Do atheists believe in the distinction between Good and Evil?

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would be lazy or worse, though. And it could not come with the claim of "divine obedience".

No, just objective truth for morality.

 

[Soandso]

No, just objective truth for morality.

If objective morality is a thing, why do so many cultures have different ideas of what morality even is? That one mever made sense to me

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If objective morality is a thing, why do so many cultures have different ideas of what morality even is? That one mever made sense to me

It is psychology in short.

 

[HonestJoe]

So, my question is addressed to atheists: are good and evil notions that exist regardless of God's existence?

Atheists don't have the same opinions or beliefs beyond the lack of belief in any god or gods. Not even all theists necessarily believe in a singular god which defined good and evil.

The terms "good" and "evil" obviously exist but they're varied and largely subjective terms in general. Even people who believe the definitions come from the same source (e.g. the Christian God) will often disagree on specific interpretations or applications. Ultimately, everyone defines and applies them in their own way, regardless of whether they believe in any gods or not.

 

[Soandso]

It is psychology in short.

Is it, though?

Even with psychology, there are patterns we can recognize that are cross cultural, like personality disorders and specific mental illnesses. Not so with morality, which seems far more connected to cultural norms and identity

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it, though?

Even with psychology, there are patterns we can recognize that are cross cultural, like personality disorders and specific mental illnesses. Not so with morality, which seems far more connected to cultural norms and identity

No, find Lawrence Kohlberg.

 

[Soandso]

No, find Lawrence Kohlberg.

Oh, thanks for the info!

 

[LuisDantas]

No, just objective truth for morality.

That is something of a strawman, you know.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting.
So atheists could explain them even better than theists, right?

In a way, yes. In divine command systems there's not much to explain. God lays down the rules, no explanation of His reasoning or purposes needed. Obedience is good, disobedience is bad.
Atheists have to think about it, and come up with their own principles, generally based on consequences or utility. Atheist morality is functional, flexible and explainable.

 

[Curious George]

In a way, yes. In divine command systems there's not much to explain. God lays down the rules, no explanation of His reasoning or purposes needed. Obedience is good, disobedience is bad.
Atheists have to think about it, and come up with their own principles, generally based on consequences or utility. Atheist morality is functional, flexible and explainable.

I think this is true for some religions but not all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is something of a strawman, you know.

Well, there is at least one philosophical system that claims that.

 

[Valjean]

Good and Evil exist because of law; tree of knowledge of good and evil. Law defines what is not acceptable and what is acceptable, with fear and punishment used to help people avoid the evil defined by law.

For example, in the US, which has 50 states, marijuana laws differ from state to state. It is evil in some states and not evil in others depending on the state's laws. Evil is not innate but conditioned by law and its choice of enforcement.

I think of good and 'evil' as more robust than local and temporal human whims. Laws may define legal and illegal, but not good or evil.

The PC crowd may define prayer in schools as illegal and therefore evil, with punishment like suspension for daring to break the law. In this case, the true evil comes from those who are intolerant

The teacher could get suspended?
You do realize that anyone is free to pray in school? The only thing forbidden is prayer as part of the curriculum; as an official school activity.

But this will be called good, by the law. Law of man often conflict with laws of God. Laws of God; universal, defines fundamental principles of good and evil. Victimizing others for a victimless crime is worse than the victimless crime, even if the former is legal and called good, and the later is called evil; illegal.

But aren't many religious rules pointless, or condemn people for victimless crimes, or themselves victimize?
Q: Every religion and sect seems to have its own idea of the universal laws of God. Which one is right? How do you know?

Atheism actually have created more evil than religion since the laws of religion are older and come from a simpler time, so there are fewer laws.

Both older and attuned to maintaining very different social systems, with different goals and values.
Many "simple," old religions seem to have some pretty intricate and numerous laws, as well as laws governing more areas of behavior than most modern interpretations. The Torah, for example, contains 613 mitzvot, mandating all sorts of odd restrictions and behaviors.
Atheist behavior, on the other hand, directly addresses human interests, and details can be modified to fit new situations.

Atheism is more modern and through government and separation of church and state, non religions have added orders of magnitude of more laws of good and evil, thereby amplifying evil and good.

Why do you say lack of belief is more modern? Was belief in God once universal? When did atheism arise?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Atheist behavior, on the other hand, directly addresses human interests, and details can be modified to fit new situations.

...

There is no atheist behavior for morality. It is the lack of positive beliefs in gods, that is all.

 

[syo]

The word atheist means to believe no deity exists. Or that there is no such a thing as God.
Ergo...it's human beings who create, make up such deities: it's all in their brain.
So men need to explain good, evil because there are things which exist in man's mind, regardless of any deity.

So, my question is addressed to atheists: are good and evil notions that exist regardless of God's existence?

Can I reply? I am a theist.

 

[Valjean]

There is no atheist behavior for morality. It is the lack of positive beliefs in gods, that is all.

This is true, but atheists are people, too, and make choices that have moral implications. Absent a lawgiving God; absent some divine rule-book, all choices are their own, and mediated by their own lights.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Abrahamic religions seem to try to enforce good and evil from without, and not letting us use our conscience and judgement on our own from inside. Sometimes the religious laws were good for that time and place, but they don't translate well to other locations and times in history.

Unless damaged, we all come with an in-born conscience as a guide for right and wrong.
That is why even nations who do Not have the Bible do the things of the Bible such as murder and stealing are wrong.
Jesus' New Commandment to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he has transcends all laws. - John 13:34-35
We are now to love neighbor MORE than self. More than the old Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is true, but atheists are people, too, and make choices that have moral implications. Absent a lawgiving God; absent some divine rule-book, all choices are their own, and mediated by their own lights.

No, not all atheists. There are non-religious people, who in effect claim objective morality. God is not the only way to do that.
It is in effect a certain psychological way of doing it.

Now let me explain it to you in general terms. There are no objective positive evidence for certain words and that is not limited to religion.
So in general the following rule apply to subjective and objective for the following class of claims.
Everybody can claim something is objective, as long as how they act, work for the world as such.

So here it is for what goes on in the formal sense for how to observe that:
As long as these 3 humans don't try to do something objective, which is not possible all 3 behaviors and be observed:
#1: I know for objective, that X is Y and not Z and therefore we ought to act in a certain manner.
#2: I know for objective, that X is Z and not Y and therefore we ought to act in a certain manner.
It can the be observed that neither case is objective and then both in effect use that to justify how to act.

That apply to both these 2: The universe is physical or from God. There are other examples for how some atheists do that. Note some!!!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, not all atheists. There are non-religious people, who in effect claim objective morality. God is not the only way to do that.
It is in effect a certain psychological way of doing it.
Now let me explain it to you in general terms. There are no objective positive evidence for certain words and that is not limited to religion.
So in general the following rule apply to subjective and objective for the following class of claims.
Everybody can claim something is objective, as long as how they act, work for the world as such..............................

To me that ' psychological way of doing it ' comes from one's inborn conscience ( an inner witness bearer acting within bounds of human decency )
People of the nations that do Not have biblical law still do by nature the things of the law as being a law unto themselves - Romans 2:14-15
Do not steal, do not murder, etc.
A hardened conscience can become so calloused like unfeeling flesh seared by a hot branding iron. Who'd what the conscience of a serial killer.
An ignored or damaged conscience (moral compass) can color match the environment like a chameleon and one could turn out like one's surroundings.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is true, but atheists are people, too, and make choices that have moral implications. Absent a lawgiving God; absent some divine rule-book, all choices are their own, and mediated by their own lights.

.... and unless damaged, all come equipped with an in-born conscience. A moral compass of human decency to know lying, stealing,murder is wrong.
So, to me one's nature is Not absent, and to me one's nature comes from God whether acknowledged or not. - Romans 2:14-15
( Remember too the Constitution of the Mosaic Law was only ever given to one nation to follow: the nation of ancient Israel )
We can choose to ignore one's moral compass thus one can be accused or excused in mediating about something.
One can use one's own light or compare one's light with Jesus New Commandment to have self-sacrificing love for others as he has (John 13:34-35)

 

[viole]

The word atheist means to believe no deity exists. Or that there is no such a thing as God.
Ergo...it's human beings who create, make up such deities: it's all in their brain.
So men need to explain good, evil because there are things which exist in man's mind, regardless of any deity.

So, my question is addressed to atheists: are good and evil notions that exist regardless of God's existence?

Good and evil for morally relevant situations, is like tasty and disgusting for culinary relevant situations. Emergent responses of a conscious brain when confronted with some state of affairs, or exposure to food. As a matter of fact, they are just boolean values that have no intrinsic nor universal value whatsoever. There is no good and evil that is independent from biology.

Those boolean outputs are issued as response to situations in order to elicit a response of the ape who felt it.

and in the same way there is no need of a divinity to explain the ontology of disgusting things, we do not a divinity to feel what is wrong.

they are, in other words, evolutionary traits that evolved in our brains to optimize survival chances, in an ecosystem where we are totally dependent from our fellow apes, and need therefore viable rules of engagement that stabilize said apes society, while promoting cooperation and resource sharing.

ciao

- viole