In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Rayaan]

Morality is a very broad and also (IMO) a very complex issue. It can be looked at from a what I call a "deep structure" and from a "surface structure" point of view.

On the one hand, a lot of things that we know to be moral or immoral are already a part of our ingrained conscience. But at the same time, this is also partially influenced by and in many ways interrelated to the external sources of learning such as our parents, religion, society, culture, etc. If we focus on the latter aspect only, the problem with this is that it causes people to have a strong bias to think that they are good or moral, just because they follow all the rules. However, I think that the deeper aspects of morality are actually hidden from us and they are more ambiguous than we might think they are. It is quite easy to rationalize your actions to yourself and others, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you did the right thing, based on the situation, the person, and so on.

I think that morality is also a moment-to-moment thing. It encompasses every second of our lives and how we deal with our own selves as well, not just with others. It's not just about actions but also possessing a certain state of mind, intention, etc. Many people including theists tend to develop a superficial sense of morality because they (in some degree) become desensitized to the more intrinsic, spontaneous nature of wanting to do what's good.

As far religion goes, I don't think it really changes a person's basic nature. Rather, religions just seem to magnify how people already are. In other words, people who are good, religion makes them better. People who are bad, religion makes them worse.

I thought I'd put in my 2 cents on this topic (granted, not the OP in particular) since you guys were discussing this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does religion make a good man better, though?  In what way, by what means? No quibbles about it making a bad man worse.

[Angrboda]

Theists will argue, in defense of changing mores with regard to, say, slavery, that there being a source of moral values doesn't necessarily imply that we will have an unfailing ability to determine what those values are.  The former is a question of moral ontology rather than moral epistemology.  That there are varying opinions about what is moral does not imply that there is no such thing as a moral truth.  Both theists and atheists make this point, so your questions are unenlightening.  Moreover, if morality is relative rather than objective, morals may change over time or among different contexts.  That doesn't mean that there isn't a source of morality underlying their determinations.  Perhaps what you mean to say is that atheist morals are arbitrary.  That may be the case, but even if so, they are no less arbitrary than the morals of a theist whose God pulled his or her specific moral rules out of their ass.

Christian moral code:

1 Love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength
2 Love thy neighbour as thyself.


There is none other commandment greater than these. - Mark 12-31

Do you have a problem with the above?

Do you understand what the word 'arbitrary' even means? Whether I have a problem with either of them is irrelevant to the question of where these morals come from. You asked where atheist morals come from, and I'm asking you where God's morals come from. Where, besides his ass, did God derive the morals he advocates from?

[Rayaan]

Does religion make a good man better, though?  In what way, by what means?  No quibbles about it making a bad man worse.

Well, it's not too surprising that people generally absorb and react to information in ways that are congruent with certain innate values or qualities that they already possess. A lot of theists feel that there are sound and effective moral principles in their religion for socializing, bonding, and loving others, and so for them there is more emotional encouragement and motivation to enhance themselves. It strengthens their desire to do good and help others.

But ultimately the moral values of a religion cannot possibly be regarded as having an actual categorical reality or existence all by itself, except until someone acts upon them and thereby causes it to become real, because morality is always subject dependent, and hence "good" and "evil" are both acts of creation.

[Huggy Bear]

Christian moral code:

1 Love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength
2 Love thy neighbour as thyself.


There is none other commandment greater than these. - Mark 12-31

Do you have a problem with the above?

Do you understand what the word 'arbitrary' even means?   Whether I have a problem with either of them is irrelevant to the question of where these morals come from.  You asked where atheist morals come from, and I'm asking you where God's morals come from.  Where, besides his ass, did God derive the morals he advocates from?

It's literally the first word in both commandments.




1 Corinthians 13 ►

1 If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does religion make a good man better, though?  In what way, by what means?  No quibbles about it making a bad man worse.

Well, it's not too surprising that people generally absorb and react to information in ways that are congruent with certain innate values or qualities that they already possess. A lot of theists feel that there are sound and effective moral principles in their religion for socializing, bonding, and loving others, and so for them there is more emotional encouragement and motivation to enhance themselves. It strengthens their desire to do good and help others.

More emotional encouragement and motivation to enhances themselves compared to whom, or what?  While we're on the subject, how does this account for people who are only passingly decent (or downright heinous) but also religious?  Where did their emotional encouragement and motivation go?

But ultimately the moral values of a religion cannot possibly be regarded as having an actual categorical reality or existence all by itself, except until someone acts upon them and thereby causes it to become real, because morality is always subject dependent, and hence "good" and "evil" are both acts of creation.

Well, the system is there and exists regardless of whether or not someone acts it out, it's not as if every single religious person is creating their morality anew. Don't get me wrong, that option is open..but it rubs against the whole "we've got this book and it's got laws" bit..don't you think? They're not creating that book or it's laws by acting on them.

[Angrboda]

Do you understand what the word 'arbitrary' even means?   Whether I have a problem with either of them is irrelevant to the question of where these morals come from.  You asked where atheist morals come from, and I'm asking you where God's morals come from.  Where, besides his ass, did God derive the morals he advocates from?

It's literally the first word in both commandments.




1 Corinthians 13 ►

1 If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,b but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Are you suggesting that there is a thing independent of God called love and God gets his morals from that thing? I'm pretty sure it's not coherent to just say that love is a source of morals, but let's wing it. Why are the morals derived from love right? How do we know what love dicates? Jeffrey Dahmer loved killing and eating people. Is killing and eating people then moral?

[Huggy Bear]

Are we just going to play dumb now? The fact that Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people would be in direct violation of the whole "love thy neighbor" bit now wouldn't it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sinners gotta sin, or so the belief goes.  If we ruled out everybody who "goes against" magic books cherry picked strictures, we'd be left with no christians whatsoever.

I bet you shake it three or four times when you piss.  Fuckin atheist! 

Meanwhile, you can find support in magic book for every shitty thing ever done by man.  So I guess we're all damned fine christians!  

[Angrboda]

Are we just going to play dumb now? The fact that Jeffrey Dahmer  killed and ate people would be in direct violation of the whole "love thy neighbor" bit now wouldn't it?

But Jeffrey Dahmer did love his neighbor! The only person being dumb here is you, Huggy. I asked you where your morals come from and you quote me what you think are moral truths. That doesn't answer the question of where these morals came from. It only tells me that you think those commands are moral. I presume that you think morals such as "love thy neighbor" come from God. Which gets us back to the original question. Where did God get his morals from? If he didn't get them from anywhere but himself, then they are just arbitrary, they are simply whatever he happened to believe for no particular reason whatsoever, he just pulled them out of his ass. If that's the case, then his morals are no better than ones that I make up on my own out of thin air. If there is no foundation for his morals, then they are no more right than anybody else's ideas on morals.

So I'll ask you again, if you get your morals from God, where did he get his morals from?