Where are the Morals?

[MusicLovingAtheist]

You perceive a life form as a bundle of sensory receptors. I agree.

I think that alone sounds very primitive though. I know that human beings are capable of abstract and concrete thinking. Just because we're all a bundle of nerves doesn't mean we don't have the potential to be just as grounded in reality as our biology itself.

Most atheists think that human bodies are no more than living machines. Therefore, for such people I have used that kind of language to make my point clear.

Your argument is that atheists can't be as moral because they don't fear punishment of god. That argument is actually flawed because by nature atheists can't believe in god. I assure you, I am in utter disbelief of such a thing. You seem to be under the notion that atheists can simply start believing in god if they want to, which is false, and shows your ignorance of what an atheist actually is.

You say that morals develop through living with a group of people and learning the virtues of living among others, as well as the dark side of human nature, which is selfishness, rage, exploitation, etc. You assert that although atheists are against religion, they offer no alternative to the "the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life."

I think if religion was successful and reliable then we wouldn't be having this argument.

Throughout the history, there were people who rebel against religions or against general public laws because their personal desires were unable to match with those rules and regulations.

Nice strawman. Just because some people break the rules because they're bad doesn't mean everyone wants to do that. It seems clear to me that you think atheists just don't like rules. You don't even understand what atheism is.

If religion was as useful as everyone says it is, then all we would need is religion and there would be far less problems in the world. However, we have religion. The majority of the world is religious. However, it doesn't do much for solving moral dilemmas and problems.

All problems and dilemmas are the product of people who are obsessed by their personal desires and ready to achieve their moral or immoral objectives at any cost. If someone goes against religious laws to fulfil his personal desire then why to blame religion for that. It is similar to say that constitutional laws of USA are wrong because there is so much crime in this country. Why to blame legislation?

I'm not blaming religion. I'm saying it doesn't work. Coming onto this forum and trying to convert atheists to theism (lol) will not solve the world's problems.

I, myself, being an atheist, and knowing other atheists, feel strongly that atheists are just as capable of being moral as any theist.

I have many atheist friends and I can bet they are caring and loving people and better than many religious people. In some cases, I found them following religious ethics and morals more than many religious people do. Every person has conscience. Some people obey the voice of their conscience some not.

Disbelieve in God take away the hope of justice, reward, and punishment. Without God, a person is nothing more than a meek spark in the unfathomable depth of dark space. Disbelieve in God only harm human conscience.

Again, you don't know what atheism is. People use those morals because because those morals and ethics are not exclusively religious ethics. They're cultural universals. Whatever lesson someone learns in the bible can be learned outside of the bible too.

How do you think the theists pick which stories are moral out of their book and which ones aren't? If I recall, the bible condones slavery and rape.

Bible is corrupted badly and therefore spreading lots of confusions among its followers. Second, whatever dilemmas and problems you are watching around you are because of selfish people who do not care for any moral values whether given by religion or raised on rational ground. Most of those selfish people are hypocrites and maintain dual standards.

Again, morality is not exclusively a religious thing. Neither is immorality. A person can be an atheist or religious and be immoral.

I have my own idea for why I'm moral. Whether it be learned, or inherent, I feel guilty when I do something wrong and I feel bad when I see someone else in pain. I was reading about the logical capability of dogs once. It said that dogs will never actually feel remorse for their actions. If they pooped on the floor and you come home to find them with their tail between their legs, it's not because they feel sorry, it's because they're afraid of the consequences because they know that poop on the floor = something bad will happen.

It’s a good analogy of manmade laws. Manmade laws are based on the use of force not on the use of morals.

The laws in the bible are manmade too.

As shown as this image, humans feel guilt. Obviously there is a difference between feeling guilt and simply fearing punishment. I learned in psychology class once that morality based off of fear of punishment is the lowest form of morality. I really wish that I remembered the source of that hierarchy of morality and who was responsible for the research so I could go into more detail. I think that alone shows that the whole basis for morality, by the religious standard of fear of god, is a very weak one.

On the contrary, Islam teaches fear of God and through this fear, it develops powers of self-critique in the believers. Islam also gives great hope of Allah’s immeasurable mercy and reward to those who spent their lives in the love of Him. Both love and fear of God balance human desires and emotions and helps in the development of humble character by reducing arrogance.

Islam is different compared to other monotheistic religions in the sense that it does not give false hopes to its followers. If a Muslim intentionally do something wrong then he will face the punishment. Along with the faith in Allah, good actions, especially controlling desires, are obligatory. Belief alone is not enough for the salvation in Islam. Islam commands for deeds based on moral values.

Again, you don't know what atheism is. Atheists aren't people who simply choose not to follow religion because we don't like it's rules. We don't believe that god exists. Please don't get that wrong. I see the type of punishment they have in Islamic countries. Chopping off the fingers of criminals, beheadings. It's scary and immensely uncivilized. Here in America we try to separate the Church from the state. All those man made laws that you seem to think are so faulty actually make for much better living conditions than a lot of Muslim countries.

You site authors who say that morality under fear of god is infantile. You say that atheism is only the belief that god doesn't exist. You say that atheism itself eradicates any morals given by religion and does not offer anything to fill in the gaps to replace them. You say atheism gives no grounds for morality. You say atheists practically say atheists are nihilists.

I think in a vacuum everything you say is true. Atheism does not offer alternatives to religious morality. There is no inherent laws of morality. I think if simply denying the belief in god strips away all of these religious morals, then religious morality is not very good in the first place.

How do someone expect religious morals without having faith in God? Atheists cannot have religious morals because they deny the existence of God. Atheists are not interested in religious teachings and only few atheists are interested in the study of philosophy of morals? What you think how we define the characters of atheists who have no knowledge about morals based on religion and in parallel they have no knowledge on the philosophy of morals? Most of these people are living machinelike, unemotional, and cold lives.

Religious morals are not religious morals. They're universal morals and ethics that religion plagiarizes. You describe Atheists as machine like, unemotional, living cold lives. Fuck off. That's just ethnocentric drivel.

Religious principles are morals that were adopted by religion, they were not created by religion (unless you believe that god literally wrote the bible himself).

Psalms, Torah, Gospel, and Quran are the literal words of God. I have logical reasons to believe that. It is not in the capacity of a person to write or talk about something that he cannot comprehend. In the time and place, when and where these scriptures were revealed people were not able to foresee the consequential outcome of their deeds but these scriptures not only predicts those but also issued firm commands to keep people from going astray from their moral paths. Those commands were perfectly suitable for the people of that time and miraculously these commends are perfectly appropriate for the people living in today’s scientific world. These are universal instructions, which are directed to the universal features in the human behaviour.

The only problem we are facing today is that all biblical scriptures are seriously corrupted but good news is that we still have Quran in its original version.

The Psalms, Torah, Gospel, and Quran, or any other holy book are not the word of god. They're the word of man. You act like men can't comprehend morality. You're definitely projecting.

The only thing I can think of that is exclusively a religious moral is not being bad for fear of being sent to hell.

If people are not afraid of hell then for sure they are afraid of communal penalties. Point to ponder, “people behave good because they fear.”

People behave good because they're good people and they're smart. I said earlier that behaving good because they fear punishment is what dogs do. Just so you know, all human beings are essentially the same, aside from brain capacity. This is so sanctimonious. You think you're better than Atheists because you're afraid of being punished. You're a dog.

Being an atheist myself, I know that I feel more emotions than a dog. I feel empathy and guilt and contempt and a whole range of complex emotions.

Whether or not it's nature or nurture which instills these in me is an entire discussion entirely. I think it's a little of both.

Leaders of atheism do not think like you.

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people
are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Page 133
River out of Eden
Richard Dawkins

He's quoting someone else and you likely just took that quote completely out of context. Atheism doesn't have leaders either. A lot of atheists don't even care about Richard Dawkins.

Human beings are social creatures. That is a fact, the evidence is that we all live in large groups on planet earth. Albeit the relationship with each other in large groups can be a bit impersonal, for the most part people abide by the law and society functions. It obviously works as proof that we have been sustaining ourselves for a long period of time. What strikes me as ironic is that often the more primitive societies like the ones that live in the woods are the ones who are more spiritual. For instance, a primitive tribe may have witch hunts, try to cure illnesses by praying or casting what they believe to be the "demons" out of host. In our modern society, we rely heavily on science and logic to maintain our existence. I think logic seems to be winning over superstition. It seems that the more sophisticated society becomes, the more we drive out the superstitious ways of thinking of the past.

Roots of our lives are scattered deep inside the essence of nature therefore, nature dictates the rules for our instincts and rules for our survival. We are heavily dependent over nature for the fulfilment of our needs. If people believe in superstitious beings like witches, demons, etc. that is because they are under deep influence of their own desires and this obsession normally impede their logical thinking. Such people were there in the history and these people still exist in the modern scientific world.

Why human logic works well because universe is stable and predictable. In this intelligible universe human logic, supersede everything, even science. Success of science in fact depends over human logic. Why logic is powerful because natural events are consistent. Think about chaotic universe. That universe will instantly kills the human logic.

In other words, reliability of human logic is subject to the consistency in natural events. Scientific innovations are dependent over human logic not human logic reliant over science.

Because of the evident achievements of scientific discoveries, many people get deluded about the reality of science. Like many people, who believe in the superstitious phenomenon, modern people measure science as all mighty. They have literally replaced God with science. However, as I said that human logic supersede all scientific marvels therefore the real credit for all human achievements goes to human logic not to the scientific principles.

Cosmological argument, intelligent design, and fine-tuning are the best logical reasoning for the existence of God. These reasoning do not conflict any rules of rational thinking and scientific methods

Human logic doesn't supersede science. Science is just methods of observing the universe and principles of what to base the measurements off of. Science is logic. Human minds can't supersede logic. Also, our ability to measure and understand the principles of the universe is limited to science. Science is the key to understanding the universe. The only times science and religion cross paths is when religious apologists make up theories about intelligent design. Religion has no place in science. I know that you won't understand this, because you probably don't even listen to scientists, but intelligent design is just a bunch of what ifs. It's unfalsafiable hypothesis. Intelligent design is not convincing.

To me the arguments of morality seem to be an overtly scholarly practice, reserved for philosophy classes and higher level education. The ideas are still important none the less as they are the groundwork for society. Science and philosophy work hand in hand in building societies. Religion is merely a traditional method of handling morality. Traditional wisdom does not mean absolute wisdom. As I stated earlier, fear of god is not a good base for morals. I think we need to rely more on the capability of human beings to think rationally then to tell them that they are merely animals, incapable of achieving godly wisdom. We should teach people to think for themselves. We should teach people to question themselves. I think that is the fundamental reason why religious morality is wrong.

Religion was running all communities in the pre-scientific era. Religion is controlling many communities even in today’s scientific world. As benchmark values are vital for the success of scientific exploration, similarly, absolute morals are indispensable for the evaluation of moral values for judicial proceedings and the administration of the law.

As for science, it has no concern with the morals. It only deals with the cause and effect of the material events. Science cannot explain how mind and physical body entangled together.

Whether it is the fear of God or fear of judicial penalties but fear is the only feeling that control wild human desires. Fear of God develop self-control intrinsically whereas fear of manmade punishment is distressing.

“Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen…”
Page 469
Crime and punishment
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Translated By Constance Garnett

Science builds civilizations, and morals holds them together. Science is more than just the study of the physical world though. Science also has a very deep study of people in groups and individuals known as psychology and sociology. A big part of sociology is the study of moral behavior. So you're absolutely wrong that science and morality don't mix. In my opinion you can deduct what is the highest moral behavior by looking at what morals and beliefs benefit society and which ones harm society. You know what a society run by fear is called? A dictatorship.

You site cases in which people acted under their own conviction in a way that they perceived to be moral and killed millions of people. Morality that is justified rationally through ethics allows people to behave immorally. Religion attempts to provide practical morality. Religion gives definite laws. Religion provides a larger context for existence beyond morality (i.e. why we're here) as opposed to the views of atheism, that were's "an infinitesimal moment, a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that flickers and dies forever.". You say that atheists have no basis for morality, so they are forced to look into religion for morality. Judgement day and belief in miracles are a good source of motivation to behave according to the morals of scripture which have a "rich narrative". The structure of secular morals is entirely based on religious morals which have been with humans throughout the history of mankind.

I personally would like the truth about reality, instead of anecdote (which is all the stories really are). As opposed to believing god exists and that we all go to heaven if we're good is merely a fairy tail, or to put it more respectfully, an anecdote (or part of one). I think most atheists who have developed emotions are capable of realizing that killing is wrong. You seem to be arguing that without grounds for morality people can do whatever they want. I just don't like your example because I think it leaves out the question of those people's personal character and rather focuses on their trivial lack of biblical morality. I think your assertion that secular morality is based on religious morality is backwards. Religious morality didn't just appear. It's obviously based off of preexisting concepts and ideas that were implemented into scriptures.


Religion may provide practical morality (unless you're me, who was too bored to pay attention in Church). I think that the problem with religious morality, as I said earlier, is that it is absolute, unquestionable. Religious people are literally told that they are sinners and below god. That seems to imply that morality is objective. I think morality is subjective. I know this may seem sad to some people, but in my atheistic viewpoint, I believe that when someone is murdered, the universe does not care. So it is the responsibility of human beings and our innate sense of empathy and compassion (which is something else that has been hijacked and claimed by religion) to determine morality. Since god is not here to tell us how to interpret scripture (nor will he ever be), even the bible itself is morally subjective. Interpretation of the bible varies widely and I think that's common knowledge. Some even use their scripture to make ethical moral justifications to kill other people. The bible literally says to stone homosexuals just to give one example. Some extremists even use their scripture to justify killing other people (i.e. 9/11). So not only is biblical morality subjective, it is unreliable. The scripture is unreliable, subjective, has hijacked moral concepts, and does not give people the tools to think for themselves. It is a very bad system.

Why most Christians and some Jews are confused because they are reading corrupted scriptures.

Man is below God, no doubt but man is a born sinner, is incorrect. It would lead to the idea that God love to create sinners. This idea goes in contradiction to the justice of God.

God has created every person as a neutral being and has given him the free will to choose selfish or moral way of lives. God has given man the knowledge of moral values through scriptures and prophets.

By the way, Islam also condemn homosexuality by the use of sturdiest possible notions. Legalization of homosexuality and prostitution is one of the greatest achievements of pleasure seekers of today’s world.

Selfish person whether theist or atheist use anything to his advantage, within or outside moral limits.

God doesn't exist and your condemnation of homosexuals is abhorrent. I'm bisexual and I want to sleep with another guy. I don't really care if you have a problem with it. You have no logic for being against homosexuality either. You're just against it because your book tells you it's wrong. That's servile. Think for yourself and stop being a sheep. When I say sheep I mean you just follow what other people tell you blindly.

I may have simply discredited biblical teachings like any other atheist has at this point. I think that perhaps education and open mindedness has taken use as far as we are today. As I said, logical and science has taken us further than religion has ever taken us. In fact is it responsible for the largest logical explosion mankind has ever seen in history. What has religion been responsible for? Wars? Witch hunts? Bigotry? Destroying the library of Alexandria and setting us back 1000 years? If you want answers to the problems of the world, don't look to religion. Look to the people who are making the world a better place. Look to the atheists who are already living without religion who are living healthy, productive, morally justifiable lives that coincide with the peacefulness of society. Look to the scientists. Look to the forward thinkers. Look to yourself and question your notions of morality.

Read Quran. It teaches logic. Look at the life of prophets, which is the ideal example for a moral life.

For your information, all of the scientific benefits that you are enjoying today, Muslim and Christian scientists were the one who explored and developed that science. Atheists have done very little in the development of science. Most of their activities emerged in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when atheist took readymade principles and laws developed by Muslim and Christian scientists and made some cosmetic modifications in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chr...in_science

Most scientists today have grown out of the childish notions of religion. Perhaps most scientists used to be religious, they didn't know any better. If you think atheists have done little to develop science, you're ignorant as hell. Look at Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. The advances we have made in the past couple centuries are immeasurable compared to the discoveries of ancient cultures, which is where I wish I could ship you to (in a time machine).