Do Athiests have morals?

[lewisnotmiller]

In reality you have defined your own way of life in your own dimension.

Indeed I have. There is no objective morality, although of course some people believe there is.
We all define our own way of life, within the boundaries of reality.

"I strive to treat others as I would be treated". I would not want to be treated the way "you" want to be treated. That is one sided and cruel. There are people who have weird kinds of fetishes.

Yeah. So I am not claiming that my morals are gonna fix psychopaths. Neither do yours, incidentally, but the difference is I'm not kidding myself about that, I suspect. I'm also not claiming I have the universal moral code. Plenty of others who do that, but I'm just working on me, and teaching my children.
Simple response is that I'm not one-sided and cruel. I'm sincere, polite and altogether normal. I like long walks on the beach, honesty, and strive to deserve the trust my loved ones place in me. So treating others as I like to be treated is not at all cruel, no matter how you want to twist my words.

In regards to the laws of the land, this can change anytime. So if anarchy was the law of the land would you uphold your ideals to that standard?

You're all over the place.
If the laws of the land are anarchy, then by definition there ARE no laws of the land. Therefore I would have no trouble keeping to them. You are incorrectly conflating that with meaning that my moral boundaries END at the laws of the land, which I never said. If I go to a country, I will keep to the laws, as they have been determined by society, APART from those which are manifestly unjust.
The laws of the land have little to do with my morality, but they are indicators of action. I live in Australia. We have rules against theft (I don't steal), murder (I don't murder) and doing more than 50 k/ph on the road outside my house. If all laws were dissolved, I still wouldn't murder, I still wouldn't steal, but hey...perhaps I'd drive at 60k/ph on the road outside my house.

Another issue is the idea of fornication. People hold high in morals regarding marriage. Nowadays society has started accepting the idea of sex outside of marriage does it mean that this is the best way to go?

So what? Your argument is that atheists are immoral. If you must pry on my sex life (why does it always come down to sex with monotheists?) then fine. I've had sex with one woman in my entire life who happens to be the woman I am married to, and we've had 2 kids. I've never cheated on her, and plan to be faithful and monogamous my whole life. I don't judge people by the same tenets as you do, and I'm not offering up my decisions as a measure of moral worth. I am merely suggesting that I have the 'moral strength' to live my life the way I think is right, regardless of what you might call temptation.

In addition, your 3 "rules" you have written is it based on your own premise and bias or is it documented.

Sure it's documented. I just wrote it down. Your argument, I suppose, is that your morals are objective, and laid down by God. I've had good debates with theists about that in the past, and am happy to again, but you'll have to actually justify which morals you want to run with for that to lead anywhere. Right now you're comparing what I stated to a clear God-given code, and I'm not sure which amongst the various clear God-given codes you're talking about.
And my "rules" aren't "rules". I simply stated what I try to do. I'm not perfect.

 

[Sapiens]

I think it differs when you have a belief standard that you compare to and when you are making up rules along to satisfy your needs.

That's a logical fallacy knows as a false dichotomy, there are alternatives that you are unfamiliar with and too poorly read to be acquainted with. You need to do some reading on altruism. I recommend Frans de Waal to you:

• The Bonobo and the Atheist, 2013. ISBN 978-0393073775
• The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society, 2009. ISBN 978-0-307-40776-4 (reviewed in American Scientist)
• Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, 2006. ISBN 0-691-12447-7
• Our Inner Ape. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. ISBN 1-57322-312-3
• Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies, Edited with Peter L. Tyack. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-674-00929-0.
• My Family Album, Thirty Years of Primate Photography 2003.
• Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us about Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-674-00460-4.
• The Ape and the Sushi Master, Cultural reflections by a primatologist. New York: Basic Books, 2001. ISBN 0-465-04175-2
• Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes (25th Anniversary ed.). Baltimore, MD: JHU Press; 2007. ISBN 978-0-8018-8656-0.
• Natural Conflict Resolution. 2000 (with Filippo Aureli)
• Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. ISBN 0-520-20535-9 (with Frans Lanting)
• Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-674-35660-8
• Chimpanzee Cultures, Edited with Richard Wrangham, W.C. McGrew, and Paul Heltne. Foreword by Jane Goodall. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-674-11662-3.
• Peacemaking Among Primates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-674-65920-1

If life has taught me anything, it's taught me that that when you begin a sentence with the words, "So you are trying to say...," you will automatically be wrong.

Good advice.

 

[Buttercup]

No, as an agnostic/atheist I do not have morals.

I have taught my children to lie, cheat, steal and murder their way through life. My husband commits adultery on me every Friday night while I generally stay home and have sex with the dog.

Is there something wrong with this way of life?

 

[Willamena]

I think it differs when you have a belief standard that you compare to and when you are making up rules along to satisfy your needs.

Unless you're your own standard, then you have the best of both worlds.

 

[Ouroboros]

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

I suggest you study up on sociology. Morals, mores, values, all fall into the bio-psycho-social intersections. Religion, and culture in general, is an expression of a set of social norms and values. Social norms and values can exist without religion. Hence, morals exists without religion.

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Atheists are moral, just as much as you.

And religious people can be very much immoral and antisocial as well.

 

[sun rise]

In reality you have defined your own way of life in your own dimension. "I strive to treat others as I would be treated". I would not want to be treated the way "you" want to be treated. That is one sided and cruel. There are people who have weird kinds of fetishes.
...

So by your post you also do not agree with the Golden Rule as expressed by the religions of the world

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1
Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2
Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

 

[McBell]

I think it differs when you have a belief standard that you compare to and when you are making up rules along to satisfy your needs.

Who is "making it up as they go along"?
I mean, other than yourself.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Sigh. Well first of all, and this takes up too much brain energy sometimes, is just think of the word 'atheist.' Means something like 'no god in our life' right, 'no religion here.' The term isn't important, or really shouldn't be, as some kind of leading term to define and give meaning to our lives. In other words, I am 1000 things before I am an atheist (unless declaiming religion is really THAT important to you, which I thought would be kind of rare.) Maybe for people in this forum, 'atheist' is a higher definition on that list. But they are here because they are interested in it. What I'm saying is that just think of the majority of non-religious people in general, they really don't care to even be here, what do you think of them? They are just out there, leading their normal lives, not giving this thread or this topic two thoughts. If you come up to them and start asking these questions, would they even know where to begin?

 

[Quintessence]

I do not know any person (the cognitively undeveloped notwithstanding) that lacks morals. Morals are essentially self-imposed limits on behavior based on values or norms. All humans impose such limitations on their behavior as part of being a social animal. Again, the cognitively undeveloped notwithstanding; one has to be capable of self-limiting behavior in order to have morals, and that's about it.

 

[Ingledsva]

In reality you have defined your own way of life in your own dimension. "I strive to treat others as I would be treated". I would not want to be treated the way "you" want to be treated. That is one sided and cruel. There are people who have weird kinds of fetishes.

ING - LOL! That is hilarious! And we consider some Christians weird, with fetishes, and cruel. It is hilarious that you folks are pro-life, unless it is the live children of the Bible's perceived enemies.

In regards to the laws of the land, this can change anytime. So if anarchy was the law of the land would you uphold your ideals to that standard?

ING - What does that have to do with Atheists?

People are NOT evil because they don't believe in your God!

Another issue is the idea of fornication. People hold high in morals regarding marriage. Nowadays society has started accepting the idea of sex outside of marriage does it mean that this is the best way to go?
In addition, your 3 "rules" you have written is it based on your own premise and bias or is it documented.

ING - What is it with you folks? Your religions' laws have nothing to do with people outside that religion.

Because you believe sex outside of marriage is wrong - DOES NOT ACTUALLY MAKE IT WRONG!!!

Also - obviously what YOU are writing is also based on your own bias!


*

 

[Revoltingest]

No, as an agnostic/atheist I do not have morals.

I have taught my children to lie, cheat, steal and murder their way through life. My husband commits adultery on me every Friday night while I generally stay home and have sex with the dog.

Is there something wrong with this way of life?

No, you & hubby are married, so the children are legitimate in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Looncall]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.


Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

This is silly. Just a few moments reflection will provide guides to living among other people. The golden rule, for example, is obvious.

So-called religious morality is really the antithesis of morality. Slavishly following rules and clerics is not really moral behaviour. It is even worse when holy texts are involved as these can be interpreted to support just about any behaviour. The recent acts of muslims extremists exemplify all this.

 

[HonestJoe]

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Nobody has a moral or legal responsibility to follow the teachings of a religion they don't follow (which applies equally to other religious people and people with no religion at all). That doesn't mean it's automatically OK to do anything some religion or other deems wrong just as anything some religion or other deems right or obligatory isn't automatically so.

There are (should be!) obvious practical reasons why stealing is generally wrong and I'd frankly worry about anyone who needed religious teaching not to do it. Basic moral principles are about not harming other people (and them not harming you). They're necessities for advanced social structures to work and developed as part of human intellectual evolution. In many places they have been refined, developed and codified in various temporal and religious forms, with many differences but also many common themes.

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Nothing in this post has had anything to do with atheism at all - it was a discussion of religious and non-religious morality. No word can describe the life of an individual, let alone a massively diverse group of individuals identified by any singular characteristic. No single word could describe the life of a Christian, a doctor or a vegetarian either.

 

[McBell]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Let us play your silly game:

Moral​

 

[icehorse]

Indeed I have. There is no objective morality, although of course some people believe there is.
We all define our own way of life, within the boundaries of reality.

Pure objectivity is not possible - but there are some universal morals and we could take a more objective approach to things like universal human rights resolutions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Pure objectivity is not possible - but there are some universal morals and we could take a more objective approach to things like universal human rights resolutions.

Yes, I think that makes sense.

 

[Nakosis]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

I'm leaning towards virtues as a basis for a moral life.

Things like courage, wisdom, justice, temperance. Seems to me a pretty good position to work from.

I'm sure any Atheist could use these ideas as a foundation for their moral idealism.

There's vices as well. I suppose you could judge someone immoral based on their vices.

Religion just adds to this. Not everyone is going to agree with the added moral requirements of a particular religion. Doesn't mean they've rejected all morality.

 

[icehorse]

This might be a separate thread, but we could turn this around and ask the theists:

Is your religion consistently moral? My experience is that all the major religions offer a set of morals that might have been state of the art 2000 years ago, but which are no longer the best moral ideas available. And so reasonable theists are left to cherry-pick their religions for the bits of morality that are still valid in 2014.

Examples: Christians and Muslims are both instructed to kill adulterers, the RC church behaves in ways that prefer AIDS to condoms, many Muslims think apostasy should be a crime, and both religions - even in modern times - often cry "blasphemy" in opposition to freedom of expression.

So, where do theist "really" get their morals?

 

[JerryL]

I assert that atheism (or a theist belief which does not punish immorality) is a prerequisite of moral behavior.

Imagine someone has something and you want it; but whatever morals exist tell you that stealing it is wrong. Now imagine that a police officer is sitting there watching you and will arrest you if you try to steal it.

Does not stealing the thing require morals? Or are you acting (or not) out of fear of punishment.

Only someone acting without fear of repercussion is acting purely on their morality.

But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. On any statistic I've ever seen, and acknowledging that the moral set would be different for an atheist (for example: It is immoral in Jewesh law to work on the Sabbath) , the morality of the athiest community appears to be well above the average.

 

[dgirl1986]

Im sure there are many threads, articles, youtube videos and podcasts about this.

I am an atheist and I have morals. I am not moral because i am an atheist and I am not an atheist because I have morals. I do not see the two as being related.