Can an atheist have morals?

[wilberhum]

There have been many negative statements about atheists and morals.
One provided the following link. I would like to share that with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals
It states:
Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.
Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

So moral values can come from cultural, secular, humanist or philosophical communities.

Religion is not the only source of morals, and the definition shows that you don’t need a “Holy Book” to determine the difference between right and wrong.

I find it morally repulsive to claim that any group lack morals based only on there beliefs and not on there actions.

How about you?

 

[Ghazi]

it's about prespective one thing might be ok for one guy and vise versa for the next, the definition of morals is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Woodrow]

I believe one problem that arises is people tend to define morality in different terms. Perhaps it could help this thread stay on topic if you post what you are using as a definition of morality for the pupose of this thread and in that way maybe we can all talk about the same thing.

 

[KAding]

it's about prespective one thing might be ok for one guy and vise versa for the next, the definition of morals is in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly. Especially stuff surrounding sexuality is bound to cause moral clashes. Some people simply don't see 'consensual crimes' as necesarilly immoral.

 

[جوري]

I definitely believe that atheists have morals... question is where do they get their moral upstanding from? is it innate? or is it distilled religious teachings? I believe religion has set the measure of what these morals are... so my question is why accept certain rules and reject the rest? in a way to be a "good" person you'd have to obey certain civic laws.... Not stealing, not cheating, not lying, not murdering etc... those are the basic foundations of religion ---organized or otherwise.... so how come Atheists insist on admitting that they believe in nothing at least no form of divine laws... yet Morality is the essence of religion and divine teachings . .. .

 

[wilberhum]

consensual crimes

I think that is exactly where Woodrow ask us not to go.

 

[wilberhum]

PurestAmbrosia
Using the defination "Religion is not the only source of morals".

 

[جوري]

well prove me wrong I am willing to accept it....

 

[جوري]

A moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong ... question is where were these "sanctioned codes" first established?

 

[wilberhum]

A moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong ... question is where were these "sanctioned codes" first established?

What difference does it make? For two or more people to coexist, there must be rules. These rules, in there basic form, are morals.

PS: I don't understand "well prove me wrong I am willing to accept it...."

 

[QuranStudy]

"Moral Atheist" is an oxymoron.

 

[wilberhum]

"Moral Atheist" is an oxymoron.

Since you are the one that inspired me to start this thread, please explain.

 

[جوري]

What difference does it make? For two or more people to coexist, there must be rules. These rules, in there basic form, are morals.

makes all the difference in the world... if you reject the notion of God why conform yourself to guide lines set forth by God?

 

[glo]

Let me give this as a reason why all humans are equipped with morals:

'I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.' (Hebrews 8:10)

peace.

 

[wilberhum]

makes all the difference in the world... if you reject the notion of God why conform yourself to guide lines set forth by God?

Your defination of god is not mine. I do not conform myself to your defination of gods guide lines. I think most of the morals built by society are good enough.

 

[جوري]

Your defination of god is not mine. I do not conform myself to your defination of gods guide lines. I think most of the morals built by society are good enough.

those morals built by "society" come from religion that is their foundation.. some societies are more stringent with those rules than others.... if it is a matter of co-existence to you... lots of people don't co-exist even with such morals set forth... husbands and wives even... so question again remains open... why do you choose the portion that will allow you to habituate and reject the rest?

 

[Idris]

This is an excellent answer I found, even though it is a Christian and I don’t agree with something’s from his/her religions I do however agree with his/her answer 100%

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do have a legal system with a codified set of moral laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes (slavery was legal 200 years ago but is not now), the morals in a society can still change. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Unfortunately, however, social experimentation is often harmful.
There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not?
But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings. But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks.
The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the ten commandments are a summary. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered. In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God.
Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word.

 

[wilberhum]

those morals built by "society" come from religion that is their foundation

Pure openion, not chance of verification. Just like mine that morals came b4 religion and religious founders used them. All openion and none if provable.

 

[جوري]

Pure openion, not chance of verification. Just like mine that morals came b4 religion and religious founders used them. All openion and none if provable.

I can prove that religion brought forth morals... it is the foundation of all religions... it isn't difficult to prove... having morals before the existence of religion now that is difficult so the burden of proof lies in your court really... prove to me that a "homo erectus" had morals.. and I'll be willing to accept it....

 

[glo]

Can I just throw in that I know atheists who feel their moral values are superior to those of 'religious' people. The reason they give is that atheists act morally for no reason other than that they can and want to do so - no divine commands or heavenly promises are involved. Just a human desire to do what's right ...

Just food for thought ... :?

Any comments?

peace.