The Morality of Atheism

[Copernicus]

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.

I don't see the Reformation, however, as trying to make Roman Catholicism "milder, kinder, and with less hatred and prejudice towards those outside their faith." Martin Luther was a particularly vehement antisemite. Islam schismed like Christianity, but the Sunni/Shia schism was between religious factions. Christianity had its major schisms (e.g. Orthodox vs Roman Catholic), but the Holy Roman Empire underwent a major crisis between secular and ecclesiastical authority. The religious wars that followed, particularly the vicious and bloody  Thirty Years War, served as a wedge that allowed northern European monarchies to break off from the Pope's authority with the Protestant movement lacking any central authority to compete with kings. So secular government evolved out of that violent rivalry between religion and civil authority, not from any attempt to soften Christianity. Religion and civil authority remained joined at the hip in Muslim countries. Secular Muslim countries exist today, but their secularism seems much weaker than that of Christian nations. Perhaps Turkey under Ataturk evolved the strongest secular democracy in the Muslim world, but that era seems to have much weaker under Erdogan.

 

[SIB]

peoples morals are people morals. Good people have healthy morals. Broken people have un healthy morals. For me, people are people and will act just like people. A statement of belief about god (atheist/theist) is a powerful motivator. To me its like a PED or medical help. Its needed by the middle of the road regulars just doing the best they can with what they got. Any human entity start to be troublesome when they get to big. Example, education in the united states. These leaders are stealing peoples futures.

Its the same with statements of belief about god to me. When people start to think they have the answer to save the rest us with their beliefs they become intrusive and dangerous to liberty and freedom. I see no difference between fundy think type atheist and the fundy theist. Believing in "something more" just matches observation and commonsense more than the reverse. That means the smothering foot prints of believers tend to be much bigger in some parts of the world. We need to monitor that.

For me the red flag of immoral is when a statement of belief (atheist/theist) avoids/shuts down/terminates lines of questioning under the flags of openness and healing. Of course to the fundy think type, "all/none", of the binary brain, is the only thought process.

 

[bilby]

Believing in "something more" just matches observation and commonsense more than the reverse.

You keep saying this. But it's not true at all, and you don't even attempt to bring a shred of evidence to support it, or even attempt to define it so that it is actually meaningful.

If you mean simply that you believe we don't know everything, then your belief is banal, obvious, and useless. If you mean that you believe in some specific thing or things as yet undescribed, then you need to describe them and then show that they are actually a better fit for specific observations, or your belief is empty and pointless.

In short:

What specific observation(s) make "something more" a sensible thing to believe in?

and

What is the "something more" more than, and how would we recognise it as such?





Personally, I sm guessing that your "something more" might be what biologists call "the endocrine system", but frankly you are far too vague about it for this to be more than a guess.

 

[Janice Rael]

Religion is fundamentally immoral, in that it takes away personal freedom; While this is not always a bad thing, on average it does more harm than goof.

Sorry @bilby , but, what? This is not true, it's demonstrably false on its face.

Maybe you personally have not found a morality in any religion, but this is your personal, subjective opinion.

Billions of humans happily exist with personal freedom that they find in their religions.

Regardless of the religions, humans may or may not be moral or immoral.

The absence or presence of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with any religions, or with any particular views regarding the transcendent or Divine.

Atheism pertains to an absence of theistic belief. There is no explanatory power; no ethical or moral relationship at all.

It seems silly to say otherwise.


Besides, all religions are equally valid, in the eyes of the law, IRS Code 501(c)(3).

 

[bilby]

Religion is fundamentally immoral, in that it takes away personal freedom; While this is not always a bad thing, on average it does more harm than goof.

Sorry @bilby , but, what? This is not true, it's demonstrably false on its face.

Maybe you personally have not found a morality in any religion, but this is your personal, subjective opinion.

Billions of humans happily exist with personal freedom that they find in their religions.

Regardless of the religions, humans may or may not be moral or immoral.

The absence or presence of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with any religions, or with any particular views regarding the transcendent or Divine.

Atheism pertains to an absence of theistic belief. There is no explanatory power; no ethical or moral relationship at all.

It seems silly to say otherwise.


Besides, all religions are equally valid, in the eyes of the law, IRS Code 501(c)(3).

I didn't say that belief or faith were immoral; I said that religion was immoral. And it is.

Religion is telling people how to behave on the basis of a lie; It is fraud, and it is immoral.

The IRS Code does not apply to me; I live outside its jurisdiction. I don't think that US law is particularly moral, nor is it any more significant in my life than (for example) Saudi Arabian law.

In one of my countries of citizenship, a single specific religion has massive privilege in law, and the leaders of that religion are automatically given legislative powers in the form of seats in one of the two national legislative chambers.

Such inequality in law for religions is the legal norm worldwide; The USA is an outlier in this regard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regardless of the religions, humans may or may not be moral or immoral.

The absence or presence of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with any religions, or with any particular views regarding the transcendent or Divine.

Atheism pertains to an absence of theistic belief. There is no explanatory power; no ethical or moral relationship at all.

It seems silly to say otherwise.


Besides, all religions are equally valid, in the eyes of the law, IRS Code 501(c)(3).

If you behave only because your religion tells you not to engage in certain behaviors you are not moral you are simply acting moral. For someone truly to be moral they must be doing so based on their own values, not upon fear of punishment.

 

[Jarhyn]

Regardless of the religions, humans may or may not be moral or immoral.

The absence or presence of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with any religions, or with any particular views regarding the transcendent or Divine.

Atheism pertains to an absence of theistic belief. There is no explanatory power; no ethical or moral relationship at all.

It seems silly to say otherwise.


Besides, all religions are equally valid, in the eyes of the law, IRS Code 501(c)(3).

If you behave only because your religion tells you not to engage in certain behaviors you are not moral you are simply acting moral. For someone truly to be moral they must be doing so based on their own values, not upon fear of punishment.

So, I would like to examine this proposition of yours...

I, personally, behave for largely pragmatic reasons. You have known me long enough to know I have a history as a troll, and sometimes I slip up and even start trolling people here.

I hope you have also known me long enough to know that I find this behavior problematic as you do, but it is there all the same.

My reasons for not trolling people here almost purely related to the fact that I don't want to deal with the consequences of doing so. I look at the cost (losing the friends and acquaintances I have made here of the last 12 years), and I look at the benefit (getting my jellies jollied for about 2 seconds) and I make a judgement call (12 year friends > 2 second jollies).

I wouldn't call that "moral"; it's just "fear of punishment by any other name", "actions have consequences" and all that.

I behave because it's simply not going to lead me towards my more major goals if I don't; largely these goals are in fact about limiting the consequences of the behavior I want to engage in: finding the edge cases where such negative externalities simply cease to exist, or where those present have already consented to the extent of those externalities, or even where people have specifically sought those externalities out.

I won't make the mistake of claiming I don't act out of some knowledge of consequence, however, it's just that all the consequences I act in response to are real, and I know one of the consequences of freely ignoring consequences is that I would be accepting on myself the consequences of such actions in general: that disregard of consequences creates an environmental effect, especially when I accept that some other humans might also be, as I have said before, sufficiently also "me", as this would also serve as a consequence, namely "self-harm".

 

[Janice Rael]

I didn't say that belief or faith were immoral; I said that religion was immoral. And it is.

Religion is telling people how to behave on the basis of a lie; It is fraud, and it is immoral.

Nuh-uh. Religions are too big and broad, they can't all qualify for this designation. It is not possible to say this is true of all religions.

Consider trying to falsify your assertion by using a thorough history of Secular Humanism in relation to Theistic Humanism.

Consider trying to falsify your assertion by describing the tenets of Unitarian Universalism.

Consider the religions that exist in other lands, in other languages.

Then, please reconsider your initial assertion, and, perhaps you may see how I disagree with your assertion.

The last example I used is not relevant outside of the USA, regarding 501(c)(3) status, but is relevant to demonstration of the assertion being false.

- We can't say that religions do things unless we are certain that the things are true of all religions -

 

[TomC]

Nuh-uh. Religions are too big and broad, they can't all qualify for this designation. It is not possible to say this is true of all religions.

Yeah, I often have that problem myself.
I have a habit of referring to religion when I am really meaning trinitarian Christianity. It's just so dominant around here.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Nuh-uh. Religions are too big and broad, they can't all qualify for this designation. It is not possible to say this is true of all religions.

Sure it is; it's the defining feature of religion.

If it's not founded on stuff people claim but cannot demonstrate (ie, lies), then it's not a religion at all. Religion is defined by belief in something that cannot be demonstrated.

Of course, you could prove me wrong with a single counterexample, if you can find one.

I have a big ego though, so if you do, I don't guarantee that I shalln't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy

 

[AdamWho]

Obedience and moral actions are different. You have to think to have morals, you don't have to think to be obedient.

People who claim to derive their morals from religion are either confused about where they actually derive their morals or they are simply obedient and lack a moral foundation. They admit as much when they say things like "How can you be moral without a god?".

I claim that all religious people, in that they are moral at all, borrow their morality from the secular culture around them.

 

[Janice Rael]

Nuh-uh. Religions are too big and broad, they can't all qualify for this designation. It is not possible to say this is true of all religions.

Sure it is; it's the defining feature of religion.

If it's not founded on stuff people claim but cannot demonstrate (ie, lies), then it's not a religion at all. Religion is defined by belief in something that cannot be demonstrated.

Of course, you could prove me wrong with a single counterexample, if you can find one.

I have a big ego though, so if you do, I don't guarantee that I shalln't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy

Of course you think that.

You declined the assignment, and got a wrong answer. That is why homework matters.

 

[Lion IRC]

Obedience and moral actions are different. You have to think to have morals, you don't have to think to be obedient.

Wouldn't you have to think before deciding whether or not to obey?

- Why should I obey this rule - this advice?
- Does obeying this rule benefit me?
- Who is it asking me to obey?

People who claim to derive their morals from religion are either confused about where they actually derive their morals..

No. They could be completely rational and justified in thinking those morals are correct.

or they are simply obedient

This is circuitous.
Of course they are going to obey if they think the moral rule benefits them. What else would they do?

and lack a moral foundation.

They dont lack a moral foundation. They are acting in accordance with that moral foundation.

It would be the lack of a moral foundation which would prevent them from knowing whether or not to obey.

They admit as much when they say things like "How can you be moral without a god?".

What a gob-smacking non sequitur.

Asking someone a question about their moral epistemology doesn't mean you yourself lack any epistemic moral realism.

It's a perfectly valid question atheists should be happy to answer. - How can you be moral without God?

...which is not the same as saying you cant be moral without God.

I claim that all religious people, in that they are moral at all, borrow their morality from the secular culture around them.

Hard disagree.

Firstly, I think it's the other way around. Modern secular culture still has the vestigial remnants of religion it inherited from earlier cultures. (eg. The Ten Commandments)

Secondly, how would 95% of the population (religious) derive and sustain the ubiquitous culture of religious morality from a NON religious source that historically has been practically invisible. IOW, you can't draw from a non-existent source. Neither can you accuse religions of perpetuating their existence by indoctrinating their children - internal crowd sourcing.

Thirdly, how would the religious moral framework bridge the gap between itself and the non-theistic, secular moral framework? How can..."because God" be reconciled with... "God has nothing to do with it" ?

Try saying it to yourself - out loud.

Hey you, Lion IRC, I think you unwittingly got your fundy religious moral framework from atheists.

 

[bilby]

Wouldn't you have to think before deciding whether or not to obey?

Not if you are obedient.

That's what obedient means. Doing as you are told.

If you decide not to obey, that is the very essence and definition of disobedience.

 

[bilby]

Asking someone a question about their moral epistemology doesn't mean you yourself lack any epistemic moral realism.

Sure it does, when (as it typically is) it is a rhetorical question that implies incredulity.

When someone says "How can you be moral without a god?" they are generally not asking for information, any more than when somebody says "How can an apparently intelligent person say something so incredibly stupid?", they are not asking for a description of how vocal cords generate compression waves in air.

Don't you even know what a rhetorical question is?

 

[bilby]

Firstly, I think it's the other way around.

We all know that you do.

You are wrong. And determined not to find that fact out.

 

[bilby]

a NON religious source that historically has been practically invisible.

As opposed to the highly visible gods?

 

[bilby]

Hey you, Lion IRC, I think you unwittingly got your fundy religious moral framework from atheists other humans.

FTFY.

No gods were involved, in either the production of your moral framework, or in the production of the Bible (which was written by humans).

Lots of humans have imagined, and told stories about, gods. Are you concerned about angering Thor and having him smite your home with a lightning bolt?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Obedience and moral actions are different. You have to think to have morals, you don't have to think to be obedient.

Wouldn't you have to think before deciding whether or not to obey?

- Why should I obey this rule - this advice?
- Does obeying this rule benefit me?
- Who is it asking me to obey?

People who claim to derive their morals from religion are either confused about where they actually derive their morals..

No. They could be completely rational and justified in thinking those morals are correct.

or they are simply obedient

This is circuitous.
Of course they are going to obey if they think the moral rule benefits them. What else would they do?

and lack a moral foundation.

They dont lack a moral foundation. They are acting in accordance with that moral foundation.

It would be the lack of a moral foundation which would prevent them from knowing whether or not to obey.

They admit as much when they say things like "How can you be moral without a god?".

What a gob-smacking non sequitur.

Asking someone a question about their moral epistemology doesn't mean you yourself lack any epistemic moral realism.

It's a perfectly valid question atheists should be happy to answer. - How can you be moral without God?

...which is not the same as saying you cant be moral without God.

I claim that all religious people, in that they are moral at all, borrow their morality from the secular culture around them.

Hard disagree.

Firstly, I think it's the other way around. Modern secular culture still has the vestigial remnants of religion it inherited from earlier cultures. (eg. The Ten Commandments)

Secondly, how would 95% of the population (religious) derive and sustain the ubiquitous culture of religious morality from a NON religious source that historically has been practically invisible. IOW, you can't draw from a non-existent source. Neither can you accuse religions of perpetuating their existence by indoctrinating their children - internal crowd sourcing.

Thirdly, how would the religious moral framework bridge the gap between itself and the non-theistic, secular moral framework? How can..."because God" be reconciled with... "God has nothing to do with it" ?

Try saying it to yourself - out loud.

Hey you, Lion IRC, I think you unwittingly got your fundy religious moral framework from atheists.

It is interesting that twice you mention that a person would do the moral thing because it would benefit them. Does that mean that if it doesn't benefit them they wouldn't do the moral thing? Is that typical of Christian biblical morality?

 

[Lion IRC]

It is interesting that twice you mention that a person would do the moral thing because it would benefit them. Does that mean that if it doesn't benefit them they wouldn't do the moral thing?

No, I take the view that the morally correct thing to do is the one which maximally benefits everyone, or leads to the maximal benefit for all. I would argue that you can't do the morally correct act without it benefiting you.

And the inverse would also hold in my opinion. You could do an immoral act, mistakenly thinking it did no harm to yourself or others.

God's moral laws (instructions) are for our benefit not His. This is one of the three ways we can conclude His law is objectively true.

God's moral laws are objective because;

1. They are omnisciently wise. (Not guesswork)

2. They are impartial. (For our benefit not His)

3. They are enforced and enforceable. (A law which isn't enforced hardly even qualifies as a law - let alone an objectively real law.)

Is that typical of Christian biblical morality?

I'm not sure how you measure that.