Atheism and Morality

[August]

The video isn't consistent with a Jewish interpretation of the Bible. Verses are taken out of context, and certain verses quoted don't apply anymore, or only applied to a specific people at a specific time.

 

[rav]

Shalom Trumble,

Yes, I am saying that. An ideology can incorporate assorted philosophical positions, but one of those cannot by itself form one unless in a very limited context (a 'religious ideology', an 'economic ideology' and so forth). I would argue that a simple disbelief in something can't be one even in that limited context - you have built an interesting structure on top of atheism but I don't accept it as sound. In an odd way it's reminiscent of the ongoing 'trinity' debate where our muslim friends keep insisting on telling the Christians that they should believe something that they obviously don't. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I understand your point Trumble, but I will outline exactly where we differ in our views for the sake of mutual understanding, and the revelation of the exact reasoning my logic in the first post used.

Of course atheists do not employ any of the reasoning that I describe. I have no doubt that atheist’s in general are good people, who contribute to society. My points are that the morals that these atheists have, are from religion, or are from G-d. They are the inner conscience that G-d has implanted inside all of us, so we can do the right thing. Atheists certainly have them as well, and many use them to support great philanthropic causes. The issue is that the morals that our society uses come from religion, no matter how concealed its roots are. Atheism rejection of a Creator, and acceptance of a theory which promotes humanity to be the same as apes, cattle, frogs, etc are in my belief immoral, and Thank G-d, atheists do not view life this way. Since the world according to atheism has no Creator or G-d, what value is the world? What value is humanity? “Philosophical positions” like nihilism teach that the world has no essential value or purpose. Such a philosophical outlook on the world is no doubt inspired by the analysis that there is no Intelligent Creator.

Atheists may not hold to what I am saying, but the ideology that “there is no god” is in fact the inspiration to the view that man and animals are alike, only separated by how much they developed through evolution.

My point is that murder, cannibalism etc are naturally wrong for humans to do. We differ from animals in that respect. To believe that we are not naturally programmed to be against such things like Murder, and Cannibalism is in my mind absurd, but also immoral. I explained why I believed it to be immoral because the opinion czgibson said: “Cannibalism is harmful to the society as a whole, therefore it is wrong. What's wrong with that?” is wrong because as I said: ” What is wrong with that, is that if you remove the society from the equation, then it is no longer wrong, since your actions if you chose to be a cannibal no longer effect society as a whole.”

Again, it isn't an 'ideology', and the world clearly doesn't work like that. It wouldn't even if atheists were in charge of everything. People do do "the right thing", atheists and all, and morality, conscience and all the rest of it are a fact. The question is how those things 'evolved' in the first place, and atheists (and myself) have a plausible explanation that does not require divine intervention. As such an explanation is available, there is no need to accept the beef-creation association that you suggest.

I understand people do the “right thing” not for there own benefit. That is another reason why I believe in a Creator. To believe in no Creator means at least in my point of view that we view these things as inexcusable because “what if someone does it to you”. That is an immoral way to condemn murder in my eyes. We will obviously have to agree to disagree.

Your comments on superiority I find odd, in that believing we are 'superior' to other species is historically a theist trait, not an atheistic one. It is principally the theistic religions that claim that man is somehow 'special'. Some muslims believe man was created by God while other species evolved. Virtually all theists believe animals have 'souls' and no animals do. Large numbers of theists believe that everything in the natural world was somehow put there by God to be exploited for our own benefit. In short, many atheists do not believe we are inherently 'superior' at all.

There is a difference. We are using the mindset of there being no creator, and the world/humanity being an accident. I believe man is “special”. My point was that atheism may encourage the belief that man is no more special than animals. I then continued by asking “what right do we have to eat animals under that ideology, since we are not so different?” I then finished my statement by concluding that the difference was that it was okay, and man is no different, but possibly we treat man different solely based on the fact that if we do not, then we may perish. To me that is the source of the immorality.

Atheists obviously do no practice such immorality, but the belief that there is no Creator can associate to such a view by merely connecting links. The overall point is that: There is something special about humans, in that we act differently, and are programmed in my opinion to be different than animals.

This is what the theory of evolution teaches though. A "value" that can be derived from it, is that we are all a bunch of accidents walking around that will be eaten by worms when we die, with no hope to see our loved ones again. That is fine, but when you live life with that opinion, and disregard many of the "morals" our society today holds in favor of that view of life, it can lead you down a depressing road of belief that we are all worthless creatures.

So do I. So, no doubt, does czgibson. The question is why do we think that? Atheism is only guilty of what you ascribe to it if no other explanation than divine intervention can be provided. But it can.

Let me try another approach. Buddhism is essentially atheistic. I say essentially as many Buddhists do believe in gods of some sort (subject to the same laws of cause an effect as humans), and my only personal views do contain a significant pantheistic element influenced by daoism (with a dash of Spinoza)... but in the sense you mean atheistic is accurate enough. I don't know how much you know about Buddhism, but try and imagine a society founded on, and living by, purely Buddhist belief. Would it degenerate into the sort of society defined by "atheist ideology" that you picture? Somehow I doubt it... certainly it is no more likely than in a Jewish, Christian or muslim theocracy. Buddhists have their own religious reasons for behaving in moral fashion that are a little different from those of theists, but those reasons do not depend on God or imply at any stage the existence of God to somehow create them. As soon as you admit to the existence of one alternative, even in a purely religious context, you open the door to a multitude of others.

Buddhism does not accept the belief of a spiritual force guiding the universe? That is enough to differentiate your beliefs from purely atheistic philosophies.

However, I have wasted much of a day in this discussion, and although I love the mental workout, I am inclined to not enjoy sitting at a computer all day, so you may all continue to critique my post, but I will not spend all this time responding any longer unless I really feel the urge to correct a misconception.

 

[Philosopher]

Rav, are you saying that something is immoral because it is harmful to society? If yes, is this notion absolute?

 

[rav]

Rav, are you saying that something is immoral because it is harmful to society? If yes, is this notion absolute?

Shalom (Peace),

No Philosopher, what I am saying is that both Theists, and Atheists exhibit a degree of compassion and morality that is in my belief "programmed" by G-d. To disbelieve and give no validity to the idea that all of humanity have such a thing as a “soul” and its wisdom which distinguish between right and wrong naturally using the conscience. If we are to abandon these notions, than why do we oppose murder and cannibalism, since we are in a sense “animals” according to the theory of evolution? A philosophical view derived from belief in atheisms claim that we are an “accident” basically states that the world is “worthless, as is life”. Then why is it not okay to murder? Some would say because it would bring society into chaos, and my response is: “Remove society then, and does become murder okay?” No it does not. At least to any sane human being, and this is because inside, something hidden but also very powerful tells him otherwise.

Peace to all of you.

 

[Trumble]

Buddhism does not accept the belief of a spiritual force guiding the universe?

No. The Buddhist position is that the workings of the universe are an infinite sequence of cause and effect, which needs no guidance. The closest you could push it is that the universe is its own guiding force, which is closer to my own personal belief.

 

[Philosopher]

No. The Buddhist position is that the workings of the universe are an infinite sequence of cause and effect, which needs no guidance. The closest you could push it is that the universe is its own guiding force, which is closer to my own personal belief.

Are there scriptural evidences for this?

 

[KAding]

What do you base your morality on? If your moral code differs from society at large, how do you know which moral code is correct?

Well, like I said. Empathy is what stops me from hurting others I suppose. Seeing other people suffering is painful itself. Why that is so I can't really say. It is probably a combination of upbringing and nature, so both a social construct developed to protect society and a natural desire for self-preservation within a group. But like I said, I don't really know. Just because I am an atheist does not mean that morality is a purely rational matter, it is clearly not for me. But rationality is needed when the consequences of your actions are not immediately visible, e.g. when eating meat. You don't see the suffering you cause when you go eat a hamburger, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I still know rationally that it is there and unnecessary, so I try to avoid meat. But for me morality is by definition linked to suffering, unlike religious people, who seem to link it primarily to obedience to God.

 

[KAding]

Shalom (Peace),

No Philosopher, what I am saying is that both Theists, and Atheists exhibit a degree of compassion and morality that is in my belief "programmed" by G-d. To disbelieve and give no validity to the idea that all of humanity have such a thing as a “soul” and its wisdom which distinguish between right and wrong naturally using the conscience.

A 'soul' programmed by God is only one possible explanation though. There are other reasons why humans would exhibit a degree of compassion, empathy and thus morality.

Besides, if God programmed our morals, why do so few of its commandment come natural to us? From an Islamic point of view, why didn't God program me to dislike - say - dogs and music, since both are haram? I thought most religions viewed being moral as a kind of 'test' by God. If that is so, why would he have programmed us to be naturally inclined to follow some of its rulings and not others? Personally it more sense to me that the most fundamental morals are a consequence of human evolution, both biologically and socially.

If we are to abandon these notions, than why do we oppose murder and cannibalism, since we are in a sense “animals” according to the theory of evolution?

Who says animals have no morals? I think that is inconclusive. My dog generally looks very distressed when I am in pain or crying . Why does it do that? Maybe it just fears I'll punish him, maybe he feels empathy. Heck, if we can't even figure out why we have morals, what makes us think we can fully understand other animals behavior. Besides, we are highly developed animals, with complex social structures. Not all animals are the same.

Yet, generally I think nature is highly immoral. It is one of the reasons why I don't believe in God. I just can't imagine a compassionate God creating so much suffering as we see in nature.

A philosophical view derived from belief in atheisms claim that we are an “accident” basically states that the world is “worthless, as is life”.

This is a complete strawman. Since when are things that are an accident 'worthless'? There is no logic in that at all. In fact, to atheists life is all there is. It is the most important and precious thing we have, since there is nothing beyond. Our life here on this planet is EVERYTHING! The people and things we love here are EVERYTHING! There will be no 'heaven' or 'hell'.

Then why is it not okay to murder? Some would say because it would bring society into chaos, and my response is: “Remove society then, and does become murder okay?” No it does not. At least to any sane human being, and this is because inside, something hidden but also very powerful tells him otherwise.

Btw, isn't this complete contrary to the Christian concept of 'original sin'?

 

[جوري]

I love these obscure terms of "developed" or "evolved" or "nature" or "favors", wish nature would favor that my dishes wash themselves, or would evolve so my laundry would launder itself, the same way Glutamate favors that its amino group be transaminated into oxalo-acetate, or oxaloacetate to aspartate working harmoniously on their own volition so that there is no ammonia floating in my system disturbing the Nitrogen Balance or messing with neurological tissue... Wonder why nature favors beauty, life, propagation and survival over Gooby goobers...

 

[Woodrow]

Btw, isn't this complete contrary to the Christian concept of 'original sin'?

Why should that be a surprise?

The thread was started by a Jew and this is an Islamic forum. Neither of us believe in the concept of original sin.

 

[Trumble]

Are there scriptural evidences for this?

You mean "The Buddhist position is that the workings of the universe are an infinite sequence of cause and effect, which needs no guidance"? That's a little like asking if the Bible or Qur'an have any "scriptural evidences" for the existence of God. It's fundamental doctrine, known as 'dependent origination' or 'dependent arising'.

There are several references in the Pali canon, although the most well known ones such as the Mahàtanhàsankhaya sutta are concerned with two practical applications of that doctrine, the ending of suffering and the process of rebirth. The Buddha was always practical.. the only things worth knowing were those that helped end suffering, and that did not include fruitless metaphysical speculation - although much of that has gone on since!

I suspect you might get more from the Wiki article (which is actually rather good) rather than quotes from the Pali canon.

 

[Skavau]

Atheism is not a coherent worldview. It is merely the rejection of the existence of a God/s. There is nothing else attached to it. Moral philosophy exists external from Atheism and there is nothing within Atheism which prevents anyone upholding ethical ideologies.

 

[Joe98]

Us humans are the only creatures on earth that normally do not engage in cannibalism

Socially there is no basis for there to be any stigma against it.

So the question arises why is there world wide repulsion about it?

What evidence is there of any biological or social reason people do not normally practice it?

But of your religion taught that you must eat each other you would do so. But we Atheists still would not do it.

Athieses follow common sense, not religion.

-

 

[Pygoscelis]

DIdn't we just do a whole long multi week thread on this very topic?

Has this not all been said, like a matter of hours ago?

I'd go through all the points in the OP - but I feel like I just did. :skeleton:

 

[rav]

Shalom to all of you, I have a few comments on some posts that I wanted to answer. Overall, I thank you all for participating in this discussion.

Besides, if God programmed our morals, why do so few of its commandment come natural to us?

KAding, I would have to say that a majority of his commandments are indeed within us. To name a few that I believe the majority of the world accepts:

1. Believe in G-d.
2. Honoring mother and father.
3. No murder.
4. No adultery.
5. No stealing.

Those are a few. There are in total many laws that deal with the immoral nature of having sexual relations with family members, and such a practice is not common. I can give you other examples but I will tell you however, that there is something called the “yetzer hora” which attempts to lead you away from the moral path. This is an agent of G-d to test you, since when you prevail over it, the ultimate elevation of your soul in numerous aspects occurs. An example would be that, a child may know that stealing is wrong, but he will do it anyway, because of the yetzer hora which tempts him.

Who says animals have no morals?

Generally in the animal kingdom you will not see the amount of love that humans share. A mother may eat her own child in many cases if hungry. Would a human ever do such a thing? Of course not, a special bond is formed that animals do not have, however I will concede that no one has developed the technology to actually speak to animals yet.

Since when are things that are an accident 'worthless'? There is no logic in that at all. In fact, to atheists life is all there is.

That is exactly my point KAding. To an atheist, this is it. Life is it. That means that an atheist will try to get the most out of life, but what does that have to do with how moral they are, or how they treat or view others? “This is it”, right? No consequences, just action. Of course in no way am I saying that atheists are immoral people in general, that would be a terrible generalization.

Btw, isn't this complete contrary to the Christian concept of 'original sin'?

So? I’m a Jew.

Atheism is not a coherent worldview. It is merely the rejection of the existence of a God/s. There is nothing else attached to it. Moral philosophy exists external from Atheism and there is nothing within Atheism which prevents anyone upholding ethical ideologies.

You may be correct, but do you concede that atheists in general tend to have the same views on how mankind came to be (i.e. evolution)?

But of your religion taught that you must eat each other you would do so. But we Atheists still would not do it.

Athieses follow common sense, not religion.

Joe, on the contrary, “common sense” is ”what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.” If the common understanding in a society was that everyone thought that cannibalism was okay, than atheists would most likely partake in it as well since the common natural understanding would be that is okay. If 99.9% of a population believes with no problem that there is a G-d, then would it not be common sense to believe in G-d?

I’ll go even deeper with you. Your statement completely contradicts itself because if in the world cannibalism was completely accepted and normal, then if you followed common sense, you would most definitely be a cannibal as well according to the definition which says ”sense of things that are common to humanity.”

DIdn't we just do a whole long multi week thread on this very topic?

Has this not all been said, like a matter of hours ago?

I'd go through all the points in the OP - but I feel like I just did.

My humble apologies.

I hope you all have a great week. I will not be online for a while (here and there the rest of the week), but when I get back on, maybe next week, I come back and respond if anyone else has an issue with a statement I made.

Peace.

 

[ranma1/2]

Well said Trumble,

I am also curious what evidence there is that Humans are the "only" animals that dont normally eat their own species? To my knowledge however we are one of the few to kill for no other reason than anger, jealousy or selfish desire.

 

[ranma1/2]

Shalom (Peace),

I understand your point, but the subject I am discussing is different. Atheism does not acknowledge the validity of such things like the “soul” or the “conscience”.

No, atheism has no comment one way or the other. Atheism is only concerend with a god. You your self are an atheist to a point. You do not believe in Zeus do you? Now the main difference between you and me is that i believe in one less god than you do.

Therefore, if we lived in a purely atheistic society, what would be the consequences? How would we define morality?

As everyone else does, we use our own judgement and the morals society has developed among other things. To show that it is possible for humans to develope their own morals tell me why do other religions different from yours have morals? From your logic it seems that if morality is only from a god then no other religion should have morals? Unless it is somehow implanted in everyone and then you still have no standing since your religion is not needed for us to be moral.

Remember, it is not “scientifically wrong” to murder others. .....

As trumble has pointed out science makes no comment on morality. Same as atheism. Same as cooking. Social science however does look into why we act the way we act.

..... Perhaps it was developed to be “wrong” because of a social construct which decided that murder was wrong because the safety of all.

This is speculated. But once again science makes no comment on morality. At best it specualtes why we act the way we do.

You’re confusing the overall point of my post. What kind of social order would we live in if it was run by the ethics Atheism teaches, hence the title “Atheism and Morality”.

This question is as absurd as asking what social order would we have if it was run by the ethics taught by gravity. Atheism only comments on the existence of god. Thats all.

Shalom (Peace),
What I am saying is that Atheism lacks morality, and if we used the process of thinking at Atheism teaches, our civilization will be doomed.

The reason an Atheist would say cannibalism is immoral, would be because the chance that if he acts in a certain way, others will act in the same way, which could lead to he himself being eaten. That is the only way you can look at it when you reject the conscience, and view all of humanity under the light of the logic that Atheism teaches.

Atheism makes no comment on anything except god. What would cooking be like if we left cooking to atheist...... This is what your question sounds like.
Atheist can be as moral or as immoral as anyone else "although they make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population".

That is what Atheism teaches. I strongly disagree. I believe that inside all of us, we know when we are doing something wrong. Murder is bad. We all know this, and this is not because, if we all were murderers we would all die because of societies actions, but instead because murder is inherently wrong.

Evidence? Social science provides evidence why we act the way we do. The best you have is you deeply believe...?

But according to atheism it is not wrong. Atheism must define the entire world through the lens of evolution, because according to atheism, we are here by accident. That is our worth. Therefore, morals and society in general under atheism will function according to that logic.

Nope nope nope and nope. once again atheism is only concerened with wether there is a god. There are many atheistic religions that do not believe in any god. Scientology, shintoism and Buddhism are a few that pop into mind. Atheist can get their morals from many different sources as anyone else. They can get there morals from society, from family from friends from laws etc... They can also, as you do, choose what they believe is moral.

Shalom (Peace),
I never said it did. However, the morality that atheists will hold if they are to “free themselves” from all these religious “myths” is the morality an ideological criminal holds. They view everything like murder and sin wrong only because it may effect society around them, and therefore lead to there own downfall. But what if society is not effected? Nothing is wrong then.

Sigh.. no your wrong read above.

Atheisms defines the entire world through the view that everything was an accident and there is no purpose. Who would be comfortable living in a society where such a morality is the norm?

No once again atheism is only concerned with the existence of god. It makes as much comment on morality as it does on cooking or what clothers to wear or the existence of George Bush. It makes no comment on evolution, commerce, ethics, zoology, geography etc....

 

[Woodrow]

Well said Trumble,

I am also curious what evidence there is that Humans are the "only" animals that dont normally eat their own species? To my knowledge however we are one of the few to kill for no other reason than anger, jealousy or selfish desire.

We could very well be the only creature that kills for anger, jealousy or selfish.

But, during mating season you will find quite a number of animals in which you find the larger stronger males will kill the smaller weaker males. Cannibalism among animals is very common. At the moment I can not think of any animal that will not eat the young of it's sisters or even its own young. Except for the herbivores.

Some of the larger apes will often kill young members of the tribe, chimps are now known to be cannibalistic.

* Goodall J.

Male chimpanzees at the Gombe National Park were twice seen to attack 'stranger' females and seize their infants. One infant was then killed and partially eaten: the other was 'rescued' and carried by three different males. Once several males were found eating a freshly killed 'stranger' infant. A similar event was observed in Uganda by Dr. Suzuki and Dr. Nishida reports an incident from the Mahali Mountains, Tanzania. A different kind of killing occurred at Gombe when a female and her daughter killed and ate three infants of other females of the same community during a 2-year period. There is evidence suggesting that other infants may have died in this way. The paper draws attention to puzzling aspects of infant killing and cannibalism in chimpanzees.

PMID: 564321 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=564321&dopt=Abstract

 

[ranma1/2]

First I have to say this

I really doubt that cannibalism would be harmful to society from a scientific and socialogical view. In fact socialy it could be highly beneficial.

The cost of maintaining prisons would be eliminated, simply serve convicts at the local McPeople.

SOYLENT GREEN...IS MADE OF PEOPLE..........

 

[ranma1/2]

We could very well be the only creature that kills for anger, jealousy or selfish.

But, during mating season you will find quite a number of animals in which you find the larger stronger males will kill the smaller weaker males. Cannibalism among animals is very common. At the moment I can not think of any animal that will not eat the young of it's sisters or even its own young. Except for the herbivores.

Some of the larger apes will often kill young members of the tribe, chimps are now known to be cannibalistic.

I have no doubt that cannablism occurs in nature , so does it occure in humans. It may not be the norm but is does occure.
As you mentioned earlier it often occurs in nature as a form of dominance. Humans also tend to murder as a form of dominance. We will often get in fights among other things for sex and love etc.. And the fact that we dont kill as much as we did in the past is due to laws.