My Immoral Morals

[Persephone]

I am an atheist. As such, many people claim i have no morals because i don't believe in god. Here are my "morals" then. Please inform me; how are the following statement immoral?

1. Don't kill people, unless it's self defense, or for the protection of others (I.E if your mother is cowering in a corner about to get raped, go ahead and shoot him.)

2. Do not under any circumstances rape another human being or sexually molest them in any way.

3. Be kind to other people. Try not to take out anger or frustration on them, because how would that make you feel? Not good. Philosophy: I know when i get a compliment or nice gesture it makes me feel good. I should do the same to others so that they can feel good too. This goes for charitable acts, helping people, ect.

4. Try to see everything from both sides before you form an opinion on it.

5. Do not do anything you are not educated in, are not mature enough, or responsible enough to do. I.e, yes i have had pre-marital sex with my boyfriend. We talked about it, felt comfortable with it, learned the fine mechanics, discussed what might happen and how we would deal with it, and even set aside money as an emergency fund for such consequences. We use two forms of protection every time, it is always consensual, and plays no real importance in our relationship. (If we could not have sex it would not change our relationship at all.)

6. Know when you are beat and acknowledge it. If someone beat you out for a promotion, congratulate them, don't be jealous if they beat you fair and square.

7. Racism, sexism, profoundly outspoken judgmental religion, and other forms if ignorance and bigotry should be avoided. It shows you to be stupid as well as hateful.


So on and so-forth. Other than number 5, these pretty much mirror "real" morals. How exactly are mine fake?

[jetsironworker]

I would like to pose here the same question that Christopher Hitchens proposes at every debate he is involved in. Since I reject the accuracy of the bible and the existence of any god, am I not a moral person? If so then name an action of morality that a theist can make because of their belief that I cannot make even though I have no belief. For the sake of argument let's eliminate prayer and the like as a moral example.

I would also like to point out that morality has been questioned and pondered by philosophers before the knowledge of the OT god had ever been imparted to them. Eastern societies were sufficiently moral to have advanced even before the advent of the OT god.

[ChaosBorders]

I would like to pose here the same question that Christopher Hitchens proposes at every debate he is involved in. Since I reject the accuracy of the bible and the existence of any god, am I not a moral person? If so then name an action of morality that a theist can make because of their belief that I cannot make even though I have no belief. For the sake of argument let's eliminate prayer and the like as a moral example.

Were the Bible accurate, then no one is truly moral so the second question is meaningless.

If the Bible is not accurate, the first question is (in this context) meaningless because anyone can subjectively define whatever they feel like as being moral.

[sineporf]

Morals are a set of rules for a society to follow to achieve its goals, so naturally killing each other wouldn't be a part of those morals. The social contract was set in place for us to have order in the world. Morality is no other than what everyone else deems to be right and wrong. Right and wrong are delusional; They are only opinions on what rules should be enforced to keep a society safe (or people with power to enforce lies to keep a society under control.)

Your morals are just a reflection of society. Should we live in a society where the ideas of Hitler were accepted, we would believe that Judaism and homosexuality is "wrong".

There are always people who challenge those rules because they feel there is something wrong with society. It's not because they understand that it's wrong to kill people on the basis of race and sexuality, but because their opinion of it is so overpowering that they want to change it.

[ChaosBorders]

Morals are a set of rules for a society to follow to achieve its goals, so naturally killing each other wouldn't be a part of those morals. The social contract was set in place for us to have order in the world. Morality is no other than what everyone else deems to be right and wrong. Right and wrong are delusional; They are only opinions on what rules should be enforced to keep a society safe (or people with power to enforce lies to keep a society under control.)

Your morals are just a reflection of society. Should we live in a society where the ideas of Hitler were accepted, we would believe that Judaism and homosexuality is "wrong".

There are always people who challenge those rules because they feel there is something wrong with society. It's not because they understand that it's wrong to kill people on the basis of race and sexuality, but because their opinion of it is so overpowering that they want to change it.

How does any of that dispute my assessment that the questions are meaningless?

[sineporf]

Morals are a set of rules for a society to follow to achieve its goals, so naturally killing each other wouldn't be a part of those morals. The social contract was set in place for us to have order in the world. Morality is no other than what everyone else deems to be right and wrong. Right and wrong are delusional; They are only opinions on what rules should be enforced to keep a society safe (or people with power to enforce lies to keep a society under control.)

Your morals are just a reflection of society. Should we live in a society where the ideas of Hitler were accepted, we would believe that Judaism and homosexuality is "wrong".

There are always people who challenge those rules because they feel there is something wrong with society. It's not because they understand that it's wrong to kill people on the basis of race and sexuality, but because their opinion of it is so overpowering that they want to change it.

How does any of that dispute my assessment that the questions are meaningless?

It doesn't. Morality is, in fact, meaningless in the grand scheme. I just thought I'd elaborate farther.

The Bible means nothing. People derived "morals" from its passages for a very long time. Telling someone else that their morals are false is lunacy. Just because you don't believe in an almighty god doesn't mean that your morals are automatically trash. If you follow the same ideas, but don't believe in god, then you're, in essence, guiding yourself by christian laws without the spirituality of monotheism.

My post was nothing but to shed light on the matter.

[CalvinsBulldog]

I am an atheist. As such, many people claim i have no morals because i don't believe in god. Here are my "morals" then. Please inform me; how are the following statement immoral?

This may be a misunderstanding of the Christian position, which teaches that atheists can behave in moral ways, but they have no logical or rational basis for their morality. Hence, it is possible for atheists to be ethical agents; but there is no real reason for it.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume there is no God, that the universe appeared in the fires of the Big Bang (or whichever cosmological model you wish to use), and that all life evolved on its own on earth. We know the earth is going to terminate when our planet meets its catastrophic doom of its own sun.

In this context, why should a person act in a moral way? What is the objective purpose, reason or basis for any behaviour whatever? You may argue, as many atheists do, that your moral action helps other people. Granted, it might. But that is merely a relative reason; it is inventing purpose where there is none.

Allow me to illustrate. Helping a little old lady across the street might be a moral action, and you might say that it is moral because it has assist another human being, but the day will surely arrive when there are no little old ladies, no streets, and no planet. There will only be darkness of oblivion and human extinction. Hence, morality is ultimately meaningless and has no final, objective reason.

The questions I tend to ask are these. As an atheist, why should you engage in something, or refrain from engaging? What does it achieve? And why are some actions determined to be good while others are determined to be bad? If there is no God, it is clear that one cannot derive morals from nature; if nature is all that exists, then whatever happens simply happens. Indeed, human beings themselves are neither special, nor possess unique value, and hence gassing millions of human beings at Auschwitz, under such a view, was not objectively different from exterminating dogs. There are no moral values attached to behaviour.

Nietzsche saw it happening. He saw the results of what a godless universe would necessarily entail: the weak mastered by the strong. But then, Nietzsche was a very honest atheist indeed.