Morality and Atheism

As any moral atheist knows, morality does not come from or depend on God. Yet many people still try to claim that morality does come from God. Why is this so?

 

Perhaps to find support for their idea of morality.

 

morality is relative. it differs depending on who you ask.

 

Dope could you elaborate?

 

I liken it to a discussion between siblings about whether a particular action should be taken, "mom said it was ok", or " you're going to get in trouble because mom said we are not supposed to do that". It is a power play for moral "authority".

 

The mechanisms of an evolved moral sense are not generally well understood. "God" provides a simple answer to a complicated question...

 

The observation of people who cannot seem to do the moral thing without the threat of eternal damnation hanging over them. :reddevil:

 

Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Maybe if considering the definition of "conforming to a standard of right behavior", most people assume the standard is whatever popular religion dictates. Therefore God is the most moral so considering that most people are thinking like or are influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking than in that light God is the highest, purest standard so He/She makes the rules.

 

self-fulfillment. For the people using religion as crutches, and its working out for them, theyre probably gonna think other people need the crutches.
I hate when people judge you according to that don't you?


Actually. thedope's post underneath is worded fantastically.

 

When I hate, I find myself to be hateful. When I judge, I am required to abide by my own judgments. That others may judge me, is of account only to them.

 

In all my arguing with christians that I don't need god to have morals, I never stopped to think that maybe they CAN'T operate morally without that threat. I guess it's just like when I used the patch to quit smoking but, I've since given up the patch, and still don't smoke.

 

I wasn't always an Atheist. I was raised in private Xian schools, my father has a master's degree in some Theological area. I looked for answers to questions about life in every religion. I've studied various mainstream Xian religions from Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal, and Lutheran. I've studied the beliefs of "cult" religions like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.

All this lead to just more unanswered questions. I came to the conclusion that if there was a good he didn't care much about humanity. In the last few years I stopped riding the fence and decided that there was no god and became an outspoken atheist.

Now to the question of morality. There are basic values in life that one can not live successfully in society without. Honesty and respect to others are two things that one must have to socialize properly.

I don't think one needs religion or the belief in a god to have morals. I find myself following a hedonistic life. By that I mean that as long as my actions do not have a negative effect on others and cause no harm to an innocent, I should be able to do it without feeling guilty.

This is my basic moral belief.

 

Let's assume that morality does come from God. Ok, so murder is wrong because God said so. But now if you ask god why murder is wrong do you think he would say "because I said so" or do you think he would have a reason? And if he had a reason wouldn't you expect the reason to be good enough to stand on its own without god?

Also the evolved mechanisms underlying morality are quite well understood in the scientific community, too bad many Christians don't believe in evolution.

 

What are the evolved mechanisms? Like why would a man risk his life to save someone he's never met? How does that fit in with survival of the fittest?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

Not all humans display altruism. What accounts for this?

Also, the ruthless can have an improved survivability rate. As the theory goes, people ruthlessly destroyed competing species even the one's that were said to be more altruistic than humans. So if anything, it has shown that altruism has been a negative factor, otherwise we as a species would not be alive today.

Actually scratch that, we would be alive and maybe also they would be as well. But the point that I mean was that the more altruistic species didn't survive and partly the reason why they did not survive was because homosapiens, a more violent species, killed them off.

What is the scientific view on this?

 

The devil made me do it?

 

I was wondering what was the scientific answer to my question

 

Evolution accounts for a range of behaviours which vary around the average of species-typical norms. You wouldn't expect every individual to act the same, but to have a probability of acting in a certain way. There are obviously varying degrees of altruism among individuals, and cheating can be an evolutionarily successful strategy, which has led to the evolution of cheater-detection systems as a response. This acts like an evolutionary arms race between altruism and dishonesty, but cheating would not be a successful strategy if it did not feed upon the sincere and the altruistic, so cheating and complete selfishness can never be the primary survival mechanism among humans. In a nutshell, we need the co-operation of others in order to survive....

Evolutionary pressures act within species not between species, so it's not really relevant to talk about inter-species extinction in terms of evolution other than as an indirect result of it since, obviously, there's no interbreeding between species.

 

Perhaps altriusm benefits group survival. It would add coehension to a tribe for example. If everyone is ruthless within a tribe it would be less efficient and less likely to pass on genes.