Do atheists have morals?

hippiemom

catefrances wrote:

i've always wondered about this saying. being an atheist i've always taken exception to it. but reading it now i can honestly say i am one atheist you wouldn't find in a foxhole in the first place. me being a pacifist and all, as well as an atheist. but somehow i doubt that's the sentiment being conveyed with that statement.

I think you can look at "foxhole" metaphorically and say that it's any situation where there's a strong likelihood that you won't survive ... at least that's how I've always interpreted it, the message being that people tend to "find god" when they think they're about to die. I've no doubt this is often true, but I know for a fact that it is not ALWAYS true.

Gary Carter

hippiemom wrote:

Wow, I'm really starting to see why people like religion! It makes things so much easier!

either thats sarcasm or u must be on some really good drugs.can i have some hehe

Abookamongstthemany

hippiemom wrote:

I think you can look at "foxhole" metaphorically and say that it's any situation where there's a strong likelihood that you won't survive ... at least that's how I've always interpreted it, the message being that people tend to "find god" when they think they're about to die. I've no doubt this is often true, but I know for a fact that it is not ALWAYS true.

It only makes sense really for people to suddenly 'find god' when faced with death. It's a way to trying to somehow extend life. It's hope and insurance and not necessarily a lie to oneself because we don't know anything for sure.

gue_barium

I'm an atheist. I believe in God. Go figure.

hippiemom

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It only makes sense really for people to suddenly 'find god' when faced with death. It's a way to trying to somehow extend life. It's hope and insurance and not necessarily a lie to oneself because we don't know anything for sure.

I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.

gue_barium

hippiemom wrote:

I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.

It's also called psychology.

Abookamongstthemany

hippiemom wrote:

I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.

Agreed.

bubbamackdaddy69

Oh my GOD...lol..no pun intented !..haha...wow...I'm an Athiest and
I believe in morals and have some as well and I'm like the easiest going guy on the planet but one thing I cannot stand are religions that preach to everyone else about this and that..Catholics, Protestants, whatever etc..you believe what you believe and that's great but don't turn around and look down on me or anyone else for what we believe in or don't believe in..anyways..I'm just ranting here...
Anyhow..why can't we just all get along !!
oh yeah...and another thing..lol..I'm an Atheist but I do say Merry XMAS...not Happy December days or whatever they wanna call it now..
If some stranger says Merry Xmas to you....just smile and say thank you...don't talk back and say it should be this it should be that...lighten up people....LOL
ZEN

gue_barium

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Oh my GOD...lol..no pun intented !..haha...wow...I'm an Athiest and
I believe in morals and have some as well and I'm like the easiest going guy on the planet but one thing I cannot stand are religions that preach to everyone else about this and that..Catholics, Protestants, whatever etc..you believe what you believe and that's great but don't turn around and look down on me or anyone else for what we believe in or don't believe in..anyways..I'm just ranting here...
Anyhow..why can't we just all get along !!
oh yeah...and another thing..lol..I'm an Atheist but I do say Merry XMAS...not Happy December days or whatever they wanna call it now..
If some stranger says Merry Xmas to you....just smile and say thank you...don't talk back and say it should be this it should be that...lighten up people....LOL
ZEN

You seem to be a secularist. Congratulations.

Yea, though you may walk through the shadow of death, you fear no evil, for Jerry Falwell is in Virginia.

sponger

I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.

Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".

What makes people evil is their denial of their true selves. They learn to wear masks in order to appease society's "norms". They learn to believe that their natural selves are "wrong" and "disgusting". They carry these feelings with them wherever they go until those feelings turn them into machines who are programmed to appease. Machines have no empathy. Without empathy, there is no morality.

I am under the assumption that it is impossible to kill or bring harm to a person whom you completely trust. You cannot lie to someone you completely trust. So, without lies, we would all be forced to trust one another. And in a world where everyone trusts one another, evil and immorality would cease to exist.

The problem with religion is that it typically excludes those who do not subcribe to its beliefs. This exclusion creates a environment of distrust. And, again, distrust is the root of all evil.

But, there are those who say, "Without the threat of exclusion, people would not be motivated to follow the moralistic guidelines of the church." But, my opinion is that under that rationale, people should then only be motivated by the prospect of inclusion.

In which case, the moral foundation of that system is that a person's morality is defined by that person's desire to be included with the "group". But, the problem with that is that morality isn't morality at all. It's merely what is accepted by the majority. And if that is all we are, then it is no wonder that our society is so heavily pocked by deciet and dishonesty. We're not being moral at all. Instead, we're just trying to fit in.

gue_barium

sponger wrote:

I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.

Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".

What makes people evil is their denial of their true selves. They learn to wear masks in order to appease society's "norms". They learn to believe that their natural selves are "wrong" and "disgusting". They carry these feelings with them wherever they go until those feelings turn them into machines who are programmed to appease. Machines have no empathy. Without empathy, there is no morality.

I am under the assumption that it is impossible to kill or bring harm to a person whom you completely trust. You cannot lie to someone you completely trust. So, without lies, we would all be forced to trust one another. And in a world where everyone trusts one another, evil and immorality would cease to exist.

The problem with religion is that it typically excludes those who do not subcribe to its beliefs. This exclusion creates a environment of distrust. And, again, distrust is the root of all evil.

But, there are those who say, "Without the threat of exclusion, people would not be motivated to follow the moralistic guidelines of the church." But, my opinion is that under that rationale, people should then only be motivated by the prospect of inclusion.

In which case, the moral foundation of that system is that a person's morality is defined by that person's desire to be included with the "group". But, the problem with that is that morality isn't morality at all. It's merely what is accepted by the majority. And if that is all we are, then it is no wonder that our society is so heavily pocked by deciet and dishonesty. We're not being moral at all. Instead, we're just trying to fit in.

Excellent post.

I'm not agreeing that it is necessary to trust each other and that is the solvent that expires the good will intended by law.

I know that sounds confusing.

rigneyclan

You don't have to have a religion or believe in a god/goddess to be a good person. Of course I have morals.

Byrnzie

gue_barium wrote:

I'm an atheist. I believe in God. Go figure.

That's perfectly reasonable. It all comes down to what you mean by the word 'god'.
Pagans, for example, believe in many Gods.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.

Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".

you think being predatory is being sneaky?

Jeanie

Byrnzie wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. It all comes down to what you mean by the word 'god'.
Pagans, for example, believe in many Gods.

Good on you Byrnzie, it's about time some one brought up the Pagans!!

Jeanie

sponger wrote:

......Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Hitler was able to perpetrate evil because the good men and women of the world saw what he was doing and stayed silent. He wasn't sneaky, he was completely transparent but people didn't want to believe that what he was doing was real. The same with serial killers, plenty of good people, who have been the parents, spouses, children, workmates of serial killers are in complete denial and stay silent because of fear or because they override their instincts.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

This "evolutionary theory of morality" holds absolutely no water. Let's quash it right now. It goes against science, namely.

Do you mean it goes against the physical sciences?

There is no scientific basis to believe that genetic material has been coded to give moral reasoning to any human being. Take a Aborigene (sp?) from Australia and raise him in a Catholic family and he'll grow up with Catholic morals, regardless of what his genetic information "says." Morality is not a scientific concept at all. Science cannot explain why humans find certain things moral and immoral.

There are sciences beyond the physical sciences that have indeed studied the evolution of morality. It may or may not be physical and genetically coded that we know of just yet, and still it comes across as real just the same. As a matter of fact, it was Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist who coined the term "memes". The word was originated in referring to a unit of cultural information. Apparently those who study and back such ideas consider that memes evolve via natural selection. "Proponents of memes suggest that memes evolve via natural selection — in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas concerning biological evolution — on the premise that variation, mutation, competition, and "inheritance" influence their replicative success. For example, while one idea may become extinct, other ideas will survive, spread and mutate — for better or for worse — through modification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

edit: because I messed up in posting prematurely.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

Morality is not a scientific concept at all. Science cannot explain why humans find certain things moral and immoral.

Morality is scientifically studied, within levels of human awareness.

further: In Ken Wilber's book "A Theory of Everything" he talks of the growth and development of the mind (on all levels, including moral) and how varying theorists find some basic similarities in models of human development through time. He says "But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme."

A basic model used in the book illustrates these base stages and shows the emergent unfolding or evolution of human awareness, which includes morality/spirituality. Author Ken Wilber asserts that while we have natural law on one hand, we have varying levels of human awareness of such natural law, each with it's own particular worldview.

Such study maps the evolution of human psychology including cultural/moral/spiritual aspects in time over the long-term, as well as within an individual lifetime.

Jeanie

angelica wrote:

Morality is scientifically studied, within levels of human awareness.

further: In Ken Wilber's book "A Theory of Everything" he talks of the growth and development of the mind (on all levels, including moral) and how varying theorists find some basic similarities in models of human development through time. He says "But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme."

A basic model used in the book illustrates these base stages and shows the emergent unfolding or evolution of human awareness, which includes morality/spirituality. Author Ken Wilber asserts that while we have natural law on one hand, we have varying levels of human awareness of such natural law, each with it's own particular worldview.

Such study maps the evolution of human psychology including cultural/moral/spiritual aspects in time over the long-term, as well as within an individual lifetime.

Thanks angelica, this book sounds very interesting.

angelica

Jeanie wrote:

Thanks angelica, this book sounds very interesting.

You are very welcome, Jeanie.