Atheism and morality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
While researching in earnest whether atheism is truly a religious stance (it depends of course on ones definition of religion), although there can be no doubt that it relies on a certain extent to unobserved phenomena, like the creation of life from non living matter, just by way of example, it struck me that during my conversations here with my athe ...[text shortened]... you think that this is the case? Is your morality superior to the Christian and if so, how so?

What a crazy question.
Is Christian morality turning the other cheek or is it bombing the sweet-bejesus out of some third world country you can't find on a map?

Same goes for atheists. If they're conservative, republican atheists, they sure as hell are gonna have different moral values than me.

A firm basis is, if you ask me, don't do unto others that which you wouldn't want them to do to your child.
Christian? Atheist?

Common bloody sense, that's what it is.

What then, if you help someone because you have an ulterior motive?

People who believe in god have an Ulterior motive.........they want to get into heaven! You are saying in essence that without the fear of god, people would not be good. Very sad.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well firstly I don't see anything intrinsically immoral about pornography - there is a demand for it which is catered to by those who `work' in the industry. You might argue that these women are protrayed as sex objects but then firstly it is their own choice that they do this fully aware that if they're good at what they do or how they look, then being seen a the Bible[/hidden]which never improves since it is assumed perfect from the outset!

of course you dont dear Agers, your morality and thus your stance on the matter has been decided by social convention. Is it not the case?

I could equally find reasons to object to the portrayal of pornography as harmless entertainment. You evolution argument, while amusing and original fails to the fact that pornography caters not to reality, but to fantasy, indeed, it may even be argued that its a substitute for reality, like licking the sweet shop window because one has no money and the chances of actually tasting a sweet is a non reality. Your rape comment i find a little disturbing, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt, for i know your scrimping and scraping trying to drum up some kind of justification for your argument. Just imagine it was your sister, would you be pleased? I dont think so, but its someone else's daughter, sister, mother, so that makes it alright??? How is that a moral improvement? Shall i list those young women who have committed suicide as a direct consequence of being caught up in an industry which treats them as of no consequence? Whose self esteem and confidence has been ripped away from them? What about those that have become addicted to pornography? The images staying deep within their minds for years to come, how is addiction morally superior to being free?

Thus dear Agers, because of your adherence to social convention it is clear that you are in a moral predicament for as you reach to grasp the constantly shifting sands of morality, they inevitably slip through your fingers. (such poetry, why am I not famous?)

Originally posted by shavixmir
What a crazy question.
Is Christian morality turning the other cheek or is it bombing the sweet-bejesus out of some third world country you can't find on a map?

Same goes for atheists. If they're conservative, republican atheists, they sure as hell are gonna have different moral values than me.

A firm basis is, if you ask me, don't do unto others ...[text shortened]... t them to do to your child.
Christian? Atheist?

Common bloody sense, that's what it is.

yes but again you are judging the moral actions of others against your own, my argument is, that as a consequence of rejecting the Christ atheists and anyone else for that matter must have supplanted it with a morality of their own. Now Plynkna very excellently pointed out that to an extent Christians also must make an evaluation with the mind of Christs teaching and thus morality may differ even among those who profess to be Christian, however, it appears to me that this is more a variation on a theme rather than a purely abstract evaluation relative to the individual as seems to me to be advocated by Agers who cited social convention, common sense and empathy or fellow feeling.

My main argument is, that common sense and social convention cannot be enough, for both are liable to change (as has been demonstrated) and aberration (the conscience may in fact be faulty or even excuse itself on some pretext), thus anyone who supplants the morality of the Christ must be accepting an inferior morality, otherwise it could be demonstrated that their morality was superior and as yet, its not been demonstrated. If then Christ is the ultimate model of morality, why are we not all Christians?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I would like to put this question to my atheist friends/enemies in earnest, do you think that this is the case? Is your morality superior to the Christian and if so, how so?

This is my take on morals.
1. Morals come in different categories, there is a subtle yet definite difference between A. morality involving treatment of others and B. morality involving social norms or customs - specifically surrounding sexual issues.
2. Regarding type A morality, it basically comes down to the following"
i. An action is morally good if it benefits others.
ii. An action is morally bad if it harms others.
iii. An actions morality can be modified based on the cost (both in terms of effort or harm) to oneself.

I think most people judge morals in this way, but that Christians (and other theists) often don't realize it and instead interpret morals differently - for example as obeying Gods commands.

So my answer is no, nobodies morality is superior or inferior, there is only one morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is my take on morals.
1. Morals come in different categories, there is a subtle yet definite difference between A. morality involving treatment of others and B. morality involving social norms or customs - specifically surrounding sexual issues.
2. Regarding type A morality, it basically comes down to the following"
i. An action is morally good if

So my answer is no, nobodies morality is superior or inferior, there is only one morality.

So my answer is no, nobodies morality is superior or inferior, there is only one morality.

Except the implication of the atheistic world-view is ethical relativism. On atheism, there is no absolute moral truth—no "one morality"—as you claim.

A mother is loved and cherished by her children, but to the Gestapo she is nothing more than a subhuman worthy of annihilation. An appeal to social convention in order to establish who is more correct—the children or the Gestapo—is fruitless. Social constructs have no mind-independent objectivity. After all, in the context of a Nazi-dominated earth, based on the social conventions of the Third Reich, it would be considered perfectly moral to condemn the inferior in order to strengthen the collective gene pool.

On atheism, there is only the moral vacuum and separate, equally valid points of view. The dead body lying in the street is an object of revulsion to the passerby, an object of mourning to a loved one, but lunch to the vulture overhead—nothing supervenes upon the corpse to give it an objective significance. The same holds true for actions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thus anyone who supplants the morality of the Christ must be accepting an inferior morality, otherwise it could be demonstrated that their morality was superior and as yet, its not been demonstrated. If then Christ is the ultimate model of morality, why are we not all Christians?

What crock of horse faeces. I'm sorry.

Are you suggesting that there was no morality worth a sestertius before some carpenter was nailed to a chunk of wood?

And what if the morality of the Christ is inferior?

No. The only moralities worth mentioning are peronal morality and the morality agreed upon by society. And yes this changes.
And just as well, or people, like you, who cling to the bible and Paul would still be having your wife's thrashed by your slaves for even asking for an abortion.

Originally posted by 667joe
People who believe in god have an Ulterior motive.........they want to get into heaven! You are saying in essence that without the fear of god, people would not be good. Very sad.

I never said good or bad ( I don't think) I am talking about moral or amoral, there is a difference.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Except the implication of the atheistic world-view is ethical relativism. On atheism, there is no absolute moral truth—no "one morality"—as you claim.

Well clearly this atheism religion you mention is not my religion. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in God, not because I subscribe to any set of rules - especially ones that seem to be made up by you.

An appeal to social convention in order to establish who is more correct—the children or the Gestapo—is fruitless.
I made it quite clear that I do not appeal to social convention. I wonder why you think atheists should do so.

More importantly though, Christianity fares no better than what you describe. Christianity essentially establishes as the moral standard whichever concept of God the believer holds. So again, every believer has a unique idea of morality, and although there may be some agreement amongst believers (social convention) there is often significant disagreement between groups. (Yes the Nazis were Christians not atheists).

Although every believer may chant "there is only one morality, and it is the one my God defines", this is no better than your understanding of atheist morals in which every person chants "there is only one morality and it is what I define".

But I challenge you to show me any persons system of morals that does not fit my outline regardless of what they claim is the source of the moral system. Even the Nazis morals would fit my description.

What is relative is not the basic rules of morals, but the evaluation of morals. This includes who you define as a person (this affects racism, attitudes towards slaves, foreigners, and even abortion), what weighting you give to personal cost vs assistance / harm to others etc.

What I may have left out, but is still important, are the concepts of blame and just deserts. The Nazis blamed the Jews for not following Christ (as do many Christians), and thus helped to justify to themselves maltreating them. Equally, you will see in the thread on rich vs poor, that people justify not helping the poor on the grounds that the poor may be capable of helping themselves (and thus its their own fault if they are poor). Again, how we weight these considerations varies from person to person.

Originally posted by shavixmir
What crock of horse faeces. I'm sorry.

Are you suggesting that there was no morality worth a sestertius before some carpenter was nailed to a chunk of wood?

And what if the morality of the Christ is inferior?

No. The only moralities worth mentioning are peronal morality and the morality agreed upon by society. And yes this changes.
And just as ...[text shortened]... aul would still be having your wife's thrashed by your slaves for even asking for an abortion.

dont be sorry, and no that is not what i am saying, every one is endowed with the faculty of conscience and thus can make moral decisions, we are in fact conscience of elements like justice, just by way of example, what i am saying is that the Christ is the pinnacle of morality, the exemplar and none has surpassed his morality and that to supplant it or relegate as you have done is the greatest folly for we are then accepting an inferior morality based on so called common sense and social convention. If your morality is inferior to the Christ's then its inferior and you should on this basis try to adopt the Christ's for it will elevate you morally. The rest of your comment betrays a rather glaring lack of Biblical knowledge, for was it not Paul himself who stated,

(Ephesians 5:28-29) . . .In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself,  for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation. . .

thus even here the superlative example and morality of the Christ is discernible, for Paul himself uses the example of self sacrifice of the Christ and counsels husbands to do likewise with their wife, that is putting her interests ahead of his own, making your statement not worth the few moments that you took to spawn it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course you dont dear Agers, your morality and thus your stance on the matter has been decided by social convention. Is it not the case?

I could equally find reasons to object to the portrayal of pornography as harmless entertainment. You evolution argument, while amusing and original fails to the fact that pornography caters not to reality, ds of morality, they inevitably slip through your fingers. (such poetry, why am I not famous?)

It hasn't *just* been defined by social convention - just as much if not a lot more by my common sense, ability to reason and empathy...I'll expand on your post later but I've just walked out of the final exam from hell and need some sleep. Manchester Uni has sent me off with a big scroo yoo >:[

Originally posted by Agerg
It hasn't *just* been defined by social convention - just as much if not a lot more by my common sense, ability to reason and empathy...I'll expand on your post later but I've just walked out of the final exam from hell and need some sleep. Manchester Uni has sent me off with a big scroo yoo >:[

Manchester Uni must die!

Originally posted by 667joe
People who believe in god have an Ulterior motive.........they want to get into heaven! You are saying in essence that without the fear of god, people would not be good. Very sad.

horse hockey, we are saved by grace not by works

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So my answer is no, nobodies morality is superior or inferior, there is only one morality.

Except the implication of the atheistic world-view is ethical relativism. On atheism, there is no absolute moral truth—no "one morality"—as you claim.

A mother is loved and cherished by her children, but to the Gestapo she is nothing more than ...[text shortened]... rvenes upon the corpse to give it an objective significance. The same holds true for actions.[/b]

“....Except the implication of the atheistic world-view is ethical relativism. On atheism, there is no absolute moral truth—no "one morality"—as you claim. ...”

while I would personally agree that there is no "one morality" i.e. any objective morality, that has absolutely nothing to do with “atheistic world-view” (whatever “atheistic world-view” is supposed to mean! ) as you claim above. After all, there are many atheists that DO believe in an objective morality just as there are many theists that do NOT in an objective morality and neither of these two groups see any contradiction between their theism/atheism and their moral views because, usually, there isn't any contradiction.
The issue of whether you are a theists is irrelevant to whether you would believe in an objective morality or the issue of whether it would be logically consistent for you to do so.

On another point: why do you think there is something wrong with morality being subjective?
After all, there are many things that are subjective and yet no-less real. For example, beauty. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder and what looks beautiful to one person may look ugly to another but, nevertheless, the experience of finding something beautiful is real enough and made no less real by the subjective nature of beauty. That is analogous to morality being totally subjective but, nevertheless, the emotional experience (or 'feeling' ) of finding something outrageously unjust is real enough and made no less real by the subjective nature of morality.

( Note I acknowledge that many atheists will disagree with my views I express above here and are are far from representative of the views of all atheists )

In fact, I think the title of this thread “Atheism and morality” is flawed because to me it gives the false impression that “Atheism” necessarily has some effect on “morality” and vice versa.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no your insistence on the existence or non existence of God is irrelevant.

You have lost me: I didn't give an insistence on the existence or non existence of God in that particular post so what does my insistence on the existence or non existence of God got to do with my claim in that post that what you said is either irrelevant to the probability or credibility (which is clearly not implying anything about what that probability is) of there being a god or is clearly a flawed premise for your argument depending on exactly what you mean by “the Christ”?