Atheists - Morals??

[khaligula]

If I were an atheist and wanted to undermine the fact that Christian ethics fostered our morality... I might argue that Christianity, a religion, an institutionalised dogma or ritualised and regulated behaviour is but an inevitable consequence of human socialisation. The fact our morals are derived from it is a rare dividend of a backward ideology from which our departure will only enhance our moral insight...

Still, this doesn't really underplay the significance of Christianity but it will sooth the anti-theist's ego.

I'm an atheist myself, I just find it silly that people never question their assumptions. I mean why do atheists get uppity about people suggesting they are not moral, anyway? Why do they value morality so much? I am not arguing that atheists don't have a moral code, I am arguing that they do, and that they do so, mostly, because they inherited one from the religious society they live in since religion tends to be awfully effective at withholding ethical codes. The question at hand, however, is why? Why does the atheist adopt that moral code if it doesn't benefit him? The only answer is obviously socialization and a lack of critical analysis. This thread is not a critique of atheism per se, but about the sheepishness of secular atheism and atheists' impetus to prove that "omg we are moral people too". Why do you care so much? Ask them and watch them rage over the possibility that they might have inherited a system of values from their Christian surroundings.

[khaligula]

Being an Atheist is about not believing in a deity, or deities. No Atheist just say they don't believe in other things, like ghost, aliens, and other things. I'm sick of people just believing Christianity exist, and others don't have morals but Christians. Like I said, it seems like Atheist I've come across have a better heart and are better people than people who call themselves Christians. Yes, I said call themselves Christian for many reasons.*



I've been a vegetarian for 7 years, and reject leather, fur, and other things that kills animals. You're also saying without Christianity, that people can't feel for something. Are you saying that you're selfish and don't care about anyone else? The idea of religion is based out of fear, which is what my dad was telling me. He's not an Atheist and believes there is a possibly a higher being, but religion was created for fear. He believes that humans needed religion to be in fear of, or else they will go crazy. It's kind of like your theory in a way, and I do feel it does play a part in it. It doesn't mean me, or other Atheist aren't good people for the sake of being good. It's not because we're afraid to go to jail, or to a place like "Hell", it's because some of us really do care about others. Neither one of us are wrong, I can assure you that, because we're basing all of this off of our own theories. I can't speak for all Atheist, or all people who are religious, but I can speak for myself.

That's exactly what I am saying. People who are "good" for the sake of "being good" are being stupid since they have no rational reason to be so. While I believe that there's a basic sense of empathy and identification in humans, it isn't of a great enough magnitude to create a strict set of principles. You're denying yourself pleasure with no reason out of a blind morality/sense of empathy, and that makes you a sheep imo. You're someone that does shit "just because".

[AEDAN]

Lost in a quandary of perpetual redundant thought. It's easy done. Something can irk us and instead of accepting it or seeing it in perspective we try to manipulate it in an attempt to placate our sensibilities.

In saying that... Your atheism irks me, Khaligula. Only because I presumed you were a deist. Atheism is a position I'll never maintain. I've dabbed, not one to deny a perspective, but it has never endured.

Ever since the reformation in the early seventeenth century Catholicism, strict religious dogma, and wholly, the institution of the Church has held less and less influence. In the United Kingdom census date shows that parents tend not to instil their religious beliefs onto their children and that religious mobility is trending toward a "non-religious" status. This trend is similar throughout Europe and demonstrates rife antidisestablishmentarianism, however, I also believe a key factor in all this is the rise of the individual.

You speak of sheepishness. I know many people who are do not contemplate the notion of God merely because their parents have never discussed it at any length with them. For me, this is tantamount to voting for a political candidate because of Daddy's politics however backward they may be - a choice void of critical analysis.

Human beings are autonomous, multifaceted and nuanced creatures who can draw upon any number of influences in creating an identity but what influences our being is situation dependent. Our habitus i.e. our social, economic, political, cultural environment - plays a large part in fostering our character, our identities.

If you are exposed to anti-theist sentiments or a society that gives no credence to the notion of a God then you will assume this quality.

That Europe might become a Godless land is quite sad... as I said... I've dabbled in atheism. I'd never rob myself of a perspective. We need to nourish our minds, broaden our horizons and accommodate the notions of others.

Shucks... maybe I am lost in a quandary of redundant thought but you seem like the type who likes a challenge, Khaligula.

Why don't you read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. It's an insightful piece.

Failing that, why don't you check out http://www.deism.com/

I'd invite you to check it out too, xSplicex.

Also, Splice was a terrible film...

[Mr_Quick]

Why are people arguing that morals are natural? Laws wouldn't exist if people behaved well just because, like lol...
but now that laws do exist, I can tell you that morals are unnecessary. People don't behave badly, atheist or otherwise, for a very good reason: They don't want to go to jail. I'm good with that.

Laws require morality in order to be created and enforced. The purpose of government is, in essence, to enforce a society's moral compass on its members; we would not concern ourselves with promoting right behavior and deterring wrong behavior (even in interactions where we are not personally involved) if we didn't have a sense of right and wrong to begin with, as well as strong emotional incentives to engage in "right" behavior and avoid "wrong" behavior.

I'm an atheist myself, I just find it silly that people never question their assumptions. I mean why do atheists get uppity about people suggesting they are not moral, anyway? Why do they value morality so much? I am not arguing that atheists don't have a moral code, I am arguing that they do, and that they do so, mostly, because they inherited one from the religious society they live in since religion tends to be awfully effective at withholding ethical codes. The question at hand, however, is why?

From an evolutionary perspective, altruism and empathy have immense survival value for humans. A lone human is a comparatively weak and soft thing that could be picked off by almost any large predator; apart from our brains, it's our ability to get along with others and function in large groups that has enabled our species to survive and prosper.

From a psychological and anthropological perspective, concern for others' well-being and a desire to do "the right thing" are near-universal traits among humans, which have been observed and celebrated across the globe in virtually every society in the world irrespective of religious belief or non-belief.

From a neurological perspective, it has been demonstrated that empathy, compassion, and altruism are all governed by certain areas of the brain, and the expression of these traits in someone's personality can be altered, sometimes dramatically, by changes in brain chemistry or structure (such as those created by drug use or brain damage).

From a philosophical perspective, I suspect most atheists decide to behave morally out of some combination of self interest (they don't want to incite retaliation, provoke a conflict, or alienate others) and compassion (they want the people around them to be happy and free from suffering) depending on the person and the situation, just as we all do.

[khaligula]

Laws require morality in order to be created and enforced. The purpose of government is, in essence, to enforce a society's moral compass on its members; we would not concern ourselves with promoting right behavior and deterring wrong behavior (even in interactions where we are not personally involved) if we didn't have a sense of right and wrong to begin with, as well as strong emotional incentives to engage in "right" behavior and avoid "wrong" behavior.

Laws are utilitarian and created to serve individual needs and wants. We don't create laws against murder because we come equipped with a "moral compass" that tells us murder is wrong, but because we'd rather give up the right to murder than give others the freedom to murder us. Laws can be traced to nothing but the collectivity of self-interests in society, a sense of "right" or "wrong" doesn't have to come in play. Except maybe for "it's wrong for you to stab me". The fact of the matter is that laws create ARTIFICIAL repercussions for certain actions because without these sanctions, people will often see it in their interest to behave badly and they will. Show me a person with impunity, I'll show you a person that won't hesitate to sin. Laws exist because man is prone to do bad actions for his own selfish needs. No, we are not bees chemically hardwired to serve some social purpose. We are, for the most part, individual agents interested in our own happiness and we have structured society in a way that allows us to pursue this happiness without needing to abide by dogmatic moral codes.

[khaligula]

Lost in a quandary of perpetual redundant thought. It's easy done. Something can irk us and instead of accepting it or seeing it in perspective we try to manipulate it in an attempt to placate our sensibilities.

In saying that... Your atheism irks me, Khaligula. Only because I presumed you were a deist. Atheism is a position I'll never maintain. I've dabbed, not one to deny a perspective, but it has never endured.

Ever since the reformation in the early seventeenth century Catholicism, strict religious dogma, and wholly, the institution of the Church has held less and less influence. In the United Kingdom census date shows that parents tend not to instil their religious beliefs onto their children and that religious mobility is trending toward a "non-religious" status. This trend is similar throughout Europe and demonstrates rife antidisestablishmentarianism, however, I also believe a key factor in all this is the rise of the individual.

You speak of sheepishness. I know many people who are do not contemplate the notion of God merely because their parents have never discussed it at any length with them. For me, this is tantamount to voting for a political candidate because of Daddy's politics however backward they may be - a choice void of critical analysis.

Human beings are autonomous, multifaceted and nuanced creatures who can draw upon any number of influences in creating an identity but what influences our being is situation dependent. Our habitus i.e. our social, economic, political, cultural environment - plays a large part in fostering our character, our identities.

If you are exposed to anti-theist sentiments or a society that gives no credence to the notion of a God then you will assume this quality.

That Europe might become a Godless land is quite sad... as I said... I've dabbled in atheism. I'd never rob myself of a perspective. We need to nourish our minds, broaden our horizons and accommodate the notions of others.

Shucks... maybe I am lost in a quandary of redundant thought but you seem like the type who likes a challenge, Khaligula.

Why don't you read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. It's an insightful piece.

Failing that, why don't you check out http://www.deism.com/

I'd invite you to check it out too, xSplicex.

Also, Splice was a terrible film...

If you ask me whether God exists or not, I will not give you an answer because I can't know. I don't have proof for the existence or non-existence of a God. I think God doesn't exist, but I don't know if he truly doesn't. What I do know is that a very faulty promise of eternal life isn't worth the sacrifice of earthly pleasure. Furthermore, I am opposed to the institution of religion. While I don't doubt it still has its therapeutic values, I believe that religion (useful in an older society) tends to be resistant to change and maintains archaic paradigms alive. When we bring up the topic of a God to anywhere but the most personal space in modern society, I believe we are dragging it down. We are subscribing to a code of ethics and beliefs made for different circumstances and with little use today. Like Nietzsche, I advocate that modern society ought to have a return to a pre-moral morality based on the consequences of actions rather than their intrinsic goodness. Religion, with its strict code of ethics, poses a threat to that (our current political and economical system forces us to be good even if we are following our pleasure so morality, ideally, becomes null as the state modernizes itself).

You can tell me that there's no need for an ethical code, that I can be a "deist" and just admit to the idea of a creator to have some sort of more consistent metaphysical framework or the pleasure of having the conviction that something is there. The problem is that I don't care. As far as I am concerned, God could be there or not. If his existence doesn't directly affect me, I can't count the fucks I don't give about it. What's the use of believing in God in modern society, knowing that its current practice worsens society? There is none. I personally find atheists the most ignorant, preachy, and obnoxious people out there with their anti-Christian tirades since I believe the church has played an important role in history, but I feel like I do more for society by allowing them to continue their anti-theist project than by correcting them. There's simply too much to gain in this "non-religious" society, where people can make more critically assessed and sober political decisions than their religious counter-parts. Just that www.deism.com site is loaded with ethical codes and potentially dangerous political assumptions, showing how easy it is to slap a metaphysical framework and a moral code to any belief in a god. That to me is the threat of religion for humanity and its future.

[I_Am_Once_Was]

Why are people arguing that morals are natural? Laws wouldn't exist if people behaved well just because, like lol...
but now that laws do exist, I can tell you that morals are unnecessary. People don't behave badly, atheist or otherwise, for a very good reason: They don't want to go to jail. I'm good with that.

People behaving immorally doesn't prove that morals aren't natural or that they don't have natural origins. Natural morality is an explanation for sympathetic feelings and emotions. If we didn't have them, and if we didn't behave in accordance with natural morality, we'd have fallen to a species that did.

That's exactly what I am saying. People who are "good" for the sake of "being good" are being stupid since they have no rational reason to be so. While I believe that there's a basic sense of empathy and identification in humans, it isn't of a great enough magnitude to create a strict set of principles. You're denying yourself pleasure with no reason out of a blind morality/sense of empathy, and that makes you a sheep imo. You're someone that does shit "just because".

Here you sprouted hopes in my heart that the newest member of these boards wouldn't be a dipshit after all, but they were dashed before the end of the paragraph. Buddy, you're arguing with a vegetarian who 'rejects leather.' You're arguing against natural morality with someone who's even more out of touch with it than yourself.

[khaligula]

People behaving immorally doesn't prove that morals aren't natural or that they don't have natural origins. Natural morality is an explanation for sympathetic feelings and emotions. If we didn't have them, and if we didn't behave in accordance with natural morality, we'd have fallen to a species that did.



Here you sprouted hopes in my heart that the newest member of these boards wouldn't be a dipshit after all, but they were dashed before the end of the paragraph. Buddy, you're arguing with a vegetarian who 'rejects leather.' You're arguing against natural morality with someone who's even more out of touch with it than yourself.

Let me put it this way. We work in accordance to a pleasure/displeasure principle. When we do things we, ideally, do them because they bring us pleasure. Now, let's remove socialization. Let's remove guilt, the development of the superego, neuroses, repression, and whatever else may cripple the "natural" moral development of a human being. Let's pretend that this human beings has both selfish drives and "a natural moral" (what you call empathy and identification, perhaps also an appreciation for harmony and order).

Now, our taste-buds work in accordance to our pleasure principle. We have taste buds that produce a pleasurable sensation when they come in contact with meat. We eat meat seeking this pleasurable sensation. That trait became proliferated because people that enjoyed eating meat, back in the day, gained nutritive benefits from it that heightened her/his survival.

Imagine that, in such an scenario, you had a gene that trumped your taste gene by feeling bad for the meat you're about to eat. Eating the meat would cause more displeasure than it causes you pleasure and, thus, you wouldn't eat it. A person with such a gene would starve, get killed, probably never reproduce. A gene of such level of empathy with random animals cannot be natural in human beings- it would be impossible for natural selection to select such a self-defeating gene.

So what's the answer here? It's unlikely that her disposition against meat is genetic. I doubt that eating meat gives her an instinctive displeasure, and I doubt that not eating meat gives an instinctive pleasure. If it is genetic, it is unfortunate, but she's doing the right thing (which is seeking her own pleasure). That's not moral, though.

Morality is when we repress pleasure to live up to a set of strict principles. The Christian adopts his code for the promise of eternal life, the samurai adopts his code out of veneration for his master, but why does our friend xsplicex adopt her set of principles? Who does it serve? What is its purpose? What is the reason behind it? Has she ever even stopped to question why she finds these things good or bad, why these things deter or impulse her behaviour? She's merely being indoctrinated by society to value morality, altruism, and ethics and, thus, adopted an ethical code of her own with, I assure you, the least critical assessment going into it. She's living up to social expectations that value that shit.