Question for Atheists

[Autumnlicious]

Morals are behaviors. If morals aren't real, then neither are behaviors. See how silly that seems?

However, if we recognize that morals aren't absolute by careful observation of nature and applied logical thinking, then it becomes obvious that, like shaking the hand of everyone isn't a good idea (as it offends in some cultures), it depends on the society and circumstances you are in.

Atheists are just more prone to recognizing that there are few absolutes in life, and morality, like etiquette and politics, is not one of them.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Hey, I'm a christian who's simply just wondering what atheists think about the subject of morality. I'm not gonna twist ur answers and try to preach at you or anything, so please don't be defensive or anything. It's just that I have been thinking about morality, and I wonder where atheists believe that their moral values originate from?

My personal values originate from a combination of my upbringing, societal law, and several aspects about how I think - both what I am and am not aware of in that part of my morality is a function of my personality and thought processes.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

First of all, religion is certainly a pile of bullshit

Oh dear another one who wants to have his cake and eat it. A self described Christian who claims religion is bullshit. Christianity is a religion.It's irrelevant whether you identify with a particular sect.


Sorry, your credibility is zero. Bored now.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion;(1 )particular systems of faith and worship (the Christian,Muslim, Buddhist religion) (2) Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and esp of a personal god or gods entitled to obedience and worship;effect of such recognition on conduct and mental attitude. (Concise Oxford dictionary)

[16three-john]

I realize that what I said wasn't exactly what I meant. A christian is simply a 'follower of christ'. I do not like calling christianity a religion, because of what it implies, and the stereotypes that are automatically put onto christians. What I should have said is that I have a problem with modern day organized religion, and the common christian's religiosity. I follow what the bible says, not some hierarchy of priests, bishops, etc. Man has transformed the christian religion and has really changed it since biblical times. Hope I explained myself better

[Justtristo]

we are programmed to behave altruistically towards family members and friends

what exactly do you mean by 'programmed'? Like, we're born with a sort of moral understanding?

Well human behavior has a genetic component to it, behaving altruistically towards family members and friends is in our genetics.

---

I realize that what I said wasn't exactly what I meant. A christian is simply a 'follower of christ'. I do not like calling christianity a religion, because of what it implies, and the stereotypes that are automatically put onto christians. What I should have said is that I have a problem with modern day organized religion, and the common christian's religiosity. I follow what the bible says, not some hierarchy of priests, bishops, etc. Man has transformed the christian religion and has really changed it since biblical times. Hope I explained myself better

The New Testament actually has have a blueprint on how the church on earth's structure should be. With the offices of bishop, along with that of elders (presbyteros in Greek) and deacons.

[theVOID]

Morality is an evaluation of how our intentional behavior impacts our fellow sentient beings. It is not something that can be objectively measured, as in you can't plug numbers into a spreadsheet to determine the course of action that produces the highest number of moral units.

False, values can be calculated. They're all only really one thing. Desires, and they are brain states. which are quantifiable.

The closest that any philosopher has come to measuring morality objectively was Jeremy Bentham who advanced the utilitarian ethic, by which morality could be measured by the promotion of the sum total of pleasure in the universe and reduction of the sum total of pain. Even this approach requires some subjective judgment, as measuring pleasure and pain are almost subjective by nature.

You've been under a rock for the past 200 years it seems. Pleasure Utilitarianism was a step in the right direction, but his case for "pleasure" being the object of moral evaluation was flawed.

And if we assume for the sake of argument that pleasure is justifiably to be used as the object of evaluation there is nothing at all subjective about it, pain and pleasure are brain states and they are quantifiable things. Just because it may be difficult to gather data does not mean than the principle is subjective any more than our inability to measure with precision the distance to other galaxies makes that measurement subjective.

A belief in God does nothing to make moral issues any less subjective. Saying "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unsatisfying an answer as to why something is moral as "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying an answer to matters of science. Such simple statements don't fully and satisfyingly answer the whys and hows. If something is moral because God says so, then morality is by God's decision and therefore still relative to God's judgment.

I disagree, Divine attitude theory solves these problems. Sure it's completely void of substance as far as support for the argument goes, but if it were true you couldn't call it subjective.

Saying morality is subjective is not to be confused with amorality or "anything goes". It is to admit the issue is complex and requires judgment.

Subjective == Opinion
Good in Opinion == I like

What new information does the word morality bring? None... You can't get to shared values through opinion, so morality has no meaning in this context.

Personally, I live by three commandments which I feel measure morality well enough: act with integrity, respect the rights of others and take responsibility for your actions. I came by these rules by my own analysis as to why I react negatively to some things, that is thinking something is "wrong" "evil or "immoral". Typically, things I find immoral are violations of these three rules. I have yet to find any exceptions and will add more to that list if I do.

That to me sounds like "I don't like == wrong" where "I don't like" is your three arbitrary standards of evaluation.

You sure you aren't a nihilist in disguise?

I will say, in a rare praise of Christianity, that Jesus' admonishment that we do unto others as they would to us, essentially empathizing with others, is an excellent rule. The reverse, expect not from others what we aren't willing to do for them, is also useful. Such rules touch upon the very thing that morality is an evaluation of.

Not so fast, the golden rule long predates Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Antiquity

And would you like to expand on that last part?

If Christians would spend more time adhering to that "golden rule" and less time trying to force their beliefs on others (an ironic violation of that rule), I think we'd all get along much better.

Indeed.

[Shell B]

For me, quite simply, morality is a matter of sympathy. I have felt pain, so my "morals" don't allow me to inflict pain on other people without a measure of guilt. I can imagine someone losing their mind, so my "morals" cause me to be understanding of mental illness. I have been a child and love children, so my "morals" cause me to be kind to children. I guess that is the easiest way I can explain what I feel about "morals." I do sort of hate this conversation in general because I don't really think it bears mentioning in the context that most Christians think it does. The whole monopoly on morality thing gives me the willies.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hope I explained myself better

Nope ,your explanation contains a no true Scotsman fallacy.(look it up) You remain a religious person,committed to faith and dogma.Sorry I still don't care about your personal superstitions. Still no credibility.

Even more bored now.

[HigherLvlofThinking]

I realize that what I said wasn't exactly what I meant. A christian is simply a 'follower of christ'. I do not like calling christianity a religion, because of what it implies, and the stereotypes that are automatically put onto christians. What I should have said is that I have a problem with modern day organized religion, and the common christian's religiosity. I follow what the bible says, not some hierarchy of priests, bishops, etc. Man has transformed the christian religion and has really changed it since biblical times. Hope I explained myself better

But why be a follower of Christ? Why be a follwer of the Bible whos gerneral moral code is down right insane? I mean yes there are a few things like love thy niegbor and do not kill, but how many other prophets have said the same thing? Jesus wasnt the only one that has apperntly done miracles. Buddha has said alot of the same famous things, and Buddhism is thousands of years older then Christianity. So Christianty isnt anything original.

[downbeatplumb]

All that atheism requires is the lack of belief in god or gods. As such it has nothing to say on personal morals.

Saying that, not having a diety to blame/follow puts the onus on the individual, so atheists actions are ther own and they cannot blame the devil or god for thier actions

I'm just a bit confused by what exactly you're saying. Are you saying that atheists think morals aren't real? Or that they don't matter? Or that athiests ignore morality? I just can't tell which it is, again I'm just trying to understand

No I'm not saying that morals dont exist, or that they dont matter, just that atheism has nothing to say on the matter.
All atheism is a stance of the existance of a deity, individuals morals are outside of this and up to the individual.