Why Are Atheists Moral

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
West is largely developed on Christianity, and broke free within the boundaries of religion later on.
That doesn't defeat the fact that what you deem as ''moral' wasn't ultimately developed from Christianity with ruled over it for 2 000 years.
(Or Judaism, as Christian morals are ultimately Jewish)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Chinese never had a deity

Originally posted by Bardock42
The law is just a set of morals that are the standard of a country.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That is so wrong. This reminds me of our debate about whether people should be allowed to say hurtful things. Your argument was "It's illegal to hurt people physically, not verbally" which is just plain stupid. Especially for a self claimed anarchist.

-----

This news article and the studies it refers to offer some interesting information on the biological basis for "morality."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

They are rules, laws... If laws are broken there are official punishments issued. In case of morals there's no such thing as an official punishment.

If you think the law serves as your set of morals, then I'm afraid you're morally fairly poor.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If the law isn't morals institutionalized via legislation... then what exactly do you propose it is?

-----

This news article and the studies it refers to offer some interesting information on the biological basis for "morality."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

It's not even a code. It's a law. You have to obey, if not: you are punished... (Well, when caught).

Laws are about what is legal or not. Morals are about what is right and wrong. Laws are impartial and universal (within a state), morals are subjective and even partial.

Originally posted by queeq
That is so wrong. The law is not a set of morals, it's a set of rules. It is in fact completely opposite of morals since morals are the unwritten laws of human behaviour. The laws are prolly derived from morals, but they are not morals by themselves. You don't have to be moral to be law abiding and you don't have to be immoral to break the law. Some people break the law because they have moral issues with it.

Yes, there is a difference between laws and morals. What I meant to say is that laws are caused by one specific set of morals and you can derive this set by looking at the laws. In fact laws of a country define a specific set of morals. Besides, you are talking about your own morals again, by your moral standards some things that are illegal are not morally wrong and some things that are legal are. That was exactly my point...morals are like assholes. But by one specific set of morals...the one the laws are based on...everything that is illegal is morally wrong and everything that is legal is morally right.

Originally posted by queeq
You'd like it to be different. But it's not. Because making and showing this film is solely a moral issue, not a legal one. But there's no proper cohesion to discuss it. Cohesion and morals was my original point. Legally he is completely in his right to say a lot of terrible things about the Quran. But is that moral? And how do you discuss it? There is no way to discuss this, because all groups in society have different moral. And there are many many many small groups these days taht all have their own little set of morals that often clash.

So to take it to your statement that moral issues can be complicated, what I've been trying to say, and obviously I am not making myself clear - sorry for that - , I think that downfall of social cohesion (as a more or less result of secularisation) is making it worse. More and more sitautions will be increasingly morally complicated. And frankly, that does not help the stability of society.

No, it is actually different to what we discussed earlier. Moral issues were always as complicated. Just that in earlier times a few large groups took it to themselves to proclaim what is absolutely moral for everyone. But that was a good thing or bad thing. Your morals might be similar to those that used to be the de facto authority on them earlier, but as for my morals and many others, it is much better now that we can mostly decide for ourselves. Your point that groups (not just religious ones) have influence on a person's morals I agree with completely, whether that was a good thing in the times when Christianity in specific had this authority on the whole is debatable and I, for one, would disagree.

Originally posted by queeq
They are rules, laws... If laws are broken there are official punishments issued. In case of morals there's no such thing as an official punishment.

If you think the law serves as your set of morals, then I'm afraid you're morally fairly poor.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That is so wrong. This reminds me of our debate about whether people should be allowed to say hurtful things. Your argument was "It's illegal to hurt people physically, not verbally" which is just plain stupid. Especially for a self claimed anarchist.

Certainly was not my argument. Please stop lying. It reminds me of the time you didn't know what the **** you were talking about (the last 16 years)

I didn't say the law serves as my set of morals, I said the law is a set of morals institutionalized via legislation. In the process specific punishments are attributed to specific violations. That doesn't deny their origin.

Is there some mutual exclusivity that prevents something from being a moral, while being a rule of society?

Officially if I recall correct, violating religiously deemed morality results in eternal damnation.

Originally posted by queeq
It's not even a code. It's a law. You have to obey, if not: you are punished... (Well, when caught).

Laws are about what is legal or not. Morals are about what is right and wrong. Laws are impartial and universal (within a state), morals are subjective and even partial.

You are sucking up to authority here. It's a problem we have that we put our governments on a pedestial. The government is nothing else than a group of people. If the vatican would decide now to punish everyone that doesn't live according to their morals, it would still be morals.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Certainly was not my argument. Please stop lying. It reminds me of the time you didn't know what the **** you were talking about (the last 16 years)

Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact laws of a country define a specific set of morals.

I disagree. I think laws are derived from a set of morals. There were morals first and then the law as an operationalisation of morals to ensure societal stability.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But by one specific set of morals...the one the laws are based on...everything that is illegal is morally wrong and everything that is legal is morally right.

What set is that?

The law is basically a poor version of morality. And for two reasons: 1. it's an operationalised VERSION of morality and is universal. Morality may differ from person to person. If you throw a stone through my window I am legally in my right to sue you for damages. And even morally. But if you happen to be mentally challenged, I am still entitled to suebut morally I may refrain from doing so.

If someone gets convicted for murder by jury, even though he is innocent, it's still very legal, but morally rejectable. It shows the very difference between law and morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
whether that was a good thing in the times when Christianity in specific had this authority on the whole is debatable and I, for one, would disagree.

I never said that. I said social cohesion is stronger in societies with a more common morality. Religiously strong societies demonstrate that. It's not by definition better, but I think we can objectively conclude that social cohesion is strongly subject to erosion in our day. And tehrefore societal stability. I have no idea if it's for better or worse. But I do see the lack of social cohesion creating a lot of social unrest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's your believe again, you think people that see the laws as their morals are wrong. Others don't. Yes, laws are rules, but this word "official" is an empty phrase. Laws are the morals of a society/government that has taken itself the right (by force) to punish who does not behave according to them.

They are not morals. They are rules. If you just follow the rules, then you refrain from thinking yourself about what is right and wrong. Dodgy lawyers than know any little hole in the law and know how to dodge the laws in every way are acting legally, but hardly morally. Because laws are made with certain intentions, but in "being legal" all you have to do is see if you can get caught, not if you act in the spirit of the law (which is the initial moral).

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not lying. I will find the post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are sucking up to authority here. It's a problem we have that we put our governments on a pedestial. The government is nothing else than a group of people. If the vatican would decide now to punish everyone that doesn't live according to their morals, it would still be morals.

I am not sucking up. I am trying to show the morally poorness of laws.

Once the Vatican starts issuing punsihment to certain acts, it becomes a lawgiver. Not an institution that does a moral appeal.

Atheists are moral cause their mama's taught them to be??

Originally posted by queeq
I disagree. I think laws are derived from a set of morals. There were morals first and then the law as an operationalisation of morals to ensure societal stability.

Oddly enough I said that in the sentence before the one you quoted that you conveniently cut. Peculiar.

Originally posted by queeq
What set is that?

The law is basically a poor version of morality. And for two reasons: 1. it's an operationalised VERSION of morality and is universal. Morality may differ from person to person. If you throw a stone through my window I am legally in my right to sue you for damages. And even morally. But if you happen to be mentally challenged, I am still entitled to suebut morally I may refrain from doing so.

If someone gets convicted for murder by jury, even though he is innocent, it's still very legal, but morally rejectable. It shows the very difference between law and morality.

You have to start realizing that your morals are not the standard for everything. Laws are certainly based on specific morals that see everything as morally acceptable that is legal. That you find some of those wrong, is your opinion.

Originally posted by queeq
I never said that. I said social cohesion is stronger in societies with a more common morality. Religiously strong societies demonstrate that. It's not by definition better, but I think we can objectively conclude that social cohesion is strongly subject to erosion in our day. And tehrefore societal stability. I have no idea if it's for better or worse. But I do see the lack of social cohesion creating a lot of social unrest.

I can agree that a strong moral authority in a society might give stability. Whether it is for the good or bad is dependent on the case.

Originally posted by queeq
They are not morals. They are rules. If you just follow the rules, then you refrain from thinking yourself about what is right and wrong. Dodgy lawyers than know any little hole in the law and know how to dodge the laws in every way are acting legally, but hardly morally. Because laws are made with certain intentions, but in "being legal" all you have to do is see if you can get caught, not if you act in the spirit of the law (which is the initial moral).

If you just follow the morality of your Religion you refuste to think yourself about it as well.

And you are incorrect. In the law you do something illegal, whether you get caught or not, you just get punished if you are caught obviously. Same with Christian morality, just that their punisher is all-knowing so there are no loop holes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair dos.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.

Could be, but you also assume a lot about every religious group I've ever seen you talk about. Most know enough to know they don't know anything for certain, and agnosticism is the logical response to such revelations. I see it as equally justifiable as atheism from an intellectual perspective.

Mindship said it just as well back on page 4.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
West is largely developed on Christianity, and broke free within the boundaries of religion later on.
That doesn't defeat the fact that what you deem as ''moral' wasn't ultimately developed from Christianity with ruled over it for 2000 years.
(Or Judaism, as Christian morals are ultimately Jewish)

Chinese never had a deity, but their morals differ enormously.

Its a culture of one religion, not the deity which makes differance.

Fair enough, but you're also presuming that my morals are Christian (the 2nd sentence there). There are certainly "base" morals that nearly any system includes, so there's overlap between mine and ANY system of morality based in altruism. But all this is saying is that societal tendencies greatly affect relative morality of the culture, which I agree with...my presentation on atheistic morality doesn't contradict this statement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oddly enough I said that in the sentence before the one you quoted that you conveniently cut. Peculiar.

Sorry about that then. I didn't mean to misquote you. It just seemed you felt laws are equal to morals. I disagree very much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have to start realizing that your morals are not the standard for everything. Laws are certainly based on specific morals that see everything as morally acceptable that is legal. That you find some of those wrong, is your opinion.

I didn't realise I was forcing morals on anyone. Didn't mean to. I don't say laws are wrong, but they are not suitable for everyday assesments for what is right or wrong. They judge what is legal or illegal. There are things that were illegal 50 years ago and are legal now. It says nothing on whether either situation was right or wrong. That is a moral issue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you just follow the morality of your Religion you refuste to think yourself about it as well.

It's not a cut-and-paste thing with anything written to daily life. But other than laws, it's not always easy to see how to properly apply morality on an everyday basis. Just like morality differs between groups, it also differs internally per situation. The morality about what is right or wrong is extremely fluid. Personally I think it's more challenging to have a (peer)group and religious of philosophical writings to help and find teh asnwers. Other than maybe being guided by the moment, which is acting on impulse and not on assessing a situation or your ways on how to act morally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you are incorrect. In the law you do something illegal, whether you get caught or not, you just get punished if you are caught obviously. Same with Christian morality, just that their punisher is all-knowing so there are no loop holes.

I think the loopholes make the difference. Lawyers that are great in finding loopholes for their clients, even though they are guilty, which is legally correct, but morally debatable. Why is it that suckers with little money committing minor crimes get easily condemned and major crime lords are so adept at avoiding punishment? It's legal, not doubt there. But is it morally acceptable? Isn't the law the same for everyone?

I don't really feel like getting into it more, but the point of loopholes is that the person is not guilty. You can't find loopholes if the person is guilty or it would be agains the illegal. And the law is the same for everyone, what you seem to have a problem with is the court system which is a different thing.

No, it has to do with laws. To get someone convicted you have to follow laws... laws of presenting evidence, following procedure etc... They are all meant to secure a morally just course of events. And yet they don't.

Plus... one cannot debate laws... one can debate morals.