Who has more morals Ex-Theist or Life Atheist?

[BwhoUR]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

[BwhoUR]

I was looking at CalvinsBulldog's other posts and I think I finally get what you are saying. Unfortunately, I don't think it really applies to my post. On the other hand, I probably should have put this OP under Philosophy instead of Right and Wrong. My bad.

[Abraxas]

Indeed, as atheism is just the negation of theism. Atheism is generally coupled with other structures such as humanism or utilitarianism or the categorical imperative to form a moral framework.

This only introduces a regress to humanism or utilitarianism. And, as both philosophies are assertions that make positive claims, it would fall to the humanist and utilitarian to explain their moral framework rationally. If humanism or utilitarianism fails to offer a rational explanation, then, when atheism borrows these philosophies to provide a moral frame, it borrows absurdity. Alternatively, if humanism or utilitarianism resorts to theistic type arguments, then the point is validated: atheism borrows its moral rationality, ultimately, from theism.

It is now up to you to show that humanism or utilitarianism are stand-alone moral philosophies that borrow nothing from theism.

I am under no more obligation to prove that those theories borrow from theism than you are to prove theistic arguments borrow nothing from atheistic principles.

I digress, however, let us assume for a moment I were under obligation to prove the negative, that atheistic theories do not borrow from theistic ones. Let us examine Utilitarianism to begin with, the idea of creating maximum relative utility to nonutility. The ratio of units of happiness, something potentially objectively measurable, to unhappiness. None of that applies to anything outside this world, nothing supernatural, nothing theistic.

Now, naturally you are going to ask, well why is maximum utility the good. Can you prove it is the good? Is it objectively the good? Could another moral code exist that was objectively the good while still allowing for maximum utility? So on and so forth. However, let me pose the same question to you first. Why is God the absolute good? Can you prove it is the good? Could another moral code exist that was objectively the good apart from God? How do you know?

You see, creating an all powerful or at least arbitrarily powerful being to act as a moral center does not solve the regress problem, it simply transfers it. Euthyphro has long served as a powerful reminder that God and Good are not necessarily one and the same. Even the argument that good is a fundamental part of God is a copout with no backing.

What we have here is a good old fashioned Mexican standoff. You can regress any argument I make towards atheistic morality regarding what is the objective good beyond my ability to answer. I can do the same to any theistic one. Where has this gotten us? Only to the realization that good is a word in dire need of definition if it is to ever be talked about sensibly.

Were you correct, they are still not forced to borrow them from theists.

However, as you are not correct, and we can look at objective features of the world around us and draw comparisons and conclusions as to what is most desirable, the point is moot.

Interesting logic! Of course your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You will need to demonstrate how and why I am incorrect with more than ex cathedra type statements.

You seem to suggest that looking at the features of the world ipso facto allow us to draw moral conclusions. But that does not follow either. Nature knows nothing of moral values: a lion does not "murder" a deer, for example, and a shark does not "rape" a female shark. Rathter, a lion kills a deer and a shark forcibly copulates with a female. There are no value judgements attached to these things. Ergo, observing the world around us should not lead us to conclude that when humans behave similarly they are acting unethically or immorally.

You misapply the word "natural" here. Humans are very much a part of the natural world, as opposed to a supernatural one.

You then suggest that we conclude as to what is "desirable". This is a nebulous and subjective phrase. Hitler, his colleagues, and a sizeable slice of the German population through it desirable to murder Jews. Stalin et al thought it desirable to murder Ukrainians. Hitler particularly justified his policies based on conclusions he drew from the animal kingdom. Does this mean that Hitler was right? I dare say you would not make that point.

If not, why was he wrong? He observed the world, drew conclusions, and acted toward an objective he thought was desirable. Who is to say, then, that his morality was not better than those of us who repudiate genocide?

Indeed I wouldn't. We as a society, we as a species, have held murder is undesirable. We have also held individual excuses for mere murder are hogwash. Now, before you jump to the argumentum ad populum retort I know you are itching to, I am not stating it is the belief that makes it so. Rather, I am pointing out across a multitude of cultures, a multitude of beliefs, a multitude of societies we have discovered murder is wrong, God or no God. How is it that so many independent sources all came to the conclusion murder is wrong even while believing in different gods or not believing at all if murder being wrong is not something that can be determined from this world and this world alone?

Desire is indeed a nebulous choice of words, and ethics are a nebulous subject with ill defined borders and pitfalls beyond count. How fitting.

I will respond to the rest of your post later.

Please do. I feel you missed most of my best work.

[BwhoUR]

Abraxas, are you sure your only 25? In addition to your post, do we also consider the existence of smart people and dumb people, psychotics and well-grounded people, spiritual and logical people. Where do they fit in?

[Abraxas]

Abraxas, are you sure your only 25? In addition to your post, do we also consider the existence of smart people and dumb people, psychotics and well-grounded people, spiritual and logical people. Where do they fit in?

That's what they keep telling me. I agree also that what must be considered in a world with God why there are those who lack either the emotional or mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. One might expect such a lawgiver to make the law universally known, at least on a base level, and yet clearly we see humans who fundamentally cannot make the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong.

[Comrade1]

How about someone simply being good for goodness sake? This as opposed to doing such to participate in a supernatural reward structure?

[BwhoUR]

How about someone simply being good for goodness sake? This as opposed to doing such to participate in a supernatural reward structure?

I've always hated the bible's 'glory grab' when it comes to gooddoing. I think that anything good that someone does would have and could have been done regardless of religion. In order to prove this, however, you have to take religion out of the equation.

[ChaosBorders]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

I have run across Christians on this forum that have claimed that with out a moral law giver (God) there is no basis for morality and that without God created objective morality, man would inevitably lapse into nihilism. This argument is made despite the existence of millions of non-theists who somehow manage to avoid raping and pillaging on a regular basis.

A Christian who believed this way who subsequently lost their faith could potentially be a rather dangerous person since they might believe that they were no longer under moral restraint.

Objective morality. Subjectively you can always make up morals. For those of us who are not really interested in people's subjective morals though, that is not a very good basis. I would not rape because I find such behavior distasteful. But it would be much more difficult for me to convince myself not to make a sport of killing sex offenders and pillaging their houses if my religious beliefs did not result in believing even they have objective worth.

[Adamoriens]

There is a common fallacy committed amongst Christian apologists. After comparing Christianity and atheism, they reach a conclusion that atheism has no moral basis, or at least little when juxtaposed with Christianity. This appears to be a mistake from the outset: Christianity and atheism are not equivalent categories. Atheism is a response to a specific question (namely, the existence of supernature) and thus makes no moral statements, as does theism. Belief in gods or God alone does not logically necessitate any moral systems. Thus, it is no more valid to compare Christianity and atheism (in this particular respect) than it is secular humanism and theism. In other words, I could just as fallaciously compare humanism and theism and (aha!) find that people who believe in God have no moral base.

[BwhoUR]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

I have run across Christians on this forum that have claimed that with out a moral law giver (God) there is no basis for morality and that without God created objective morality, man would inevitably lapse into nihilism. This argument is made despite the existence of millions of non-theists who somehow manage to avoid raping and pillaging on a regular basis.

A Christian who believed this way who subsequently lost their faith could potentially be a rather dangerous person since they might believe that they were no longer under moral restraint.

Objective morality. Subjectively you can always make up morals. For those of us who are not really interested in people's subjective morals though, that is not a very good basis. I would not rape because I find such behavior distasteful. But it would be much more difficult for me to convince myself not to make a sport of killing sex offenders and pillaging their houses if my religious beliefs did not result in believing even they have objective worth.

Sorry it took me forever to acknowledge this post, I was somewhat taken aback at the admission that if not for religion, you might make sport of killing sex offenders. Thank you for your honesty. On the subject of morality and religion, however subjective morality may be, it is difficult for me to imagine someone who gave up religion as not making maybe horrendous mistakes because the had always felt that their morals were tied to their religion and to fearing god. Could depression follow the loss of faith and maybe spur "bad" behavior? I for one, struggled until I finally gave it up, then had to find out who I was and what I was all about all over again, it wasn't easy, but I am better for it.

[ChaosBorders]

If a life long religious person becomes an Atheist, is he more likely to commit immoral acts than the life long Atheist? For the sake of discussion the religious person is any religion you want he/she to be, anything in your mind that is immoral counts as immoral, both persons are adults of the same age, neither have ever been convicted of a felony.

If you want to skip the hypothetical my interest is in whether or not a religious person who becomes an Atheist goes through a "withdrawal" period when it comes to morality.

I have run across Christians on this forum that have claimed that with out a moral law giver (God) there is no basis for morality and that without God created objective morality, man would inevitably lapse into nihilism. This argument is made despite the existence of millions of non-theists who somehow manage to avoid raping and pillaging on a regular basis.

A Christian who believed this way who subsequently lost their faith could potentially be a rather dangerous person since they might believe that they were no longer under moral restraint.

Objective morality. Subjectively you can always make up morals. For those of us who are not really interested in people's subjective morals though, that is not a very good basis. I would not rape because I find such behavior distasteful. But it would be much more difficult for me to convince myself not to make a sport of killing sex offenders and pillaging their houses if my religious beliefs did not result in believing even they have objective worth.

Sorry it took me forever to acknowledge this post, I was somewhat taken aback at the admission that if not for religion, you might make sport of killing sex offenders. Thank you for your honesty. On the subject of morality and religion, however subjective morality may be, it is difficult for me to imagine someone who gave up religion as not making maybe horrendous mistakes because the had always felt that their morals were tied to their religion and to fearing god. Could depression follow the loss of faith and maybe spur "bad" behavior? I for one, struggled until I finally gave it up, then had to find out who I was and what I was all about all over again, it wasn't easy, but I am better for it.

Given the extent of the depression I had before coming to my religious beliefs, I suspect it would return and almost certainly play a large role in anything I did should I lose said beliefs.