Moral atheists

[Texas_Roofer]

…
Can mercenaries be good soldiers?
Now the answer is a bit more interesting. There are certainly examples of successful military operations carried out by mercenaries. However the mercenary, ultimately, doesn’t believe in the cause he is fighting for. What reason has he to be a good soldier when it really matters, and the army is on the cusp between victory and defeat?

Similarly, when the chips are down, what reason has an atheist not to act selfishly?

:clapping: Thank you very much. You are so correct what prevents the mercenary from changing sides? If you use the old writing it would seem the Atheist can be 9/10 moral but in the new writes only 1/2. Either way the athesit can make it 100% of the way.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

wcknight

I think both atheists and agnostics can very easily be moral people. I believe God gives everyone an inner moral code, we inherrently have a feeling or sense of what is right and wrong. We are each brought up in an environment of our own culture and family and friends, but instintively we can sense what we should or should not do, and how we should or should not treat others.

In principle this is traditional Catholic teaching … that the atheist is not bereft of the inherent (naturasl law) moral code just by denying God. But the inherent moral code also specifies that we should worship God. And that is why most people world wide respond to their inner law to worship something higher than themselves.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:36 NIV). Jesus replied, " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40)

That being said, if all other morals are contained in those two, it is hard to see how atheists can ever be fully moral. When they deny the first and greatest of commandments, it would seem they are disobeying the one commandment they need most of all to obey in order to be saved.

What good does it do them, then, if they obey all the rest and disobey the most important of all?

2nd Timothy Chapter 2

“If we have died with him
we shall also live with him;
if we persevere
we shall also reign with him.
But if we deny him
he will deny us."

 

[Pug]

That being said, if all other morals are contained in those two, it is hard to see how atheists can ever be fully moral. When they deny the first and greatest of commandments, it would seem they are disobeying the one commandment they need most of all to obey in order to be saved.

I think most atheists show signs of being devoted to Truth. Now, I realize perhaps that gets confused with Human Reason, but still. I think that is a move in the direction that the greatest commandment points.

Maybe my problem is that most of the *atheist *atheists that I know are fairly absolutist and tend to follow strict codes of duty. Being a “spiritual person” somehow seems or feels less responsive to the greatest commandment. Perhaps I lack appropriate experience with these folk.

 

[stillwater]

God existed before the Christendom and the Judaism. I am Catholic because I am comfortable with the paradigm.

this does not answer the original question

True. However, and together, we both believe that a ***“Big Bang” ***happened. and we can’t explain rationally how everything came to exist from nothing (ex nihilo). We are both silent in face of this ***“beginning”. ***

the big bang is a theory and can be refuted by new discoveries.

Furthermore, it’s in our genes to believe and 99.999% of the humankind are programmed to believe. Not only any faith is a spiritual matter but it’s a genetic matter also. It’s an important factor in the evolution of the humankind.

And if the nature is considering any faith like an important key for advancing in life, well, it should be a very important key.

No.

I started my pilgrimage with the Tibetan monks and I arrived to Catholicism. I moved from the mysticism to the Faith in a personal and historical God.

I am not waiting to be in heaven for the bliss, ***by intuition, ***I know that He is alive.

all of this is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[ribozyme]

I’ve noticed this time and again. Even among the latter type - where someone will repeatedly refer to anything theistically inspired as ‘fever-dream’, etc. There’s a lot of effort, conscious or not, that gets put into trying to avoid following the logic of the conclusion out to the end.

So absolutely, there can be and are moral atheists. But it’s important to pay attention to how the morality is arrived at.

I challenge the idea of one being accountable to God as a intergral component for an ethical foundation.

 

[Nullasalus]

I challenge the idea of one being accountable to God as a intergral component for an ethical foundation.

Anyone can make an ethical foundation. The problem is that - once you assent to the idea that the universe is pointless, there is no God, and life is objectively meaningless (and, if you want to go the full Dawkins and Dennett route, that free will is a delusion and therefore subjective meaning is also illusory), any ‘ethical foundation’ is as good as any other.

I mean, really - you asked if ‘atheists can be moral’. That’s a meaningful question for christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and others - they have a system of morality that, in their view, deviation from is wrong, and adherence to is right (moral). If you’re changing the game to 'Can an atheist be moral? And by the way, by ‘moral’ I mean ‘Adhere to an ethical foundation’, then you may as well ask if atheists can be… whatever they please.

 

[tdgesq]

But if we look at this from a preference utilitarian perspective, Peter Singer would be precieved as a moral atheist.

Whatever variety of utilitarianism you take up, there are problems common to all of them. The one that to me seems insurmountable is that one never knows - I mean doesn’t even have a good idea one way or the other - when he performs an act or makes a choice that results in the greatest good for the greatest number.

I think that atheists can be moral. A great example is Peter Singer. He gives 20% of his money to Oxfam and Unicef. He also wants to reduce human suffering. Therefore, Peter Singer is an example of a moral atheist.

This is a good example. How does Mr. Singer know that giving 20% of his money to these charities is following the utilitarian principle? Perhaps giving this money to other more worthy charities would have alleviated far more human suffering. And does this principle really make sense in the first place?

Surely Ribozyme when you are reading about cosmology or some other subject of interest to you, rather than helping out at the local homeless shelter, you would not be commiting an immoral act. Would you? Natural law, especially in the context of Christian morality seems a better choice. A person can pick among various goods. And since those goods are generally well defined, one can actually know that they are acting morally. It also allows for things like increasing a person’s own knowledge by reading a book rather than - say - helping at that very moment at the homeless shelter. The utilitarian standard for morality is a very poor one IMO.

 

[Ender]

I challenge the idea of one being accountable to God as a intergral component for an ethical foundation.

The reference cited by havemercy in post #7 asks the right question: can morality exist if God does not? Those who believe in God believe in objective moral truths, therefore anyone who behaves according to those values, whether or not he believes in God, behaves morally. So a Christian can easily say that an athiest can behave ethically.

More to the point however, is that this is not something an athiest can properly say of himself or of anyone else as he has no grounds on which to hold that morality itself even exists. We do not believe that animals can behave morally no matter what they do; morality does not exist for the animal world. Without God to provide it morality would not exist for humans either so the athiest who believes he can act morally doesn’t understand the implications of his belief.

Ender

 

[Melony]

ANYONE can be moral. Whether they’re with God or not. What kind of question is that??

 

[Pug]

More to the point however, is that this is not something an athiest can properly say of himself or of anyone else as he has no grounds on which to hold that morality itself even exists.

I don’t yet feel compelled to lay out a moral system for an atheist, not being one myself, but I would like to point out that no matter what an atheist believes, he is still a man. So he still has a moral sense, and can recognize it’s existence within himself. True, it is one of the pointers toward God, but he doesn’t have to realize that implication in order to notice it’s existence. The atheist will notice that he IS a moral being, much like being a rational being. That fact just is. Why would he need to prove that it exists, necessarily?

 

[R_McGeddon]

Christians do not think so.

Having read through this thread, it is only you that thinks not.

They have 3 great reasons not to think so in the 20th century alone …Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … atheists par excellence

You mention these three people with depressing frequency, do you have any evidence that atheism was their driving force, rather than their megalomania?

who organized human slaughter on a scale unmatched historically by any so-called body of religious men.

Oh really? have the conquistadors of the Americas conveniently slipped your mind? They wiped out entire cultures and civilisations, spreading christianity by the sword. So they’re not exactly squeaky clean either.

 

[wildleafblower]

As a believer of God, please don’t condemn my dear, good friends who are non-believers or their Christian wives may show-up and give you a piece of their mind since their husbands are responsible, caring Fathers.

Let’s also remember that non-believers of God have every right as believers under the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights approved by the United Nations on December 16, 1966, and the Final Act of the Conference on European Security and Cooperation, signed on August 1, 1975 (“Questions related to security in Europe, 1, a. Declaration on the principles governing mutual relationships among participating states: VIII. Respect for human rights and fundamental liberties, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or conviction”.

 

[Ender]

So (the athiest) still has a moral sense, and can recognize it’s existence within himself. True, it is one of the pointers toward God, but he doesn’t have to realize that implication in order to notice it’s existence.

I acknowledge that an athiest can behave morally, as that term is generally defined. My point is that there is no logical reason for him to do so as, without God, morality itself would not exist - the concept would be as meaningless for us as it is for animals.

Ender

 

[porkscratchings]

I acknowledge that an athiest can behave morally, as that term is generally defined. ** My point is that there is no logical reason for him** to do so as, without God, morality itself would not exist - the concept would be as meaningless for us as it is for animals.

Ender

Why not? Doesn’t doing good for the betterment of society count as a logical reason? How about looking after our fellow man? Upholding human rights?

Morality is a creation of society itself - not God, if u r an atheist.

All human beings r capable of moral behaviour, religious or not.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

porkscratchings

All human beings r capable of moral behaviour, religious or not.

Yes, they are. So? The question is not whether they are capable of moral behavior, but whether they would be achiving their best moral behavior with or without Christ?

Where are the atheists hospitals? There are plenty of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish hospitals. Where are the atheists who go into the prison ministry and try to recover all those lost souls to a truly moral life? Where are the atheist missionaries who teach backward children in backward nations how to read and bring the food and clothing to them to stay alive? Where are the atheists who fought against slavery the way the Christian abolitionists did before the Civil War? Who led the march for modern Civil Rights for black people … the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hare or Reverend Martin Luther King? Who led the pro-life movement to stop the slaughter of the unborn, the Catholic Church or the largely atheist ACLU?

I could go on, but what’s the use? All these facts will just keep rolling around in your head to no avail.

 

[porkscratchings]

porkscratchings

All human beings r capable of moral behaviour, religious or not.

Yes, they are. So? The question is not whether they are capable of moral behavior, but whether they would be achiving their best moral behavior with or without Christ?

my reply answers the q raised by the thread starter. ur intolerance towards atheists is better addressed by ur shrink.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why not? Doesn’t doing good for the betterment of society count as a logical reason? How about looking after our fellow man? Upholding human rights?

Morality is a creation of society itself - not God, if u r an atheist.

All human beings r capable of moral behaviour, religious or not.

Good to see you back, but the question remains “What bounds the atheist?” So if 10 atheist are disagreeing on what is moral how do they resolve the issues at hand, especially as one in the group may choose to use force on the others, as this does not violate his “morals”

 

[porkscratchings]

Good to see you back, but the question remains “What bounds the atheist?” So if 10 atheist are disagreeing on what is moral how do they resolve the issues at hand, especially as one in the group may choose to use force on the others, as this does not violate his “morals”

That would be the same thing as 10 countries with different moral systems coming up with an agreement that all of them can sign. This is happening all the time - examples the UN declaration of human rights, the kyoto agreement,etc. They just have to negotiate until they come up with something workable. Same goes for 10 atheists.

10 Christians can also disagree on what is moral even if they were in the same denomination of Christianity, more so if they were in different denominations. And a christian is just as capable of using force to make the others go along. That christian might feel force is necessary to ‘save’ the unbeliever/christian who disagree with him. That’s just human nature.

What bounds the atheist is the same thing that bounds the Christian - personal choices. We may justify these choices by using God or reason, but they remain our choices.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

porkscratchings

ur intolerance towards atheists is better addressed by ur shrink.

Please cite the specific sentences where my so-called intolerance was expressed. Criticism and disagreement would not by themselves indicate intolerance. If that were so, you would certainly be among the most intolerant members of this board.

Right?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

porkscratchings

What bounds the atheist is the same thing that bounds the Christian - personal choices.

No, what bounds the Christian is the Gospels. What bounds the atheist is personal choice … in other words, whatever he can get away with.

I am starting to get impatient with the regularity with which almost everything you say flies in the face of common sense.