In the article I will discuss, why an atheist who adopted a moral way of living is more vulnerable to immorality compared to a religious person. But, before I go further, two points I want to make here. For me there is no difference between any religious person who does not follow his religious laws and rituals and an atheist. Secondly, I would keep myself refrain from going into intricate details of morality and keep my focus purely on the reasons why a person can be moral or immoral.

I perceive human body as an interface comprises of different sensory receptors. The job of these receptors is to collect and process data from the outside world into meaningful information and provide sensibility to a person. Life is intelligent as it can receive data, read data, understand data, and issue commands based on data. This interpretation of data is in fact the cause of feelings of pleasure and pain in people.

Pleasure and pain is the core of all human activities, in general. Every person desires pleasure, joy, and comfort in his life and everyone put the utmost efforts to escape pain, anxiety, and discomfort. Here the exception goes to the concept of sacrifice where embracement of pain is premeditated.

MORALS
Now the question is why rational beings (humans) should live a moral life. Short answer to that is because humans are dependent beings. A person cannot be tailor, engineer, doctor, teacher, etc., at the same time. Man finds his personal fulfilment only in relations with other people. Why be good? Because being good--living virtuously--is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life.

Morals develop through the needs and the fulfilment of those necessities, in human life. I can say moral is the innate quality of each person. However, there is a black side to this scenario.

Human nature, in favourable circumstances, is also clearly constructed for icy selfishness cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage and a range of other less desirable traits. So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts?

Although atheism fails to answer this dilemma, it sternly criticise morals based on religion by undermining the fact that religion is the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life.

Some have argued that a morality based on obedience to a divine will is ‘infantile’ (Patrick Nowell-Smith 1966); others see it as ‘prehuman’ (Erich Fromm) or ‘bad faith’ (Simone de Beauvoir), or as promoting a ‘loss of self’ (Karl Marx).

However, these condemnations do not have any validation because atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God, which instinctively eradicate any moral rules given by God. Conversely, atheism has nothing to offer to fill this moral gap. Maximum it says:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

By Logic Atheism gives no ground for morality. In atheism when you look at the bottom of the universe there is no good there is no evil there is no justice and DNA is just is and we dance to its music. By definition, this undermines all morality.

The message one may draw from this knowledge is this: You have a limited number of days, hours, and minutes. Therefore, you should strive to fill each of those days, hours, and minutes with meaning. You should strive to fill them with learning and gaining comfort, joy, and pleasure as much as you can.

Therefore, living in an Ethical and rationally governed society would afford everyone the best chance of achieving any rational plan of life, including immoral ones. Transgressors are often actually socially and legally rather morally, prim apart from their own immoral behaviours. In effect, they are civil freeloaders, happy to endorse morality and law for others while selectively exempting themselves from them.

People can and do have rational plan of life that include desires to achieve things that they morally ought to refrain from doing. For example,

Joseph Stalin kill 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong kill 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler kill 20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek kill 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin kill 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo kill 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot kill 2,397,0003 people

Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end. So, insofar as Ethical Rational justification uses the motivation to realize rational plan of life, any rational plan of life, Ethical Rationalism would, at least in some instances, legitimize immoral rational plan of life.

In contrast to atheism, religion give definite laws for a moral life. The relationship between religion and morality is important for questions of practical moral decision. Religious ethicists have a long record of attempting to relate theory to practice in moral discussion. The ability of a moral system to provide practical guidance is especially important during times of extensive moral confusion.

Religious activity extends, of course, well beyond the range of specifically moral concerns. Religious scholars have typically insisted, however, that religious teachings provide the larger context in which the claims of morality find their proper place.

Compare religious teachings to the infinite stretch of time, and think that person will cease to exist, that he will be no more but an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.

Critics of religiously based moral perspectives undermine the fact that Religious teachings are narratively rich. These narratives provide the believer with an expanded sense of what is morally possible: the belief in miracles and a Final Judgment, and a sense of access to divine sources of strength and blessing, can have an important impact on moral motivation.

Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance. There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.

On the other hand, I believe that whole structure of morals in secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that had given knowledge on human values in a systematic manner and people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.

Please listen to this inspiring talk by Alain De Botton (an atheist) on how religion is important for Atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

First, your asserting there is an absolute moral law(s). Second, the data is not on your side. For example, the atheist prison population is about 1%. Third, atheism is not a world view, so it doesn't provide a moral code to live by. Secularism and humanism are atheistic world views. So your effectively arguing a straw man.

---

First time to make the first reply. Kinda excited.

You start off fine, but then devolve to typical religitard stupidity pretty quickly.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: In the article I will discuss, why an atheist who adopted a moral way of living is more vulnerable to immorality compared to a religious person.

Evidence indicates the opposite.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: For me there is no difference between any religious person who does not follow his religious laws and rituals and an atheist.

There is a big difference - the former accepts religious laws as correct in principle but doesn't practice it, the latter realizes that they are bullshit in principle and in practice.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Secondly, I would keep myself refrain from going into intricate details of morality and keep my focus purely on the reasons why a person can be moral or immoral.

So, you want to talk about morality without establishing it first - seems like a fine basis for moving the goalposts.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Now the question is why rational beings (humans) should live a moral life. Short answer to that is because humans are dependent beings.

The shorter answer is "we can think".

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: A person cannot be tailor, engineer, doctor, teacher, etc., at the same time.

More importantly, the capacity to think means that now he requires a conceptual guide for his actions.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Why be good? Because being good--living virtuously--is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life.

The corollary would be that if being "good" according to your moral values (meaning, consistently following its tenets) does not result in a fulfilled, self-actualized life then there is something fundamentally wrong with your system.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Morals develop through the needs and the fulfilment of those necessities, in human life.

Remember this for future reference - If morals develop through the needs and their fulfillment, then an objective and rational analysis of those needs and an understanding of ways to fulfill it is sufficient for a moral code. One does not need to look elsewhere for morality.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: I can say moral is the innate quality of each person.

You'd be wrong. While a person's needs may be innate, the fulfillment depends on external factors and thus the resulting morality cannot be innate.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Human nature, in favourable circumstances, is also clearly constructed for icy selfishness cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage and a range of other less desirable traits. So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts?

By use of reason. By, like I said before, an objective and rational analysis of needs and an understanding of ways to fulfill them. The instincts that serve the purpose are good and those that do not are bad.




Until now, you were doing okay. From here onwards, you start spewing typical uneducated religious bullshit.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Although atheism fails to answer this dilemma,

It never attempts to answer this dilemma, so it'd be surprising for it to succeed.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: it sternly criticise morals based on religion by undermining the fact that religion is the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life.

That's because its not a fact - it isn't the only institute and the rules it delivered are inefficient and irrational.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Some have argued that a morality based on obedience to a divine will is ‘infantile’ (Patrick Nowell-Smith 1966); others see it as ‘prehuman’ (Erich Fromm) or ‘bad faith’ (Simone de Beauvoir), or as promoting a ‘loss of self’ (Karl Marx).

Correctly so - and those are the charitable opinions.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: However, these condemnations do not have any validation because atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God, which instinctively eradicate any moral rules given by God.

Not instinctively - rationally.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Conversely, atheism has nothing to offer to fill this moral gap.

That's because it never promised such a thing to begin with.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Maximum it says:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

That would be an invalid conclusion.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: By Logic Atheism gives no ground for morality.

Nor should it.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: In atheism when you look at the bottom of the universe there is no good there is no evil there is no justice and DNA is just is and we dance to its music.

Actually, in atheism, when you look at the bottom of the universe, all you can say is "can't see a god, so religious morality is bullshit". Things like good, evil and justice are still out there and atheism says nothing of them.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: By definition, this undermines all morality.

No - just your supposedly "god-given" morality. Other types of moralities are still standing.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: The message one may draw from this knowledge is this: You have a limited number of days, hours, and minutes. Therefore, you should strive to fill each of those days, hours, and minutes with meaning. You should strive to fill them with learning and gaining comfort, joy, and pleasure as much as you can.

That is not a valid conclusion.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Therefore, living in an Ethical and rationally governed society would afford everyone the best chance of achieving any rational plan of life, including immoral ones.

That's assuming that the ethics in question are themselves rational - otherwise, you cannot have an ethical and rationally governed society without major contradictions.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Transgressors are often actually socially and legally rather morally, prim apart from their own immoral behaviours. In effect, they are civil freeloaders, happy to endorse morality and law for others while selectively exempting themselves from them.

Except, in a rational and ethical society, you cannot endorse morality for others nor can you exempt yourself from the law.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: People can and do have rational plan of life that include desires to achieve things that they morally ought to refrain from doing.

Only if the morality you refer to isn't rational.

Refer back again: "Morals develop through the needs and the fulfilment of those necessities."

A rational plan should obviously cater to those very needs and their fulfillment. Why, then, would it be contradictory to morality?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: For example,

Joseph Stalin kill 42,672,000 people
Mao Zedong kill 37,828,000 people
Adolf Hitler kill 20,946,000 people
Chiang Kaikillshek kill 10,214,000 people
Vladimir Lenin kill 4,017,000 people
Hideki Tojo kill 3,990,000 people
Pol Pot kill 2,397,0003 people

Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end. So, insofar as Ethical Rational justification uses the motivation to realize rational plan of life, any rational plan of life, Ethical Rationalism would, at least in some instances, legitimize immoral rational plan of life.

Any evidence that their plans were rational? That their so-called values were logical? So far, all you've shown is that ethical rationalism would've indicated their goal to be irrational - not provided any justification for it.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: In contrast to atheism, religion give definite laws for a moral life.

Just not a rational one.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: The relationship between religion and morality is important for questions of practical moral decision.

Except, religious morality is not practical.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Religious ethicists have a long record of attempting to relate theory to practice in moral discussion.

And failing.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: The ability of a moral system to provide practical guidance is especially important during times of extensive moral confusion.

And impractical moral systems, like religious morality should be rejected outright. Which is what atheism helps us do. Then we can look to other philosophies to provide a practical moral system.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Religious activity extends, of course, well beyond the range of specifically moral concerns. Religious scholars have typically insisted, however, that religious teachings provide the larger context in which the claims of morality find their proper place.

An unsubstantiated "larger context", which is simply an shoddy attempt to make their impractical morality seem practicable.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Compare religious teachings to the infinite stretch of time, and think that person will cease to exist, that he will be no more but an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.

And what good will that do?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Critics of religiously based moral perspectives undermine the fact that Religious teachings are narratively rich.

No, we don't deny that they are narratively rich - just that those narratives have any bearing on reality.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: These narratives provide the believer with an expanded sense of what is morally possible: the belief in miracles and a Final Judgment, and a sense of access to divine sources of strength and blessing, can have an important impact on moral motivation.

The correct word would be an unrealistic sense. And unrealistic considerations have no place in developing a practical morality.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct.

Correct. We find our alternate models elsewhere - some look to cultural norms and others to philosophies.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance.

Nonsense - we have plenty of philosophies to choose from. Many of them predate your religious morality. Why the fuck would look we for guidance in something that we consider baseless and nonsensical?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.

There are plenty of them - starting with different schools of philosophical thought and ending with political ideologies.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: On the other hand, I believe that whole structure of morals in secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that had given knowledge on human values in a systematic manner and people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.

Utter and total hogwash.

Religion simply issues moral commands without giving them any rhyme or reason. By their nature, they are arbitrary, absolutist and often unreasonable.

It has always fallen to philosophers to come up with systemic forms of moral systems which are often co-opted by religions.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Please listen to this inspiring talk by Alain De Botton (an atheist) on how religion is important for Atheism.

Does he repeat the same bullshit as you?

Quote:Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance. There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.

Oh, we've got no alternative, do we? Funny, because you gave one at the top of your post:

Quote:Now the question is why rational beings (humans) should live a moral life. Short answer to that is because humans are dependent beings. A person cannot be tailor, engineer, doctor, teacher, etc., at the same time. Man finds his personal fulfilment only in relations with other people. Why be good? Because being good--living virtuously--is the only way to a fulfilled, self-actualized life.

This is it. Our evolutionary niche is sociability, and group dynamics. We have evolved to depend on one another, the richness of our lives, as you so rightly pointed out, is based upon our ability to form societies full of people who specialize. We do well because we are afforded the luxury of having people who can just teach, or just bake, or just practice medicine, because we cooperate rather than the opposite.

Hence, a rational, scientific moral system is designed around keeping the group afloat and healthy. Things that benefit thinking agents are good, things that hurt them are bad, and those things can occasionally come into conflict, which is where we must weigh one against the other. It's not easy, but it mostly works.

And incidentally, it also precludes the actions of that list of dictators you, for some reason, decided to bring in. I always like it when a theist says a bunch of stupid things and then includes the rebuttal to all of them in his own post.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: However, these condemnations do not have any validation because atheism is only a belief in the non-existence of God, which instinctively eradicate any moral rules given by God. Conversely, atheism has nothing to offer to fill this moral gap. Maximum it says:

"Obey your evolutionary instincts,"
"Respect your brain chemistry," or
"Follow your mental wirings"

I wanted to at least give you a fair chance to argue your point, and I guess I still did, but I initially stopped reading after the part listed above. If your argument is based on this straw man then you will have to revise it. Atheism does not 'say' anything other than that there is no convincing reason to believe in gods. I would like to point out the existence of atheistic religions, the existence of which categorically refutes your base argument. You seem to be arguing that atheism is an inherently amoral position; however, it only relates to one very specific issue, and so morality does not fall under its domain.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: In contrast to atheism, religion give definite laws for a moral life.

But are they good laws? Why have laws simply for the sake of having them? There are compelling reasons to be moral even in the absence of religious dogma, but dogma, by its very definition, is unopen to revision. Bad dogma will never be fixed, but freethinkers can come up with moral rules without being forced to conform to arbitrary guidelines. You see the absoluteness of religious laws as their greatest strength, but they too were created by humans; their absoluteness is also their greatest weakness.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Their rational plans of life-involved goals, such as genocide, were the integral part of their rational plan of life, and hence doing that had the highest value for them; but it does not follow that they morally ought to have pursued that end.

And yet many religious groups over the centuries have justified genocide by their own moral laws. The in-group? Treat them well. The infidels? Off with their heads!

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Atheism abandon the scriptures without providing any alternate model for moral code of conduct. Hence, atheists are left with no other choice than to peek into religion in pursuit of moral guidance. There is no academy in the secular world that gives awareness on morals in a scientific way.

So we're going to pretend that non-religious moral philosophy doesn't exist now?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: On the other hand, I believe that whole structure of morals in secularism is based on the religious teachings because only it is religion that had given knowledge on human values in a systematic manner and people have enjoyed the wisdom of morals based on religion throughout the human history.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you invalidated your entire argument here. It isn't so much religion as religious morality that you are claiming is necessary, meaning that an atheist who follows the moral laws in question would be no less moral than a religious person who did so. An atheist may reject the concept of a god, but this does not mean that s/he must also categorically reject religious moral teachings. That's the beauty of not being religious; you can pick out the good parts of religious teachings and reject the bad, rather than categorically having to accept them all.

"But how would you know what was good or bad in the first place?" you might ask. Well, how did the people who first invented religious laws know? There is no reason to think that religious morals are necessarily superior to secular ones.

Funny how the concept and feelings of empathy are not explored in the OP.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: The message one may draw from this knowledge is this: You have a limited number of days, hours, and minutes. Therefore, you should strive to fill each of those days, hours, and minutes with meaning. You should strive to fill them with learning and gaining comfort, joy, and pleasure as much as you can.

Catholics and Shiites will be glad to hear they can take off their cilice and stop the self flagellation. Not so much those that suffer from algolagnia.

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: By Logic Atheism gives no ground for morality. In atheism when you look at the bottom of the universe there is no good there is no evil there is no justice and DNA is just is and we dance to its music. By definition, this undermines all morality.

Personally I'm not looking to define a code or law for myself. We already have the law of the land for guidance. Why should I look for yet another barrier to my ability to act spontaneously and with empathy in the world?

I'll leave that to the OCD driven among us like yourself, Harris. Personally, I've managed to win my trust. I don't need a set of operation instructions for getting through my day. I always thought that was sort of the point of being alive.

Many Buddhists are atheists.

And religious morality usually distracts us from the real issues e.g focusing on the separation of the sexes instead of combating poverty

I'm not seeing how "we develop our system of moral and ethical behavior as we learn" is somehow less desirable than "we get a rigid set of instructions that we must blindly follow."