The Morality of Atheism

[cycomiko]

I saw "10 commitments of humanism, just for fun." I agree 100%, they exist for fun alone. Moral posturing is not morality. No tangible actions result, The website certainly isn't dogma, nor dictate. It's a pretty web page. One more set of talking points with the value of the three Manifestos.

I've known hundreds of Humanists; was a volunteer for years; hosted the AHA Prez, hosted and ran an alleged chapter of my state's Humanist group, I was on the BoD. I went above and beyond. But guess I failed NJHN so miserably that they removed any mention of me and of their chapter's work in Gloucester County NJ. Maybe I was too poor to be remembered as more than a faceless queer slave.

Humanists won't help me. There is not ONE commitment to me. No commitments to human people in crisis. The AHA website is a slap in my face. I'm in crisis, I'm floundering. What's a Humanist going to do to or for me, link me to another page of pretty posturing? How is it moral to be wrong? Humanist groups do photo ops and tax deductions. I know Humanist values: Donate to a nonprofit that already does what they do ,publish more pablum.

I imagine my reaction to seeing the Humanist 10Cs is the same as sohy's reaction to seeing the Biblical 10Cs. "Wow, unhelpful nonsense." Yeah. I agree that this is an example of atheist morality (it is self-serving - tax credits mean more than humans).

there is no "atheist morality". if anyone ever says "atheists believe ___________" and that blank is filled in with anything other than "gods don't exist" then that person is making generalizations that shouldn't be made. individuals decide what their morals are, whether they decide to jump onto a religious bandwagon or create their own set of values based on their interpretation of the world.

so you had a bad experience with one group of people in one county in NJ. what is it that you now do by living through the biblical morals that is different that what you did before? do you donate to the church which is doing what it already does whether you're there or not?

 

[southernhybrid]

I saw "10 commitments of humanism, just for fun." I agree 100%, they exist for fun alone. Moral posturing is not morality. No tangible actions result, The website certainly isn't dogma, nor dictate. It's a pretty web page. One more set of talking points with the value of the three Manifestos.

I've known hundreds of Humanists; was a volunteer for years; hosted the AHA Prez, hosted and ran an alleged chapter of my state's Humanist group, I was on the BoD. I went above and beyond. But guess I failed NJHN so miserably that they removed any mention of me and of their chapter's work in Gloucester County NJ. Maybe I was too poor to be remembered as more than a faceless queer slave.

Humanists won't help me. There is not ONE commitment to me. No commitments to human people in crisis. The AHA website is a slap in my face. I'm in crisis, I'm floundering. What's a Humanist going to do to or for me, link me to another page of pretty posturing? How is it moral to be wrong? Humanist groups do photo ops and tax deductions. I know Humanist values: Donate to a nonprofit that already does what they do ,publish more pablum.

I imagine my reaction to seeing the Humanist 10Cs is the same as sohy's reaction to seeing the Biblical 10Cs. "Wow, unhelpful nonsense." Yeah. I agree that this is an example of atheist morality (it is self-serving - tax credits mean more than humans).

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with a Humanist group, but then it was in New Jersey. I was raised in NJ and imo, that state has some of the rudest people of anywhere I've lived. I left when I was 21 and couldn't wait to say goodbye. But, oddly enough I was forced to attend a crazy evangelical church during my childhood, that gave tons of money to foreign missionaries, without ever helping the poor or doing what I would consider charity.

I loved our Humanist group in ATL, but eventually, since we all lived so far from each other, the group combined with the Atlanta Freethought Society. I love that organization but we are too fucking old to make the trip these days. We had planned on going to the last meeting, but when we got up that day, we weren't motivated to deal with the ATL traffic. I just stick with my small local group of non believers with a few skeptics that don't know what they believe at this point. We have all become friends, so it's a nice break from the Bible Belt.

I do think the Humanist philosophy is very idealistic, but it's something to at least strive for and get away from the religious community. I think religion is primarily about community and the better churches do a lot of charity work, like the huge Methodist church on my street. I think their beliefs are nuts, but most of them seem to be good people who have done a lot for our community, including providing shelter when we had a terrible tornado last year and some people had no place to stay. Character is more important than beliefs and people do tend to need community as we evolved as social animals.

 

[Janice Rael]

Well it was all of New Jersey and the entire AHA and all current such nonprofits; the entire Secular Coalition, despite my 2 years in the nascent dawn of the 21st Century movement. I was at the GAMOW, I helped make the Atheists Meetup, I was in Heads; I did a lot of things up to and including the March For Science. Not counting starting a satire Secular religion on Facebook. So it's definitely more than one atheist and Humanist letting this happen to me.

Keeping the Discovery Institute out of the March For Science was a sweet victory. Making Behe slam his laptop shut and storm out of the hearing was also a great triumph.

I used the Wedge Document for all of that. Then I chose to become a widow. Later, I chose to become a domestic violence victim.

The Wedge won.

The Project 2025 Document isn't really being waved around by any loudmouth atheist crybabies like me (The Blaze headline).

I am disenfranchised from everything and nearly everyone.

That's okay. I forgive everyone.

 

[cycomiko]

So it's definitely more than one atheist and Humanist letting this happen to me.

is it because they're atheists and humanists or is it because people suck in general?

 

[Janice Rael]

So it's definitely more than one atheist and Humanist letting this happen to me.

is it because they're atheists and humanists or is it because people suck in general?

It's because I suck. Karma is Rael.

 

[AdamWho]

You cannot be moral if you claim to actually derive your morality from "gods"... and you certainly are not engaged in "objective morality".

1. No one ever has demonstrated that any god has ever existed much less gave any moral codes. At best you have religious, written by humans, that make claims. IF you are follow these texts, then you are following the morality of those men, in that culture at that time.

2. Obedience is not morality. Being obedient out of fear of punishment or hope for reward is not morality. And again, obedience to who? A god who doesn't exist? A book written by people a long time ago from a completely different society?

The ONLY way to engage in "Morality" is to think about how your actions effect the world. It is inherently subjective based on the context and situation.

 

[Janice Rael]

Regarding the thread title and theme, is it not fair and accurate to state that of both atheism by itself, or, theism by itself, in the plainest English language, neither can be said to offer morality or to be moral positions?

At their core, or, perhaps, in the most clear understanding we may have of these terms, then, do we not understand and agree that the words refer to either the possession or lack of an affirmative belief in the existence of a deity or deities, and/or the possession or lack of *faith* in the existence of deities or a deity?

By deity or deities, I intend to refer to God, Allah, Jesus, any Supreme Being, Creator, or gods. If you have another idea for a better word (besides "gods"), hey, let me know. I will gladly hone this talking point.

Okay, so, if or since we accept that the word "atheism," like "theism," merely describe the presence of absence of a belief or faith, them do we not also agree that the each term lacks descriptive qualities that might indicate a moral position?

I do agree with sohy in principle that Humanism exists in part to serve as a moral foundation, or, perhaps, to provide the principles that are most agreed-upon by the Humanist members and fans of the American Humanist Association (AHA), its chapters, and its affiliates.

It is my understanding that other Humanist leadership nonprofits exist with their own literature and different principles or guidelines. However, I don't feel like searching for or mentioning those other websites/501(c)(3)s.

 

[Jarhyn]

The ONLY way to engage in "Morality" is to think about how your actions effect the world. It is inherently subjective based on the context and situation

No, it's inherently relative. This is different from being subjective, because relativity allows things to still be objectively what they are, but allows what is objectively true of the system to depend on the relationship a thing has with another thing.

In this way it's more like the distance between two objects to some third point: the apparent distance from either point depends on which point it is being observed from, but it is still a real distance being observed.

Further, there are in fact objective laws of relativity.

So while ethics is a function of relationships, these are not themselves open to subjectivity or judgement calls or arbitration.

As such you could easily point to the fact that while the relationships in nature are many and varied, there are principles that still operate in a general way with respect to ethics; my own thesis, which could still stand to see a fair bit of work, is that the first complete form of general ethics starts at the level of abstraction of "goals" and "goal conflicts", and generalizing across agents.

This is not "subjective" because it looks pointedly away from who the subject is; it is relative because it looks at the general relationship between any two subjects (and assumes some manner of symmetry).

Indeed, this seems fairly correct to me on an intuitive level because it is often when people treat themselves as special and above the needs of others that conflict first starts to arise, and there is great focus within all of ethics to maintain compatibility between agents.

 

[AdamWho]

So you didn't have a substantive disagreement, just semantics?

 

[Jarhyn]

So you didn't have a substantive disagreement, just semantics?

That's a pretty solid disagreement, because what you say makes a huge difference to what someone can claim.

If you claim your ethics are subjective, because they are based on some manner of relativity, you will be saying something others will.criticize you for and rightly. They will say 'you don't have ethics because you think ethics changes based on who you ask', which is what "subjective" here means.

Even saying that ethics themselves are "relative" rather than that they account for a form of "relativity" is dangerous, because what I just described is neither "relative" nor "subjective", in that the structure of determining the existence of an unethical position CAN actually be determined by an "objective detached observer" without any reference to what anyone believes in the situation is ethical.

That's a pretty substantive and important hair to always be sure to split, because one says "there is no real truth behind ethics" and the other says "there is a truth behind ethics, it just gets a little weird".

It's the difference between "is relative" and "has to do with objective facts about relationships in general".

 

[rousseau]

You cannot be moral if you claim to actually derive your morality from "gods"... and you certainly are not engaged in "objective morality".

1. No one ever has demonstrated that any god has ever existed much less gave any moral codes. At best you have religious, written by humans, that make claims. IF you are follow these texts, then you are following the morality of those men, in that culture at that time.

2. Obedience is not morality. Being obedient out of fear of punishment or hope for reward is not morality. And again, obedience to who? A god who doesn't exist? A book written by people a long time ago from a completely different society?

The ONLY way to engage in "Morality" is to think about how your actions effect the world. It is inherently subjective based on the context and situation.

Someone whose morals derive from religion are still thinking about how their actions affect other people, but maybe not as deeply as they could. I like Kohlberg's conventional / post-conventional thesis. The conventional and pre-conventional thinker take known and obvious rules (religious or legal) as absolute, unbreakable truths. The post-conventional thinker knows that there is a difference between following the rules and doing the actual right thing.

On some level both of these people care about their impact, but one of them is much more effective at doing the right thing in more scenarios.

Someone who isn't moral at all would likely be a sociopath.

 

[Janice Rael]

So you didn't have a substantive disagreement, just semantics?

That's a pretty solid disagreement, because what you say makes a huge difference to what someone can claim.

I gotta agree with @Jarhyn here, and on the rest of the post.

To @AdamWho - semantics are indeed an interesting thing. But what if you're talking to (or otherwise engaged with) a person who is not proficient in English?

I once asked a Spanish-speaking person how to say "my nose is running" in Spanish. The person was fluent in many Spanish languages or dialects, from his native Columbian to Puerto Rican, Spain-Spanish, and many Mexican dialects.

My friend told me that the phrase had no direct translation. He said that the direct translation for the phrase he used came out to "I am mucusing" in English. We laughed about that for years; it was evidence of one of many ways in which I was so wrong, so often.

I'd love opinions or information regarding my opinion, that we maintain a certain sort of supremacy over those who do not know any English, or who may speak different kinds of English worldwide. This may make us wrong in regards to our semantics or talking points, or our beliefs, our problems, everything. We're always going to be literally wrong, whether or not we are literally right.

 

[southernhybrid]

You cannot be moral if you claim to actually derive your morality from "gods"... and you certainly are not engaged in "objective morality".

1. No one ever has demonstrated that any god has ever existed much less gave any moral codes. At best you have religious, written by humans, that make claims. IF you are follow these texts, then you are following the morality of those men, in that culture at that time.

2. Obedience is not morality. Being obedient out of fear of punishment or hope for reward is not morality. And again, obedience to who? A god who doesn't exist? A book written by people a long time ago from a completely different society?

The ONLY way to engage in "Morality" is to think about how your actions effect the world. It is inherently subjective based on the context and situation.

Well there is a pretty long list of Human Universals that are supposedly found in all known cultures and societies, which have nothing to do with what one believes when it comes to the supernatural.

Regarding the thread title and theme, is it not fair and accurate to state that of both atheism by itself, or, theism by itself, in the plainest English language, neither can be said to offer morality or to be moral positions?

At their core, or, perhaps, in the most clear understanding we may have of these terms, then, do we not understand and agree that the words refer to either the possession or lack of an affirmative belief in the existence of a deity or deities, and/or the possession or lack of *faith* in the existence of deities or a deity?

By deity or deities, I intend to refer to God, Allah, Jesus, any Supreme Being, Creator, or gods. If you have another idea for a better word (besides "gods"), hey, let me know. I will gladly hone this talking point.

Okay, so, if or since we accept that the word "atheism," like "theism," merely describe the presence of absence of a belief or faith, them do we not also agree that the each term lacks descriptive qualities that might indicate a moral position?

I do agree with sohy in principle that Humanism exists in part to serve as a moral foundation, or, perhaps, to provide the principles that are most agreed-upon by the Humanist members and fans of the American Humanist Association (AHA), its chapters, and its affiliates.

It is my understanding that other Humanist leadership nonprofits exist with their own literature and different principles or guidelines. However, I don't feel like searching for or mentioning those other websites/501(c)(3)s.

I'll repeat myself again. The thread was simply based on an article I read in the American Humanist Publication, based on a survey of what people who are skeptical about the existence of gods verses those who are sure there are gods or a god feel when it comes to morality. the secular people tend to be more accepting of minorities, regardless if we're talking about racial minorities or members of the LBGTQ community. I would add that atheists are usually far more caring about those who are religious compared to how religious people tend think about atheists. That's all. I didn't make up the title. I simply copied it from the article. The point is based on several surveys that non believers and skeptics regarding the existence of gods tend to have better moral values compared to religious people.

And, I'll repeat myself again regarding human universals. All cultures and societies share certain ideas and values. For example there are laws against murder in all cultures, regardless if they are religious or not. We evolved to be moral, at least to some extent.

My dogs have always understood fairness and love. I've read so many books about how dogs evolved along with us, how they want to be with us and how they give us unconditional love. As far as I know, dogs aren't religious but they obviously hold moral values, which is obvious by their behavior. I've known of at least one very damaged dog that would attack people. Perhaps the dog had brain damage or was the victim of mistreatment. Psychopathy is a brain disorder. I think Trump likely has it, and maybe other animals are born with it. Who knows? There is so much we don't know about these things. Animals, at least mammals have evolved to have morals. I'll repeat myself one more time. Remember the female gorilla who protected the little child who fell into the gorilla pit at a zoo many years ago? I remember it clearly. That mama ape was protecting a human child from the bad ass males. She obviously had some level of morality. Shit. I can't believe I started this thread over two years ago.

 

[Janice Rael]

Hey, no worries, sohy.

Your very last comment reminded me of a much older, related story, captured in a song that you will definitely appreciate. Yes, there is a moral viewpoint here.

The Ballad Of Lucy + Ted · Phranc - I Enjoy Being A Girl - ℗ Island Records - Released on: 1989-03-14

 

[bilby]

I once asked a Spanish-speaking person how to say "my nose is running" in Spanish. The person was fluent in many Spanish languages or dialects, from his native Columbian to Puerto Rican, Spain-Spanish, and many Mexican dialects.

My friend told me that the phrase had no direct translation. He said that the direct translation for the phrase he used came out to "I am mucusing" in English.

If your nose is running, and your feet are smelling, perhaps you are just upside down.

 

[Janice Rael]

My refrigerator is running!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I saw "10 commitments of humanism, just for fun." I agree 100%, they exist for fun alone. Moral posturing is not morality. No tangible actions result, The website certainly isn't dogma, nor dictate. It's a pretty web page. One more set of talking points with the value of the three Manifestos.

I've known hundreds of Humanists; was a volunteer for years; hosted the AHA Prez, hosted and ran an alleged chapter of my state's Humanist group, I was on the BoD. I went above and beyond. But guess I failed NJHN so miserably that they removed any mention of me and of their chapter's work in Gloucester County NJ. Maybe I was too poor to be remembered as more than a faceless queer slave.

Humanists won't help me. There is not ONE commitment to me. No commitments to human people in crisis. The AHA website is a slap in my face. I'm in crisis, I'm floundering. What's a Humanist going to do to or for me, link me to another page of pretty posturing? How is it moral to be wrong? Humanist groups do photo ops and tax deductions. I know Humanist values: Donate to a nonprofit that already does what they do ,publish more pablum.

I imagine my reaction to seeing the Humanist 10Cs is the same as sohy's reaction to seeing the Biblical 10Cs. "Wow, unhelpful nonsense." Yeah. I agree that this is an example of atheist morality (it is self-serving - tax credits mean more than humans).

there is no "atheist morality"

"Aha! So you're admitting atheists HAVE NO MORALITY!!!" - fundies

 

[DBT]

Some theists appear to believe that without God, morality is impossible.

 

[Janice Rael]

Hey @GenesisNemesis Nobody needs to wear a shoe that doesn't fit.

 

[southernhybrid]

Some theists appear to believe that without God, morality is impossible.

Yes, they do.

They are ignorant, but when they become friends with an atheist, it often changes their opinion. That is one reason why I'm usually an open atheist, assuming the Christian is frequently bringing up religion, or worse yet, preaching it to me. They have this awful stereotype about atheists, which they have usually been taught in their churches, that we are all some kind of harmful demons that are destroying the world. Once they become friends or friendly acquaintances with an atheist or two, they realize that despite our different beliefs, we usually have good values and morals, similar to most of theirs, although atheists are more accepting of minorities, especially those who identify as LBGTQ. Conservative Christians often consider being gay an evil, sinful choice. Those are the kind of things that the surveys were used to assess morality of atheists and non religious people compared to religious folks. Like I said, they are ignorant. They've been indoctrinated, and sometimes that results in hatred, judgmental behavior and even violence toward the minority they believe is a sinner.

Sadly, in the US, the hateful, extremist beliefs of conservative Christians has become political, as the threat of a Christian theocracy looms in the background. Some of our politicians, including judges, are pushing to return prayer and Bible reading in our public schools and rid the country of the SCS, deny women control over their own bodies, etc. They work to remove books from libraries that support gay marriage, or discuss Christian theology being used to support slavery etc. I consider that to be immoral behavior, especially considering we are supposed to support free speech. It seems Orwellian.

They are claiming that the SCS is not in our constitution and the country was founded to be a Christian nation. Meanwhile, even atheists who despise religion, usually still support religious freedom, as long as it's kept out of government. I'm old enough to remember when school prayer and Bible reading were removed from the public schools. My evangelical mom didn't seem to mind, as Baptists used to be big supporters of the SCS. That has changed a lot in the past 50 or so years.