Moral atheists

[Malcolm_McLean]

I have to give Siner credit for honesty and for following his beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Yes, if you abort a baby that is murder as is infanticide. Yet, Singer believes that a child should be killed for a certain number of months after birth.

Singer makes his living by writing books and teaching on ethics. So he’s very much a special case.

His books are a good illustration of the problems of atheist ethics. For instance he uses the argument that, because there is now a consensus that racism is wrong, so too “speciesism” must be wrong.
The logic is prety good, but only if you place anti-racism at the centre of your moral sensibility. However times change. After experiments with a set of ethics in which racism was, indeed, regarded as one of the worst of all sins, we are now realising that anti-racist policies lead to a permanent sense of grievance, and ultimately the 7/7 bombings. The church was right all along - racism is wrong, but it is not an especially wicked sin, and there is no particular virtue in members of a stigmatised race acting in their own collective self interest, though it may on occasion be legitimate for them to do so.

 

[deb1]

I am not going to make any friends here with my honest opinion on this, but though this is an ancient questions, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be a highly moral person, and there are many, many examples of such. You could start with some of the very greatest scientiests. There are many lesser examples, it’s just that they don’t have any claim to fame but are very ordinary people.

I .

A fundamentalists board might have problems with what you wrote. But Catholics are not fundamentalists and believe in the concept of natural law.

Reading through the posts that have come before you might surprise you. Almost every Catholic has said that atheists can act in a moral manner.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Stillwater

Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Christians do not think so. They have 3 great reasons not to think so in the 20th century alone …Hitler, Stalin, and Mao … atheists par excellence who organized human slaughter on a scale unmatched historically by any so-called body of religious men.
You answered:

but didn’t God committed genocide as well?

I suppose you could say God committed the greatest genocide of anyone, since He condemned us all to death sooner or later. But He also offers us life everlasting beyond the grave in spite of our sins.

I don’t think Stalin, Hitler, or Mao made the same offer. Their atheistic genocide was hardly what you might call “generous”!

 

[stillwater]

I suppose you could say God committed the greatest genocide of anyone, since He condemned us all to death sooner or later. But He also offers us life everlasting beyond the grave in spite of our sins.

I don’t think Stalin, Hitler, or Mao made the same offer. Their atheistic genocide was hardly what you might call “generous”!

but why can’t he just take away our sins? can’t he think of another way to wash our sins? afterall, he is omnipotent, right? if everything is all his plan, then he surely knows that we will sin…so why not eradicate evil at the very start?

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it possible for an atheist to be moral. 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.

giving money to charities who profess to have reduction of human suffering as their mission is not the point. Morality comes in how you regard those suffering humans. If your viewpoint is that they are all children of God made in His likeness and image, even the most helpless, dirtiest, sickest, most deformed, the unborn, most ignorant, the most different from you, and your desire to help them comes from love, that is moral. If you view them as somehow lesser in value than people who whole, healthy, adult, clean, educated, literate, and most like you, and actively promote and support efforts to eliminate them before or after birth, to euthanize them, to prevent them from being born and to deny not only their civil rights but their inalienable God-given rights, that is the antithesis of morality.

 

[deb1]

but why can’t he just take away our sins? can’t he think of another way to wash our sins? afterall, he is omnipotent, right? if everything is all his plan, then he surely knows that we will sin…so why not eradicate evil at the very start?

The whole issue of free will should be debated on another thread. This is a subject that could potentially disrail the Op’s question.

 

[stillwater]

The whole issue of free will should be debated on another thread. This is a subject that could potentially disrail the Op’s question.

obviously you do not have the answer for me, but then i’ll go ahead and find that thread.

 

[deb1]

obviously you do not have the answer for me, but then i’ll go ahead and find that thread.

Honestly, I am not trying to avoid your question and would love to discuss this in another thread.

I just know from experience on this forum that the topic you brought up could possibly derail ribozyme thread. So out of respect for him/her(sorry I don’t know your gender, ribozymes) I thought you could start a new discussion.

Your question would actually be better answered if you started a new thread.

 

[ribozyme]

I have to give Siner credit for honesty and for following his beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Yes, if you abort a baby that is murder as is infanticide. Yet, Singer believes that a child should be killed for a certain number of months after birth.

But Peter Singer doesn’t argue that the child should be killed, only that it could be “morally acceptable” in some cases.

 

[Atreyu]

But Peter Singer doesn’t argue that the child should be killed, only that it could be “morally acceptable” in some cases.

And do you really agree with him?! If not, I think you’ll need to find another example of a “moral atheist”…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

giving money to charities who profess to have reduction of human suffering as their mission is not the point.

If Peter Singer gives 20% of his income to charity, then I’d say that is an extremely important point, and something that should incline us to take his ideas seriously.

Morality comes in how you regard those suffering humans. If your viewpoint is that they are all children of God made in His likeness and image, even the most helpless, dirtiest, sickest, most deformed, the unborn, most ignorant, the most different from you, and your desire to help them comes from love, that is moral. If you view them as somehow lesser in value than people who whole, healthy, adult, clean, educated, literate, and most like you, and actively promote and support efforts to eliminate them before or after birth, to euthanize them, to prevent them from being born and to deny not only their civil rights but their inalienable God-given rights, that is the antithesis of morality.

If you regard a poor, unintelligent, physically handicapped child as a person of lesser value to, say, an Oxford Univeristy student, then you have departed from Christian morality.
However you haven’t departed from all common sense entirely.

When you take Christian teaching to its logical conclusion and start claiming that fertilised cells have the same rights as fully adult humans, maybe you are the one violating common sense. My personal answer to this one is to say that we need to get away from rights-based ethics altogether, including well-meaning attempts to promote the rights of the unborn child.

 

[ribozyme]

And do you really agree with him?! If not, I think you’ll need to find another example of a “moral atheist”…

I am not saying that I agree with him in this case, I am saying that he usually advocates doing the moral thing to do.

 

[Sam88]

An athiest might act in a way most people, or even Catholics regard as morally correct at times, even most of the time, although it would be impossible for him to do so 100%.

A saying that comes to mind is that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[deb1]

I am not saying that I agree with him in this case, I am saying that he usually advocates doing the moral thing to do.

I once read a very bizarre article by him in which he stated that sex with animals was all right. I will try and find something on that and post a link for you. But be forewarned it is very disturbing.

I have always been impressed that the atheists on this forum are so articulate and polite in their responses. But come on, you atheists can all come up with a better example of atheistic morality then Peter Singer, can’t you?

 

[ribozyme]

I once read a very bizarre article by him in which he stated that sex with animals was all right. I will try and find something on that and post a link for you. But be forewarned it is very disturbing.

I have always been impressed that the atheists on this forum are so articulate and polite in their responses. But come on, you atheists can all come up with a better example of atheistic morality then Peter Singer, can’t you?

Well, this person isextremely moral and he doesn’t practice religion, so it is likely that he is an atheist.

Another example of a moral atheist (or agnostic) is this person. I’ve talked to him, and he does not advocate killing anyone too.

 

[deb1]

Well, this person isextremely moral and he doesn’t practice religion, so it is likely that he is an atheist.

Another example of a moral atheist (or agnostic) is this person. I’ve talked to him, and he does not advocate killing anyone too.

No, no Ash, as a Japanese anime, is a practitioner of Shinto. Hey, I got kids, I’ve watched the show.

As for the second guy, I wonder how he feels about being put on the same moral level as Ash Ketchum?

 

[ribozyme]

No, no Ash, as a Japanese anime, is a practitioner of Shinto. Hey, I got kids, I’ve watched the show.

As for the second guy, I wonder how he feels about being put on the same moral level as Ash Ketchum?

No, Ash Ketchum is atheist. What episodes does he perform Shinto religions?

I do not know how he feels. I doubt he even watches Pokémon on a regular basis. Well, Ash Ketchum is an extremely moral person because he helps a lot of trainers on the way to cities with Pokémon gyms. He also loves his Pokémon very much and he dislikes it when humans try to steal and harm Pokémon.

Ash never advocates harming anyone (except for Team Rocket for their occasional blast off). Ash is a morally mature person. Ash is not accountable to a deity, unlike Christians are.

 

[Saint_Augustin]

Atheists doesn’t exist.

They have to disprove God to be an atheist and they can’t.

Believers can’t prove God either but they still have hope that a God exist.

If God exist, the atheists are the losers, but if God doesn’t exist, the believers lose nothing.

To answer the question, some atheists are more moral than some believers.

 

[Pug]

Aren’t some atheists also Buddhists or vice versa? I suppose it depends on the type of each. Perhaps select a Buddist of some type (there are several, I am given to understand) as the example. Usually folks will acknowledge that they follow a moral code.

 

[deb1]

No, Ash Ketchum is atheist. What episodes does he perform Shinto religions?

I do not know how he feels. I doubt he even watches Pokémon on a regular basis. Well, Ash Ketchum is an extremely moral person because he helps a lot of trainers on the way to cities with Pokémon gyms. He also loves his Pokémon very much and he dislikes it when humans try to steal and harm Pokémon.

Ash never advocates harming anyone (except for Team Rocket for their occasional blast off). Ash is a morally mature person. Ash is not accountable to a deity, unlike Christians are.

All right. I stand corrected Ash Ketchum is an atheist and a very moral one.