The Morality of Atheism

[lostone]

I've been attacked by theists because they claim that I can have no 'Absolute Moral Standards', because I am not religious, and therefore by default a moral relativist. Morals, they assert, can only come from religion. When I defend my position, by pointing out similarities to well known Christian moral doctrines, then they accuse me of borrowing from religious moral standards.

 

[TomC]

I've been attacked by theists because they claim that I can have no 'Absolute Moral Standards', because I am not religious, and therefore by default a moral relativist. Morals, they assert, can only come from religion. When I defend my position, by pointing out similarities to well known Christian moral doctrines, then they accuse me of borrowing from religious moral standards.

You know what is profoundly peculiar about this? It's the obvious fact that modern, decent, Christians are mostly borrowing their moral standards from secular humanism. Secular, enlightenment values, and the many other improvements made to Christian values.

If you look at the Bible a little sideways, and squint a bit, you can find representative government and human rights and such. But it does take some work and creative reinterpretation of the clear meaning of Scripture. Ya know, the Word of God and such.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

I still think that the problem religious people have with atheists regarding morality is that atheism necessarily rejects what they like to mislabel as "objective morality". It isn't about objectivity, but authority. The source of morality has to be external to the individual, not a standard that subjectively arises from within individuals themselves. The basis for this instinct comes from the childhood experience of obedience to adult authority. We all learn our moral standards from others, and God is the ultimate parental authority. Hence, those who deny the existence of any god or other type of moral authority are thought of as lacking a moral standard. Under Communist atheist materialism, the moral authority was always the Party. That was why Communists viewed religion as antithetical to their cause. It preached an authority that rivaled Party supremacy in defining what was right and wrong. Communists could be just as bad as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, but those institutions absolved their apparent lack of decent behavior as sanctioned by the ultimate judge of the good versus the bad. They could make exceptions to the standard of humanitarian decency.

 

[steve_bank]

It is a stretch to derive human rights and representative government from the bible, the scripture of an ancient Jewish theocracy.

Looking sideways at the bible to make it fit what they want it to is what Christians do.

When modern Israel was born there was debate over theocracy vs secular democracy. The secular side prevailed.

The same Christian debate occurred prior to our founding. Paine was labeled 'a dirty atheist' for his opposition.

 

[bilby]

I still think that the problem religious people have with atheists regarding morality is that atheism necessarily rejects what they like to mislabel as "objective morality". It isn't about objectivity, but authority. The source of morality has to be external to the individual, not a standard that subjectively arises from within individuals themselves. The basis for this instinct comes from the childhood experience of obedience to adult authority. We all learn our moral standards from others, and God is the ultimate parental authority. Hence, those who deny the existence of any god or other type of moral authority are thought of as lacking a moral standard. Under Communist atheist materialism, the moral authority was always the Party. That was why Communists viewed religion as antithetical to their cause. It preached an authority that rivaled Party supremacy in defining what was right and wrong. Communists could be just as bad as the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, but those institutions absolved their apparent lack of decent behavior as sanctioned by the ultimate judge of the good versus the bad. They could make exceptions to the standard of humanitarian decency.

^This.

A lot of folks have real difficulties in distinguishing between respect and fear; Between what is expected and what is right; and Between what should be done to avoid punishment, and what should be done despite punishment.

It's the mob boss morality, in which disobedience is misnamed as disrespect, and in which the solution to such "disrespect" is (often violent) reprisals.

The entire Trump movement exemplifies this failure to understand that morality and authoritarianism are not synonymous. In Trump world, things are true because Trump says them. Things are good or bad, because Trump tells us, quite explicitly, which they are. The focus of his tweets isn't so much on what is happening, but on how we are being told to feel about it.

The truth is only attainable by requesting it from the boss. And inventing your own truth, or seeking it from unauthorised sources (such as reality), is risking massive and devastating consequences, which may well spill out to harm those around you. So not only should we resile from seeking our own path, but we must do all we can to prevent others from doing so, too.

Trump is a cult leader, and his modus operandi is not significantly different from that of any cult leader in history. The various major religions have fine-tuned their threats and demands into a slicker product than that offered by newcomers like Trump; But it's the same old shit, in a different bucket.

Christian 'morality' is only different from Trump cult devotion, in that it's been around long enough for some of the sharp edges to wear off.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of it is protecing a group identity.

We see it on the forum and in our lives, Christianity is a very deep belief burned into the brain. Christian sects like Evangelicals see atheists as a threat. We see it in politics from the right, atheust are out to take awy your right to religion. On FOX 'atheist science'.

Atheists make a very convenient bogyman for Christians. You can hear it in Christan radio and TV.

When I was in assisted living guy came in to hold services in the community room. Fire and brimstone. You could hear him all over the floor, part of it was evil atheists responsible for evil in the world.

 

[Rhea]

I’m often struck by what appears to me as a frightening admission by religionists - that without a belief in God, they think they would become a murderer.

I am concerned by that. You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Their Trumpism has made ignorant hypocrites of the vast majority of conservative Christians. F&%@ their morals. F&%@ stands for Fuck.

 

[Elixir]

You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

Yes, it is tempting to categorize them as sub-human.

 

[Politesse]

I’m often struck by what appears to me as a frightening admission by religionists - that without a belief in God, they think they would become a murderer.

I am concerned by that. You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

Murder is not as uncommon as you are thinking.

 

[southernhybrid]

I’m often struck by what appears to me as a frightening admission by religionists - that without a belief in God, they think they would become a murderer.

I am concerned by that. You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

I don't think they have a clue as to what they would be like without a god. It's just a bunch of shit they've been told by their pastors, assuming they are conservative Christians. Despite finding plenty wrong with the Baha'i Faith, I vaguely remember something about their prophet once saying that some people don't need a god to have good morals. I tend to think, despite what my ex believes, that his religion was an attempt to create a more tolerant, kinder version of the Muslim religion. It was created in the mid 1850s in Iran, formerly known as Persia.

I think it's extremist versions or religion who believe they need a god to be moral. I've never. heard a liberal believer make such a claim.

But, if having a belief in god keeps some people from murder, that's another reason why some people apparently need to believe in a sky daddy, or mommy as the case may be.

 

[TomC]

I tend to think, despite what my ex believes, that his religion was an attempt to create a more tolerant, kinder version of the Muslim religion. It was created in the mid 1850s in Iran, formerly known as Persia.

That's the conclusion I came to, after knowing a few BaHai.
A sort of "reformed" Islam, like UU is reformed Christianity. Keeping the ethics, losing the exclusion of the primitive theology.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

I tend to think, despite what my ex believes, that his religion was an attempt to create a more tolerant, kinder version of the Muslim religion. It was created in the mid 1850s in Iran, formerly known as Persia.

That's the conclusion I came to, after knowing a few BaHai.
A sort of "reformed" Islam, like UU is reformed Christianity. Keeping the ethics, losing the exclusion of the primitive theology.
Tom

The primary problem with the religion, imo, is that it doesn't support the LBGTQ community, no surprise considering when and where it was started. They do believe in racial and sexual equality, and they hope for world peace, but that's not working out so well. It was predicted to be accomplished by the year 2000.

I recently read some statements from Bahai's trying to make excuses for this and saying that while they don't approve of gay marriage, they don't hate gay people or something like that. They seemed to feel uncomfortable with that part of their religion. They believe in "progressive" religion, meaning that a new prophet will appear now and then and start a new religion, updated for the times. But, the Baha'is believe it will be at least 1000 years until the next prophet, so it's going to be quite awhile before they accept gay marriage, etc.

Because I was married to one of them for 9 years, I studied a lot of their books and even tried to believe since I was agnostic at the time and was trying to save my unhappy marriage, but it was too hard for me to accept it as truth, and shortly before my divorce, I came to realize that there are no gods.

Still, I did like most of the Bahai's I knew, especially the ones in Texas. We had a lot of fun getting together in the early 70s. They were sort of like hippies. Too bad their so called, "Universal House of Justice," wasn't given the power by their prophet to make the beliefs more progressive before the next cycle of religion. According to my son, his father is as fanatical about his religion as ever. He moved to Guam decades ago to be sort of like a missionary for his religion. I've explained to my son that I had no idea that a member of such a religion would be as nutty as a conservative Christian. My son is a dear, sweet, introvert and an atheist. He refers to religion as "fairy tales". Sorry for getting so personal.

The late DMB, aka Diana who was a very active poster on IIDB back in the day, used to mention how the Bahai's have been persecuted in Iran, but anyone other than conservative Muslims are subject to persecution in that theocratic country. I'm pretty sure Iran is one of the countries that can sentence an atheist to death.

 

[Copernicus]

The late DMB, aka Diana who was a very active poster on IIDB back in the day, used to mention how the Bahai's have been persecuted in Iran, but anyone other than conservative Muslims are subject to persecution in that theocratic country. I'm pretty sure Iran is one of the countries that can sentence an atheist to death.

I believe that every country which can levy a death penalty for atheism is majority Muslim, except Nigeria, which is 50% Muslim. Diana used to tell me that she felt the theocratic dominance was because Islam never had anything similar to the Protestant reformation, which drove governments to become more religiously tolerant and distant from a singular religious authority.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m often struck by what appears to me as a frightening admission by religionists - that without a belief in God, they think they would become a murderer.

I am concerned by that. You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

I see Islam as even worse in that regard. Women have to cover up so men won't rape them? That means the religion considers all men sub-human.

 

[Angry Floof]

I’m often struck by what appears to me as a frightening admission by religionists - that without a belief in God, they think they would become a murderer.

I am concerned by that. You really think you could be a murderer? That’s alarming.

I see Islam as even worse in that regard. Women have to cover up so men won't rape them? That means the religion considers all men sub-human.

Oh, don't you worry! Christianity just needs a bit more room to breathe and a little more forcing themselves into government powers, and then they will, and in fact already do, ratchet up restrictions, disempowerment, and punishment of women.

Don't you worry! Given the chance, Christian Evangelicals will be most happy indeed to force all women and girls to cover themselves and essentially be owned by men. Authoritarian religions like Islam and Christianity have to be kept in check by a wider, more humane and just society in order for such a religion to exist peacefully with the rest of humanity. There is NO capacity for self policing and self correction, so the rest of us have to do that for them if we can. So don't you worry! Should the fascist mongrels among us succeed in dismantling democracy, and it appears they are close, Islam will barely hold a candle to Western Christianity when it comes to abusing women.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This whole objective morality nonsense is something I
have had more than a few debates over the years about
on various forums.

Animals evolved with emotions. We are animals and have emotions.
We hate being robbed, murdered, enslaved, cheated, raped, and
having our relatives and friend so treated.

This is an objective, well established fact. Here then is the basic
foundation of morality.

But we have been cursed with the ability to think abstractly.
Which allows horrors to be sanctioned and rationalized.
Kill the heretics. Kill all the Jews. Kill the counter revolutionaries.
Bad ideologies, racism, bad religions, bad cultures.

Thus true morality also involves dealing with bad ideologies,
religions, et al. Which can be hard when evil controls the military,
the police, the prisons and guns and courts.

Part of the foolishness of debates on what is morality is to
confine the debate to morality and not these larger issues.

There is no objective religious morality. Ask the theocrats what
objective morality is, how it is defined, and you will not get useful answers.
Not from the Christians.

For example, Jesus commands his followers to sell all they have and give
to the poor. Christians: "Jesus didn't mean ME!". These commands of Jesus
in Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18,, and Matthew 19 are about as objective as it gets.

All of a sudden the phrase "objective morality" becomes a hollow word salad.

 

[Lion IRC]

This is excellent!

To me, morality is doing the right thing for the right reason.

 

[southernhybrid]

The late DMB, aka Diana who was a very active poster on IIDB back in the day, used to mention how the Bahai's have been persecuted in Iran, but anyone other than conservative Muslims are subject to persecution in that theocratic country. I'm pretty sure Iran is one of the countries that can sentence an atheist to death.

I believe that every country which can levy a death penalty for atheism is majority Muslim, except Nigeria, which is 50% Muslim. Diana used to tell me that she felt the theocratic dominance was because Islam never had anything similar to the Protestant reformation, which drove governments to become more religiously tolerant and distant from a singular religious authority.

I tend to think that the Baha'i Faith may have been an attempt to be something similar to the Protestant reformation. At least, looking back at the years when I studied that religion, it now seems to me that's exactly what it was trying to do, make the Muslim religion into something milder, kinder and with less hatred and prejudice towards those outside their faith. Too bad, it never worked out the way their so called prophets had hoped.

I've met a few very liberal Muslims, so just like Christians, anyone can find a nicer interpretation of the religion of their youth or become a convert to a nicer form of a particular religion.

This is excellent!

To me, morality is doing the right thing for the right reason.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

On the other hand, not everyone always agrees on what is the right thing. For example, I deplore book banning, but a large percentage of American conservative Christians think it's the right thing to ban books about racism and homosexuality, among other things. These people are literally removing books from public libraries.

 

[Jarhyn]

This whole objective morality nonsense is something I
have had more than a few debates over the years about
on various forums.

Animals evolved with emotions. We are animals and have emotions.
We hate being robbed, murdered, enslaved, cheated, raped, and
having our relatives and friend so treated.

This is an objective, well established fact. Here then is the basic
foundation of morality.

But we have been cursed with the ability to think abstractly.
Which allows horrors to be sanctioned and rationalized.
Kill the heretics. Kill all the Jews. Kill the counter revolutionaries.
Bad ideologies, racism, bad religions, bad cultures.

Thus true morality also involves dealing with bad ideologies,
religions, et al. Which can be hard when evil controls the military,
the police, the prisons and guns and courts.

Part of the foolishness of debates on what is morality is to
confine the debate to morality and not these larger issues.

There is no objective religious morality. Ask the theocrats what
objective morality is, how it is defined, and you will not get useful answers.
Not from the Christians.

For example, Jesus commands his followers to sell all they have and give
to the poor. Christians: "Jesus didn't mean ME!". These commands of Jesus
in Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18,, and Matthew 19 are about as objective as it gets.

All of a sudden the phrase "objective morality" becomes a hollow word salad.

What I can fairly reliably say about objective morality is that my morality is far more "objective" than any theist's, and came from a position of theistic ambivalence.