Do Atheists lack morals....or ethics?

Is it fair to say that Atheists are immoral or unethical?
My answer would be , "No!"

If you know that everything you do counts while you live, it seems to me you try to do your best. If you believe it all gets "fixed" after you die, why bother being moral and ethical?

And morals than someone who relies on religion and people like Pat Robertson to dictate to them what's right and wrong. Just my 2 cents.

Atheists don't blow up people for mythical sky Gods.

talking to Atheists/Agnostics because their language is so fundamentalist. Same mentality, same rhetoric, and same desire to cling to what they think is concrete.

Very, very dull.

any more than any Christian is a fundamentalist. I'm an Agnostic -- because I don't KNOW -- and on some days an Atheist, because I think -- what God would let babies die of cancer?

But I realize that many smart and empathic people do believe in God, and have struggled with the same questions that I have and come to different conclusions. I respect that.

honestly...talking to them is exactly like talking to a fundie. They cling so tightly to ideas they want to believe in, and ridicule people who don't agree with them, or have spiritual views.

It's really just a drag to even talk to them sometimes.

btw---I am a religion major, and I don't have a clue in hell as to what I think is "true."

:toast:

that was cool.

ethics or morality.

True morality is a strong inner sense of right and wrong. It is not about God, it is about what is inside each person, a moral compass.

that people feel like they have to do "good" because otherwise God will punish them. But you should want to do good because it's good, period. If you do something good under duress -- only because you're afraid God will smite you-- then I don't think it counts because you didn't really want to do it. An atheist or agnostic who does the right thing just because it's the right thing is more ethical, IMO, than somebody who acts only because they think God is making them do it.

I have said for some time that if it was somehow proven to be beyond a doubt that this Creation was the product of the biblical God and that His plan, as dictated in the Bible was the Truth... I would devote my life entirely to a vow of poverty, work tirelessly in the service of others and forgo as many physical pleasures as possible... I would eat bread and water and other bland food... I would forsake all things that would give me pleasure, spending my time volunteering in the humble service of humanity... and every night before my tired, beaten body would go to sleep... I would curse the God that I knew was the Father... the Sadistic, Childish, Selfish, Brutish God. Throughout the day, I would curse this Sadistic God, as I worked to feed, clothe and shelter my siblings.... and I would wait with curiousity for the day that I passed off this mortal coil to see this Asshole of Father's verdict as to where I should spend eternity. I shall leap joyfully into the Lake of Fire before ever being a sycophant of such a Cruel, Arrogant, Sick Bastard of a God.

Lake of fire vs. sycophant.

I vote sycophant.

.
.
.

The only "category" I could even come close to fitting in to would be the "Agnostic" one - that basically means I'm not SURE if there is a "supreme" being or "deity"

I have nothing against any particular secular following, until I find that it encourages something that I find disgusting.

As a child, I was confirmed as an Anglican at the age of 14, but that was what I was "supposed" to do being a good offspring.

I sang in church choirs at a United Church and an Anglican Church at the same time - practices were 3 times a week between the two.

Before I left home at the age of 16 I was further exposed to Quaker's Groups, a "friends" group and others I can't remember. My mother was in a flip-flop in a search for religious comfort and dragged us children into it with her.

While I lived in California in the late 70's, I was further exposed to the Baha'i faith and Scientology.

And of course I've had the Jehovah's Witnesses at my door

I DON'T HAVE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS CORRECT!

There are so many "religions" in the world that I could not possibly study them all with the in-depth concentration they deserve, and then make a reasonable decision.

So I basically just try to be "nice" and sort of use the ten commandments as my number one guide for that.

Seems the USA Administration has added a clause to that "Thou shall not kill" one with an "amendment"

(sigh)

Take Buddhism, for example. The point there is that life is sorrow because of desires in this world of constant change. So one lets go of desire. In some mystical Christian,Hindu and Sufi schools, they talk about training the ego, not about rewards and punishments. In Sufi schools, the point is to remove the veils that seperate you from God. God doesn't reward or punish; we do that ourselves by our thoughts and actions. One Sufi teacher said once that the only sin is to take a breath in forgetfulness, and the only grace to take a breath in remembrance of God. The goal of the mystic is direct personal experience with the One today, right now. And getting there has very little to do with what some term "right" and "wrong", and is definately not done out of fear or in hopes of getting a reward.

There's no "god" to punish you if you do something "he" doesn't like.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama once explained to a group of Sufis the difference between Buddhism and Sufism this way:

In Buddhism, nothing is.

In Sufism, everything is.

Same thing, no difference.

From "The Voter's Paradox"

http://perspicuity.net/sd/vp-brf.html

Could it be that human society is so constructed that to survive, morality is necessary? An intriguing thought -- a nonreligious basis for morality! And a powerful one: either we cooperate or we face a total destruction of civilization as we know it.

For more on this issue, see essay, "A RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR".

http://perspicuity.net/common/moral3.html

Cultures that allowed murder, etc., didn't last long!

Natural selection applies to populations, not individuals. Therefore, its influence should be seen in the survival of the population (culture), even at the expense of the individual.

Morality is about abnegation and self-sacrifice. It is about putting the societal needs above individual needs. In other words, it is not enough to stop from committing murder. One must be willing to sacrifice the self for the benefit of others. Even if there is no individual reward in an afterlife.

I'm not sure that evolution favors the sacrifice of the individual life for the group all the time. Because the individual is the carrier of the group DNA. And there aren't many instances (some, of course) that require that the individual sacrifice *life* for the group. After all, each individual is equally important to the group.

However, individual behaviors that benefit the ENTIRE group would definitely be evolutionarily favored: caring and sharing, for instance. If a group contains individuals who share their bounty (but keep enough for themselves to survive, and get more resources) that group will succeed.

Evolution is a force. It does not care one way or the other.

But altruism is one strategy among many. It works for some species. If we measure success by biomass, then the hymenoptera are the most successful order in the animal kingdom (ants, termites, wasps, bees). Yet they are truly social animals wherein reproduction is a specialized function and not all individuals pass their genes down directly. It is a glass-half-full paradigm. If I have no direct bloodline, but my siblings carry half my genes, then I have an interest in protecting their bloodline. And so on, and so on. In such a hierarchy of interests, the survival of kin trumps the survival of stranger, and the survival of the species trumps the survival of other species.

I am not advocating altruism as a survival strategy. Evolution does not need an advocate; it simply is. We may feel as if survival of the individual is paramount in evolution, but that's all it is, a feeling. If we die, so that our kin may live, we win.

I believe that moral behavior was rewarded by the other women and an individual could not succeed alone and could not breed. This is why women are negotiators and intuitive.

natural selection applies to individuals, not populations. It is individuals passing on their individual sets of genes that matters. The idea of "species" is a human abstraction; survival of a species is not something that matters to evolution. Other members of a species are in direct competition for resources on the level of individuals. For one person to pass on their genes, another may have to fail to pass theirs on, or be taken out of the running "violently".
Rape exists, because successful rapists directly pass on their rapist genes. Genes for murder and theft, etc. while less so directly passed on, still exist as the result of evolution, not in spite of it.

In sexual species, where eggs and sperm fuse to form zygotes, each parent contributes 50% of its genes to its offspring.

Thus, the probability that a parent and an offspring share a copy of a particular gene that is identical by descent is .5.

This quantity is r = the coefficient of relatedness.

The point is that offspring are not the only relatives sharing copies of the same genes by common descent.

Full siblings are equally related. So their survival is equally beneficial to an individual, than the survival of offspring.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/altruism.html

I find it interesting that you dismiss "species" as a human abstraction, yet use the human abstractions of evolution and natural selection to support your position.

you're talking about the individual passing on his/her own genes through their duplication in his/her relatives. Thus behavior can evolve that passes on their own genes, even if the individual himself is not the one reproducing.
You need to read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" which was one of the original books on sociobiology that established these ideas.
There is no such thing as group selection, or selection at the species level. Any rare combination of events that might lead to it would be easily superceded by selection at the level of the individual.
By "abstraction" I meant that the "species" is something that is seen by human intelligence, but is invisible to evolution, evolution only acts on individuals. A species is a large number of individuals that have genes similar enough that they can breed with each other, but always on the edges are individuals that are genetically diverging into something new and different enough that eventually they won't be able to breed with the others. So a species is a human abstraction, depending on where you want to draw the line of genetic difference. Yet evolution and natural selection are not just abstractions, but are real processes that occur, and would occur without a human intelligence to see them happening.

IF morals are derived from god, anything god commands MUST be moral.
So, if god commands you to murder that would make murder "moral".
Since I would still find murder immoral, my morals obviously don't require devine inspiration.

NO.

guidelines.

Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, secular (e.g. Humanist) and philosophical communities who share concepts and beliefs, by which people determine whether given actions are right or wrong.

wrong, then that is part of their moral code. If another person believes abortion is a personal decision, i.e. pro-choice, then that is a part of their moral code.

I know people who are devout Christians and they follow one or the other of the just stated positions on abortion. Obviously one group is wrong in believing their position on abortion is soundly based on the Christian Bible.

The same inconsistency exists within most religions regarding what is right or wrong and certainly between religions. When one adds atheists to the discussion a real fracas develops.

It's interesting to ask philosophers to start with a blank sheet of paper and develop a moral code for society that is not dependent on some belief in a divine being. Of course there are many papers and books written on that topic.

The problem Christians have when denouncing some other person's moral code is that Jesus taught "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" (Luke 6:37)

thinks a fetus is a "baby". To me...a fetus is not a baby.

of what's right or wrong can divide and polarize society. Republicans have used a few issues like that to win the last two presidential elections in spite of the fact that the neo-con dominated Republican agenda is against most policies and programs that would help the working masses.

I have several atheist friends who live their lives closer to the teachings of Jesus than other friends who proudly shout their membership in Christian churches.

Among the basic rules of a moral code that transcend religion and is accepted by most atheists is the following.

I have several atheist friends who live their lives closer to the teachings of Jesus than other friends who proudly shout their membership in Christian churches.


They always have the idea in their brain that all that they have to do is say...."Jesus, forgive me" and everything's okay. They take their religion for granted.

world, they believe they are right even though their perception of what is right is at odds with the denomination they profess to follow.

For example, the United Methodist Church says:
QUOTE
We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ. We therefore reject war as an instrument of national foreign policy, to be employed only as a last resort in the prevention of such evils as genocide, brutal suppression of human rights, and unprovoked international aggression. We insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them; that human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities; that the militarization of society must be challenged and stopped; that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned. Consequently, we endorse general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
UNQUOTE

The odd thing is George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church but he does not follow the moral code of the UMC as expressed in "The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004" cited above.

is $$$$$$$$$$$

That is about life also....and revenge.

morality
2 entries found for morality.
To select an entry, click on it.
moralitymorality play

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

That would be my answer, from personal experience of course! :hi:

The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles

* We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
* We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
* We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
* We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
* We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
* We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
* We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
* We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
* We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
* We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
* We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
* We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
* We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
* We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
* We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
* We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
* We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
* We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
* We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
* We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
* We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

More:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

They only think they do. Just My Humble Opinion

Morals....or ethics are actually a culturally learned construct.

Ethics is fundamentally grounded in religious precepts learned from your culture, regardless of the culture.

There are no atheistic cultures in the world, so there are no atheists, only agnostics who think they are atheists

Just My Humble Opinion

they just never grew out of having imaginary friends as a child.

Just My Humble Opinion!

Sid

Not everyone feels the need to be a part of a group

I do believe that there is a higher being than myself in this universe. Since about 99.9% of the rest of the world thinks likewise, I would say there is probably something to it.

Of course 99.9 of the world could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Only the profoundly arrogant would assume we are the end of all things. Life has taught me otherwise. I would bet it has taught you the same.

But, you know, keep makin' em up to buttress your arguments, Jack.

would think that 99.9% of the world agrees with him.

About anything.

I don't think you've been paying attention in class if that's what you think life has taught you.

... "Of course 99.9 of the world could be wrong, but I doubt it."

:eyes:

I don't think you have any concept what I believe in, and that's okay. But it isn't sky people. Maybe that's why you're an atheist, because you think the only other option is sky people? Hell, I'd rather be an atheist than believe in sky people!

I am personally not quite that simplistic in my beliefs.

I think it was a reaction to the intolerance and disrespect that deluded individual showed us.

that post went past poking y'all with sticks. That post was the equal to putting a cherry bomb up your butt.

Sorry for my childish metaphors..I teach middle school.

:spray:
You are a riot!

You need the childish metaphors in this forum, not to mention the patience of a teacher.:D

:hi: Hey, Grannie!

it's arrogant. MOrality and ethics are not the products of religion.

Read closely what I wrote.


It is impossible for someone not to pick up religiously influenced culturally precepts.

You can not prove otherwise.

Answer this: Why are the 10 commandants or some similar moral / ethnic rules almost universally reflected in every culture.

If you're talking about the "10 Commandments", half of which have little or nothing to do with "morals or ethics" beyond Thou shalt have no other Gods beyond me --- please- explain to me how they are 'universally reflected in every culture'.

If you're talking about rules and guidelines for how people treat each other, there are totally logical reasons why any successful culture would have 'em. Reasons which don't have diddly squat to do with "God", Charleton Heston, or any kind of ethnic commandants.

Determined by genetics as in every other species of animal on the Earth? I mean, that would seem to be the obvious answer.

And, of course, that is putting aside what the other responder brought up about some of the "commandments" being far from universal and far from a moral code.

one of these moments:

They only think they do. Just My Humble Opinion

Morals....or ethics are actually a culturally learned construct.

Ethics is fundamentally grounded in nonreligious precepts learned from your culture, regardless of the culture.

There are no religious cultures in the world, so there are no believers, only agnostics who think they are believers

Just My Humble Opinion

You can keep having that opinion of yours, but here I am.

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - the Dude.

They only believe they do. Just My Humble Opinion.

There are no theists until others train them to be such, so there are no theists, only atheists who have been indoctrinated into believing they are theists.

Just My Humble Opinion

implies, a STRONG ATHEIST, and therefore positively deny the existence of ANY gods (unlike the weak atheists), your opinion that I and the other atheists aren't atheists, we are only stupid enough to think we are is COMPLETE UNADULTERATED IGNORANT BULLSHIT. I will return the compliment by KNOWING that you are not a theist, you are only think you are and are too ignorant to realize you are really an atheist (turnabout is fair play). Just MAO.

:rofl:

--IMM

I forgot to save that one for the next "Atheists are imagining the intolerance" thread.

You don't have to answer that.

--IMM

(Taps self) Yep, I'm here. Deal with it.

Just sayin'.

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS
Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933*

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.


Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

* Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the American Humanist Association—© 2003 American Humanist Association

More:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

My ethical standards dictate that I do not lie, steal, kill, or cheat, unlike the Republican lunatics ruining this country. Every atheist I have known in my life has answered to high ethical calling.

The insane, lunatic fundementalists are responsible for this slanderous lie that atheists are somehow lacking in morals or ethics. They are so brain-washed in their ideology that they demonize all who do not abide by the fundementalist lies, distortions, and equivocations.

I can live with my conscience but I have a hard time justifying living with those certifiable loonies.

however I have to say that I had never come across any fundamentalists either in person or online who are demonizing atheists, in particular. I've heard moaning about secular societies, but not atheists, per se.

Unfortunately, the people who live near this guy can't say the same:



And he's not even the worst of them.

but atheism just has never been a factor in my life until I got here and had fun poking at them with a stick and being poked back! But I know a few anostics, a few atheists and more than a few fundamentalists (living in the Bible Belt) and it just hasn't been an issue.

That's an awful sign. "lunatic atheists AND THEIR LAYWERS"? WTF?

Actually, they always have, but now that they have their puppets in positions of power, (say that three times real fast) it's getting worse.

We need to be militant to protect ourselves.


Oh, and the mouth breather's billboard is referring to the ACLU, the defenders of the Constitution that the zealots they're defending it from love to hate.

what leads people to that level of irrationality. I have to believe is is a function of intelligence..or lack of it.

Have you read the article in Maat's thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x62063

Very enlightening.

And horrifying.

He's probably funded by some notorious rightwing whackos.

What these people lack in ethics, they more than make up for in money.

Lots of profit in the hate business, don't you know?

Robertson has to be a billionaire by now.

Look at who's in charge of our country.

Any "collateral" he had was handed to him at gunpoint by sheep too stupid to know there wasn't really an army of islamic boogiemen hiding in their closet.

You're a'talkin' about my relatives (the sheeple)!

Hubby gets the privilege of going to visit them for 3 days (the visit involves a 50th anniversary party; he is keeping it to a bare minimum, traveling all the way from California to Tejas/Oklahoma).

One of those "Oh, look at the time!" visits.

"Maat? Oh, she's SO busy with work and everything, you know how it is. She's terribly upset she couldn't join us."

When my ex used to complain he was running out of stories, I just offered to tell his mother the truth.


:evilgrin:

There are things that are not ethical or moral regardless of rather you believe in God or not. Some religious people don't have morals at all.

So Atheists are no more inclined to be unethical or immoral than 'believers'.

Morality existed before religion and it will exist long after we finally give up the fairy tales.

Sigh. You know, I really work hard to respect everyone's belief or lack of it. I could come up with all kinds of pat, smug phrases about people different than I am, but I consider that bad manners and disrespectful. Fairy tales implies that I (as a believer) am a childish idiot. I assure you I am not.

(is there a name for that)... meaning i am against organized
religions of all kinds... I find them to be corrupt
and unethical power-hungry hierarchies that
have little to nothing in common with the deities
they supposedly serve. I think priests... whether buddhist
or catholic are the epidome of hypocrisy.
On top of all that... I do believe in God.. and consider
myself a christian. Whether God thinks likewise.. who knows.

I just ain't buying into the smarmy sanctimonious sycophants
who profess to speak FOR god. They are either NUTS or CROOKS.
And to your question... Atheists may be MORE moral and ethical
than anyone else... at least they are honest.

organized religion has "hampered" the personal testimony of Christ. It probably has hurt more than helped.

but I have to believe that it takes a lot of courage to finally decide you are one. Perhaps with some there is a sense of loss. It is a scary thing in today's world where most people espouse some level of belief. I think it is a decision that must entail a whole lot of soul searching. Well..bad choice of words. You know what I mean.

to have decided there is no god. So they've probably given more thought to questions of values and ethics than the run-of-the-mill believer. There's an old story about a young Jew who worried so much about his inability to believe in God that he finally went to the village Rabbi in the middle of the night to tell him he'd decided he didn't believe in God. The Rabbi put his arm around the young man's shoulder and said "bless you, son: you are closer than ever to God."

If anything, I think their lack of belief might lead them to do a lot of self-examination to establish their personal moral code. If you don't inherit one, you have to come up with one. You don't get it by default.

And certainly not the atheists I've met on DU. An extremely ethical and moral passel of atheists!

because I believe we cannot grasp the enormity of the universe and its deepest mysteries. Revealed religion is a farce, a hoax, an example of humans trying to explain things that we have not the capability to truly grasp.

Unshakable belief in something for which no evidence actually exists in not a sign of morality, but of something else entirely.

And as far as our troubles the ascendent "God" doesn't see fit to address or repair...it's because these are OUR problems, and our duty to fix. We have been given incredible tools, mind, heart, and hands, by some eldritch deity or by the mindless advance of natural selection...where morality exists is how much effort we put into using these tools for the benefit of all.

Ethics-a set of principles of right conduct (American Heritage Dictionary online; first of three definitions)

I believe every society comes up with certain principles of what is "right" and what is "wrong". Though many societies couch these principles in religious terms, I don't think that the principles themselves are inherently religious in nature: for example, not murdering or stealing from others are principles that good for any orderly society, religious or not.

Morals-Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character (same source; first of three definitions)

By this definition, subjectivity comes in-something is judged "good" or "bad". Again, the subjective criteria may come from religious institutions or simply from secular sources-what really matters here is what group decides upon the criteria and whether or not the individual agrees with the subjective judgement of that group.

By these definitions, then, it would seem to me that whether or not atheists or believers lack morals or ethics must be determined by looking at each individual and their particular situation.

Good heavens, you have to read the text under the subject line to realize that you're using blanks!!!!! :evilgrin:

are more ethical and moral. they take responsibility for their actions and are good because it's right, and not because a preacher, rabbi or iman told them to be.

"Morality" is a set of rules or behavior based on what some "authority" says is proper. It is appeal to authortiy, and since most in authority do it for their own interests, the morality is equally self serving. They don't have to make sense, or lead to any justice, they just are whatever the authority says they are. There is no "why?" the rules just are because the authority says so. The authority is often himself above the laws he sets down, whatever he decides on his whim of the moment, is law. Nazis were the most moral of people, they had a code, which they followed to the letter, so what if it meant genocide, that was the rule of their morality. The 10 commandments are a primitive and depraved set of rules, property laws, that applied only to the men of their own group, while other groups of people were fair game for any atrocity, theft, or murder. It is the inherent pathological nature of moral rules that allow a priest to molest a child, then confess to another priest, and be forgiven, then go molest another kid.
Ethics are based on reason and logic. They make sense, because they are a coherent system, one rule follows logically from another, and contradictions have to be reasoned out to see which rule applies or is more important in a particular case. The Constitution of the United States is one example of a system of ethics. If it is wrong, then it is wrong for a reason, it can be logically argued as to why, and what it is based on. And if it is wrong for one, it is wrong for all, including the highest and most powerful leaders.
American children grow up in a confusion of the heritage of both an irrational religious tradition and a rational system of law. Many never realize the contradiction, or examine for themselves what is right and correct, and their reaction to an issue, if never before examined by them personally, is consequently emotional and confused, rather than logical.
Athiests grow up seeing irrationality and insanity all around them. They often do have to come up with their own system of ethics, by rejecting the unprovable and illogical and irrational, and trying to make sense of what remains.

on starting a thread that had very limited poking sticks in the other fellows eye - and indeed it had more of the good exchange of thought that should be the hallmark of DU than most threads in R/T

and have no particular belief that holds them in common - there is no way to know what any individual thinks about "ethics" or "morality" and whether their sense of "ethics" and "morality" are in line with any other atheist or non-atheist or not.

Someone posted some things about Humanism - but that doesn't answer the question - since there is no way to know if any particular atheist follows humanism or not - unless (s)he says (s)he does and acts accordingly.

While it is not fair to say that "Atheists are immoral or unethical" - atheists not being a group - it is also not fair to say that they follow any particular ethics or morality, either.


I believe that most people want to live in a environment of mutual respect - but some people clearly don't and it doesn't make sense to assume that everyone does - regardless of her or his religion.


You could ask "Is it fair to say that Americans are immoral or unethical?" The answer would be that some are. Same with atheists. Same with Christians, Jews, men, women, whatever.

It's not a belief system, just a lack of belief in gods.

After about a million posts ensuring that the definition of atheism is not believing in a deity, and nothing else, how can one now make a generalization about such a group, if it is a group?

By, of course, complimenting them. Because nobody ever got in trouble in DU for making generalizations about atheists as long as the generalizations were complimentary.

No, and No.

until and unless some atheists want to congratulate themselves on being better than religious.

Then it's defined as "better", and not surprisingly, by the parties being defined.

it is my choice.

It's not exactly the stuff of logic or subject to contradiction. It's your choice, so....there you go.

"An atheist is defined as not believing in aN ALLEGED deity" is more accurate, since the other way begs the question that a diety exists that we choose not to believe in - which, of course, is not the case.

(Unless someone finally has some objective evidence of these gods I keep hearing about.)

As far as "better", I've never defined myself as a better person for being an atheist. A better person that, say, a racist or a homophobe or a bigot, yes, but that has nothing to do with atheism itself.

when you find it convenient. But unless you have some objective evidence, we'll just have to say that you allege yourself to be "better".

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...except perhaps as better than racists or bigots. But that's a no-brainer - any decent human being thinks of themselves as better than such people, and they're right.

I'm happy to say I'm better than a racist or a bigot, but it's not based on my atheism, just on not being human scum.

Is it fairness your concerned with, or do you dislike anyone who calls themselves an atheists. I mean, people on DU who believe in god have come out and told they think they are better than us, we are going to burn in hell, etc. How come you never call them out?

"They only think they do. Just My Humble Opinion

Morals....or ethics are actually a culturally learned construct.

Ethics is fundamentally grounded in religious precepts learned from your culture, regardless of the culture.

There are no atheistic cultures in the world, so there are no atheists, only agnostics who think they are atheists

Just My Humble Opinion"

This is what a poster previously said. This is extremely offensive...in essence, telling us we are "deceiving ourselves". Now, thats what he thinks...and I'm just fine with him posting it. Whatever, I can defend myself. But if I posted (and I may very well have) that christians or theists are decieving themselves, well....ta da da da ...here comes Captain Inland to the rescue.

I don't know what you believe or don't believe. Mainly because you never come out and actually discuss anything, instead choosing to react to the posts of people who aren't even TALKING to you. And when they do respond to you, you just alert or ignore.

Why don't you just chill out? Everyone thinks they are better than everyone else. Atheists, theists, christians, muslims....hell, I think I'm about twice as smart and 3 times as good looking than any mother@#$% on this site. Your gonna be spending a lot of time denouncing people if you respond any time something thinks they are better (although, again, your denouncements are decidedly one sided so maybe not that much time)

Evoman

p.s. I think people are starting to get along here....the last thing they need is a Captain Piss on People's Posts to stir things up.

<< the last thing they need is a Captain Piss on People's Posts to stir things up. >>

I suspect that some folks would prefer that you didn't notice such things... much less, draw attention to them. :thumbsup:

:eyes:

he keeps going and going and going, but he won't go away.

Anyone who does say that atheists are "less moral or ethical" is direly misled (a very strong understatement).

We atheists completely lack morals. Thats why other atheists and I routinely try to kill as many believers as we can. I killed two yesterday. Why do you think the crime rate is so high. ATHEISTS! Who do you think is responsible for all the buses blowing up. ATHEISTS! Who do you think is responsible for all the crimes agaisnt humanity. ATHEISTS. Darfur? Atheists! Iraq? Atheists. The congo? ATHEISTS! The pedophile priests...atheists trying to use religion as a cover-up. McVeigh? Atheist. Stalin? Atheist. Bush, Osama, Cheney...they are all really atheists who pretend to be christians.

In fact, if all the atheists would just accept religion, maybe we wouldn't be such huge a criminal problem. We reject all god, we reject morality.

We are not only intellectually and morally inferior to theists, but studies have also shown that we tend to have smaller penises. Girl atheists are huge skanks who will sleep with anyone for money. Its true!

Evoman

:wtf:






That was supposed to be a secret!

You've just given away atheists' deepest, darkest secrets. Now the freakin' FBI is going to be on my doorstep tomorrow morning about those things....

Thanks for blowing my cover. :eyes:

Nobody is going to believe in our secret Atheist Cabal just because we talk about it on the internet. They will think its all a joke hahahahahahhahahahahah

Now I'm gonna go eat me some babies. Buh bye.

If you don't knock it off, they'll Google Evil Atheist Conspiracy and you know what will happen then...

:rofl:

Pardon me while I hide some bodies.

That's really what gives fundies the vapors, that we're unabashedly nekkid underneath our clothes.

"really what gives fundies the vapors"

GO!! PUT BABIES ON SPIKES! YOU'RE FREE!!


Cake or death?
Cake please.

I had such a helluva time in the 1980s when I got born again and tried witnessing to my husband and showing him what a great new-improved version of his wife I was since being imbued by the Holy Spirit, because darn it, my husband is a much nicer person than I am.

In all fairness, I am not sure he is an atheist; he just doesn't think about God at all.