Why Are Atheists Moral

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Lets not take what religious people say at face value, I would expect any atheist who wished to challenge the argument to actually find out what it was.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the point is that atheists don't necessarily want to challenge an argument for objective moral values as they might very well believe in them. What they want to challenge is the ignorant and incorrect belief that Atheist can not be moral due to not having faith in God. Which I think is what this thread addresses.

👆

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
An interesting little essay you have there.

Anyway, It seems common amongst Atheists to assume that the "The Moral Argument" for the existence of God states that one is moral because they are believers in God, therefore if one does not believe in God one is amoral.

Of course, this is not the argument, indeed its a pitiful distortion, but none the less effective.

The Moral Argument states that as most people seem to have a basic understanding of right and wrong- and that understanding tends to be the same in most cultures- obviously with some exceptions- there must be a common source for morality.

Immanuel Kant argued that in this world the wicked prosper and good people suffer. So he said, why then do people strive to be good? He said people only do things for rewards, thus people act according to this perception of good for a reward- a reward in the afterlife.

Now, Hastings Randall said that all people are born "programed" with a moral code and understanding of right and wrong, he supposed that it must have been God who imprinted this moral code. He also believed that our very knowledge of a universal moral code existing was again evidence of God.

His Eminence Cardinal John Newman believed that our conscience was "the voice of God within us", he argued that God programed man with the moral values and that fear and guilt suggests there is someone to whom we are responsible, that person must be God.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with the moral argument is up to you...I personally don't really like it that much...however the argument [b]does not state you must believe in God to be moral infact if that were the case, the argument would be weakened by the fact that it seemed moral values were not imprinted on you after all and that you choose them via your religion.

In fact, if anything a moral atheist lends credence to the argument because it proves that moral values are universal and not exclusive to religious people- thus we are all getting them from somewhere. [/B]

Saying that moral values are universal is a false generalization. Just because anyone of any belief can be moral doesn't mean that objective moral standards exist. Further, I have no problem with your thesis up until the last sentence, which implies that we "receive" morals from an outside source. We have basic morality programmed into us via evolutionary genetics in the form of "selfish" altrusim. Some aspects of morality go beyond such programming (though all morality stems from that base) but everything else is culturally inherited.

In other words: It doesn't require a mystical answer.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
👆

Yes, well a theist who says a atheist is immoral is therefore suggesting that that person is operating outwith the realms of God's creation, if he created morality its ingrained in all peoples whether they believe or not. So, to suggest someone is free from it limits God's control over creation...none the less its always good for atheists to know what the moral argument is...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes, well a theist who says a atheist is immoral is therefore suggesting that that person is operating outwith the realms of God's creation, if he created morality its ingrained in all peoples whether they believe or not. So, to suggest someone is free from it limits God's control over creation...none the less its always good for atheists to know what the moral argument is...

I responded to your thoughts more fully with my edit. Sorry for the delay...you may not have seen it.

In any case, what bardock says holds true...the thread was basically to explain away the myth that morality is linked to belief in a deity, and can't exist in other forms.

I'd like to here a German accent..............otay gone now,.,, 😛

Originally posted by DigiMark007
👆

Saying that moral values are universal is a false generalization. Just because anyone of any belief can be moral doesn't mean that objective moral standards exist. Further, I have no problem with your thesis up until the last sentence, which implies that we "receive" morals from an outside source. We have basic morality programmed into us via evolutionary genetics in the form of "selfish" altrusim. Some aspects of morality go beyond such programming (though all morality stems from that base) but everything else is culturally inherited.

In other words: It doesn't require a mystical answer.

It isnt my thesis...its those three guys, as I said in the post I think its a pretty weak argument, made weaker by those who claim atheists are somehow separated from the morality.

Umm, as for the second part my post was really a fork of yours, as you complained about the theist who calls you immoral I thought Id just give some background on what the real Moral Argument is, and what it isn't.

It wasn't really intended as a direct response to your own beliefs, although it did deal with them later on...

(Yes...im hijacking! 😛)

For me I think that morals comes more from empathy than anything else.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
For me I think that morals comes more from empathy than anything else.

That is, if morality exists at all...

No, empathy is always there, if one can see or feel it......It's the KEY.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
No, empathy is always there, if one can see or feel it......It's the KEY.

😕

Originally posted by Da Pittman
For me I think that morals comes more from empathy than anything else.

That's what scientists are trying to prove. I think that empathy for offspring is genetic, hell even that's apparent in crocodiles.

But for scientists to try and prove that helping an old lady cross the street is somwhow genetic...well, that's an uphill battle during a blizzard.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's what scientists are trying to prove. I think that empathy for offspring is genetic, hell even that's apparent in crocodiles.

But for scientists to try and prove that helping an old lady cross the street is somwhow genetic...well, that's an uphill battle during a blizzard.

The latter example is an example of culturally inherited altruism. But you're right, it's not genetic.

And yes, care of offspring (and related family in general) is very much genetic. Natural selection would tend to favor genes (and thus hosts) who care for their young, which would ensure that the gene gets passed into future generations. So you're right on both counts.

It actually also helps explain why male infidelity is higher than female. A woman can be 100% sure a child is hers. A man, less so. With the advent of DNA testing, this has changed somewhat, but not for nearly long enough for evolution to change our natural tendencies. In many species, a man is sometimes better served having multiple partners to ensure reproductive success than caring for one child, where there is a slight chance that he is caring for another man's child. Thus, natural selection tended to favor (mostly) doting mothers and fathers who are slightly more prone to cheating. Their genes tended to fare slightly better.

Part of marital fidelity is culturally inherited as well, so it's not entirely genetic. But both play a factor.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The latter example is an example of culturally inherited altruism. But you're right, it's not genetic.

If by "culturally" you mean religiously, then you're right.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If by "culturally" you mean religiously, then you're right.

When you say religiously i think you mean culturally, so indeed he is right.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When you say religiously i think you mean culturally, so indeed he is right.

"Treat your neighbor as thyself" is a religious doctrine.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Treat your neighbor as thyself" is a religious doctrine.

I consider your disagreement as a Schismatic Act. You are thus, excommunicated and destined for KMC-Hell...

Furthermore, religion is part of culture.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I consider your disagreement as a Schismatic Act. You are thus, excommunicated and destined for KMC-Hell...

Furthermore, religion is part of culture.

Not really.

A Native American converts to Islam. So how is the Koran connected to his people and their culture? Its not.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not really.

A Native American converts to Islam. So how is the Koran connected to his people and their culture? Its not.

😐

Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not really.

A Native American converts to Islam. So how is the Koran connected to his people and their culture? Its not.

Both cultures are made up of people. Now get a squirrel to convert, and you have something. 😉

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If by "culturally" you mean religiously, then you're right.