are meaningless and tiresome. If you want to put out an idea, just say it. Tell me your opinion. But I'm not going to go through and explain every source of my opinion to you. The simple point I'm making is that morality is worthless as a mental construct and the perpetuation of it should be stopped if we expect the people around us to think logically.

This is a debate forum. You can just withdraw if it is too much effort to debate honorably. Otherwise you can either respond to my points in detail or concede. Uncivil emotional outbursts are uncalled for and unecessarry. My observations and questions were considered and expressed civilly. So you can add apologize to your options. Or you could reread the forum rules. Or provide sources; I love to read.

New questions:
- how does one offer observations in a debate forum non-verbally?
- are you to tell me when to cease my "ceaseless"-ness? In a debate forum? Have you read other threads around here? I've gone easy on you to be nice; I'd expoect some respect in return for thr respect I have shown you. I thought you'd be delighted that someone engaged the topics you hold dear. Or did you come here just to spew opinion and then not defend them when called to do so? There's other places for that, like personal blogs. It's not what we do here. So far more apprentice than master IMO.
- How do you propose to "stop" it, and will your solution be informed in any way by morality? Or shoudl you be stopped?

BTW, Your "simple point" is easily understood, but it is not established as fact. I refute it, or at least challenge it and ask for more detail. Morality is not useless as a mental construct; rather it is useful, effective, and efficient. It is better than the pipedream of thinking people will be logical in real time in real matters. But as I pride myself on my open-mindedness, I renew my invitation to you to convince me, if you're up to the challenge.

Don't twist my words. Stop making suppositions about the intent and motivation of my statements as that is both irrelevant and in your use, insulting. I withdraw. This is not a debate.

[tar2]

RealThinker,

I guess in short, religion is not the basis of morality, but is a mechanism that sustains the community in times where morality would break down and society might otherwise dissolve.

Or in other words... religion is not the basis of morality, but is the mechanism that enforces morality?

Isn't there a logical problem in your summation?

Since morality, as you quite rightly point out, is local to the group that holds the morals, you cannot maintain the thought of a moral action, without reference to the judgement of the group considered.

In bringing down the tablet from the mountain Moses introduced a supreme judge, that trumped all groups.

As an Atheist, I do not think there is this ultimate judge, that burned grooves into the tablet with fire from his eyes. Does not mean I don't think Moses had a powerful insight. And being brought up Christian, with the 10 commandments as my guide, and the do onto others... as you would have them do onto you, idea, part of the fabric of my personality and reasoning, I am hesitant to discount religion, as some sort of false provider of morality. And hesitant to claim that morality would have "naturally" existed, without it.

Any group, any religion, has its authority figures, the holders of the truth, that judge the rightness or wrongness of the actions of it membership. Holders of divine insight perhaps. We, the membership, give that figure the power to judge us. Why would one want to give that power to just another human? We could just cut out the middle man, and judge ourselves.

Personally, I am rather sure, that the determinations we make about the rightness and wrongness of our actions, has a lot to do with our ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes. We put ourselves in the shoes of the people whose judgment we respect, and do what we think would please them.

When an Atheist's Christian mother asks the Atheist where he/she get his/her morals from, I think the question is very close to "who are you putting yourself in the shoes of when you make a judgement between a right and wrong act?" "Who are you trying to please?"

JoshB,

Atheist to Atheist "Who are you trying to please?"

Regards, TAR

[prkrruns]

If an atheist believes there is no God, then his morals must be completely different from mine. For instance if there is no God, then how was hitler wrong. Atheists often try to say that there morals are just natural instincts. So your morals whould be to better society and look out for yourself. If there is no God to hold you accountable, then how can you say hitler was wrong. He was trying to create a perfect nation. I perfect person. He killed off the weak and stupid and lame and therefore was left with the strongest and smartest. How is this wrong? Form your point of veiw, killing those who are too weak is a great way to conserve resources. How much money does the goverment use up on cancer patients and any other number of diseases and diformities. If there is no God to hold us accountable then why do it. I fthere is no God then there are no morals. So why are you being so illogical.

Why question is: why was hitler wrong? Why is trying to make your nation stroger wrong?

However on the other side, if there was a God then morals make sense. If there is no God then What is stopping you from doing what is right?