In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[paulpablo]

Not getting our morals from someone who claims to be a moral authority. But asking this about atheists is a category error, as they same question would be if asked of theists (you'll get different answers depending on what god they believe in). On this forum, most of the atheists are humanists, who use their brains to figure out what is most moral based on what has the best outcome for human thriving.

*emphasis mine*
Really?

on this forum:

Some atheists were defending a gay man buggering an under age boy.

Another atheist has stated there 5 people she'd like to kill if she knew she could get away with it.

Another atheist claimed if he lived back in the day, he'd happily participate in chattel slavery.

(I assume you disagree with the above?)

Clearly examples of why an individual's brain isn't capable of deciding what's moral.

I also say you would happily participate in chattel slavery back in the day.

An individuals brain is pretty much incapable of not deciding what's moral at least to some degree.

Children have been fucked, people killed and slaves taken in the name of god too, people deciding what's moral with god added doesn't necessarily equal progression with moral attitudes.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So far atheist have determined themselves as being their own moral authority, which is interesting seeing how it's the epitome of anarchy; "Do as thou wilt"...

Can I ask why you said 'atheist' and not 'atheists' when you meant to use the plural?

[robvalue]

What is an athiest's moral authority? What puts them on the same moral page?

Huggy. How do you know that you have chosen the right moral authority if you cannot decide for yourself what is morally right or wrong?

Many atrocities have been committed throughout human history by people who have outsourced their morality to a higher power like you. Whether that higher power is a government or a religion. Many people have used the excuse that they were 'just following orders'. Your religion is not the only one. Nor is the culture that you were raised in. There are many other religions and cultures, like the Taliban in Afghanistan who follow different moral codes and commit what the rest of the world consider atrocities but which they consider moral because their holy book tells them to. Or look at any fascist, proto-fascist or authoritarian government that use exceptionalism to make people think that conquering other lands to steal their resources is a morally good to the point where they give their lives to do so (e.g. the British empire, currently the US, WWII Germany etc).

How do you know that your moral authority is not lying to you?

By outsourcing your moral authority you are at best amoral and just blindly following orders. At worst using it as an excuse to be immoral.

Right. Theists do what atheists do. They decide what they consider to be moral and immoral. It's just that they justify their choices differently. Repeating what someone else told you is moral, and their justification for it, is still a choice.

Even if you removed all the atheists, you'd be left with millions of theists who disagree to smaller and larger degrees on morality.

---

PS: Is it a good idea to let some authority tell you what is moral and immoral? I'd say no, but again that's a personal choice. The positions can either be defended through reason or they can't; "so and so said so" is just a vacuous appeal. Especially since we don't know what "God" actually thinks, even if there is one, because he is conspicuously absent. I wouldn't care what his edicts were any more than I'd care about any humans. They still require justification, or I'm going to ignore them.

But then, morality to me isn't about scoring points or pleasing an authority.

[Homeless Nutter]

So far atheist have determined themselves as being their own moral authority, which is interesting seeing how it's the epitome of anarchy; "Do as thou wilt"...

Can I ask why you said 'atheist' and not 'atheists' when you meant to use the plural?

I think I can explain that. It's because Huggy is a dimwit.

[possibletarian]

Kind of a hard question to answer, since "religion" is a super broad term. It depends on the religious beliefs and what morals/values it espouses. It can be a force for either good or bad, depending on what the morals and values are. Atheism doesnt espouse any particular morals or values, it is just a term to describe lack of belief in God, and says nothing about morals/values one way or the other.

In the U.K. when someone says the word religious' the vast majority will be thinking mainly of the Abrahamic religious giants like christianity and islam, some will spare a though for the lesser known ones. To almost all it will mean theism of some type.

I suspect it's the same in the U.S. too when people talk about religion.

---

It always amazes me when theists think the moral authority argument is such a powerful one. Why would you need an objective moral authority ?

Morality is simply a code of behaviour that has evolved for the common good, and changes from country to country, from religion to religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I am but indifferent honest..."

[possibletarian]

What is an athiest's moral authority? What puts them on the same moral page?

Same moral page as who. the guy who wants people to be stoned to death for rubbing two sticks together on a Sabbath, ?
Seriously let me make this absolutely clear

We do not want to be on the same page as your murderous bible, no, not ever !

It's so obvious that it was written with the animalistic moral's and basic understandings that existed at the time that it can be dismissed out of hand.  I suspect even christians wouldn't want to live under the 'perfect' moral's of the bible.  Which is why 'Grace' made it's appearance.

You can sin, and blame it on your sinful self, Romans 7:20
But if I do what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

Instead of really dealing with what is wrong they simply ask forgiveness, after all it is not really yourself who does the sinning.

That is why people think athiest are more moral in the UK, it's not that they are better people it's Because they don't make excuse after excuse and then carry on as if nothing had happened. It's a con, grow up and deal with the things you do.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

PS: Is it a good idea to let some authority tell you what is moral and immoral? I'd say no, but again that's a personal choice. 

It can certainly be useful.  We do this with children all the time.  Our authority is a shortcut that provides a quick answer to a moral calculus that may be beyond a persons ability to do at some point in their development, particularly to questions that really do have important consequences regardless of their individual ability.  When it's important to get it right even if they don't yet know why.

Thing is..that only has merit when we have reason to believe that an individual has a lessened or compromised moral agency.  We expect our children to grow up and.one day, be able to do that moral calculus for themselves without reference to the crutch of our parental authority.  If they grow up and..as adults..can only field the "because my daddy saidso" answer to the question of why some thing x is wrong....we've failed them, and they are..themselves..moral failures.

This has always been the utility of moral authority from on high, whether that lofty place is the state, our mommies and daddies, or the great big daddy in the sky. To an extent, we maintain those authorities even as adults particularly because our moral agency -can- be compromised at any moment..even if we're usually capable of seeing the problem and it's solution. When we want something so bad that we suddenly lose all moral sense. I think we've all wanted something, at some point..that we know is wrong, even if we can square the circle in our minds in the heat of the moment.

That's the long answer to "what puts atheists on par with theists, morally" - there is no equivalence. A committed theist espousing any flavor of divine command is a committed moral failure. They are perpetual children with a stunted moral agency. There can be no confidence in their ability to suss out right from wrong, whereas we can have high confidence that they will click their heels, shout jawohl, and take all the young girls for themselves..whenever that command comes down from heaven.

Thankfully, most of them are not so committed, despite their constant pious professions to the contrary.

[I_am_not_mafia]

---

PS: Is it a good idea to let some authority tell you what is moral and immoral? I'd say no, but again that's a personal choice. 

It can certainly be useful.  We do this with children all the time.  Our authority is a shortcut that provides a quick answer to a moral calculus that may be beyond a persons ability to do at some point in their development, particularly to questions that really do have important consequences regardless of their individual ability.  When it's important to get it right even if they don't yet know why.  

Thing is..that only has merit when we have reason to believe that an individual has a lessened or compromised moral agency.  We expect our children to grow up and.one day, be able to do that moral calculus for themselves without reference to the crutch of our parental authority.  If they grow up and..as adults..can only field the "because my daddy saidso" answer to the question of why some thing x is wrong....we've failed them, and they are..themselves..moral failures.

This has always been the utility of moral authority from on high, whether that lofty place is the state, our mommies and daddies, or the great big daddy in the sky.  To an extent, we maintain those authorities even as adults particularly because our moral agency -can- be compromised at any moment..even if we're usually capable of seeing the problem and it's solution.  When we want something so bad that we suddenly lose all moral sense.  I think we've all wanted something, at some point..that we know is wrong, even if we can square the circle in our minds in the heat of the moment.

That's the long answer to "what puts atheists on par with theists, morally" - there is no equivalence.  A committed theist espousing any flavor of divine command is a committed moral failure.  They are perpetual children with a stunted moral agency. There can be no confidence in their ability to suss out right from wrong, whereas we can have high confidence that they will click their heels, shout jawohl, and take all the young girls for themselves..whenever that command comes down from heaven.

Thankfully, most of them are not so committed, despite their constant pious professions to the contrary.

Or I suspect some of them are psychopaths who honestly have no understanding of morality and never will, so they do need rules to live by. You can spot these psychopaths when they ask what's stopping an atheist from going out murdering and raping. If they have to ask that, then it's clear that they don't understand why people voluntarily choose to behave ethically.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, for that matter, that some people don't have to make any choice at all.  The first and most common reason for my not raping and pillaging has nothing to do with any choice I make.  

Just don't wanna. I'm not a pillaging rapist. I leave that business to god's chosen people and their divinely mandated moral sensibilties.