Can an atheist have morals?

[wilberhum]

QuranStudy

That fact that there is no evidence is evidence itself!

The “No Evidence” is only because you ware “Faith Blinders”.

The atheists I know are fornicators and some are sodomizers (gay).

One of the best ways to judge a person is the company he keeps. How many atheists do you know? Never met a gay or fornicator that believed in god? You must live in a very small world to have never met the thousands. And is sexual activity the only thing that morality covers?

No offense, but if that the case then atheists have little common sense.

I just love that “No Offense” you keep stating when your whole attitude is offensive. Now atheist not only have no morals they have no common sense. Nothing offensive about that. Da.

If you look back at the definition, remember, you provided the link, religion is not the only source of morals. So by definition, atheists can be just as moral as anyone.
If you were right, every atheist would be in jail.

PS: You might notice that basically, no one agrees with you. That in it’s self is a good indicator.

 

[QuranStudy]

The “No Evidence” is only because you ware “Faith Blinders”.

O really? Prove to me that atheists have morals. Fornication and and homosexuality don't count. At least "faith blinders" are more human than the average atheist.

One of the best ways to judge a person is the company he keeps. How many atheists do you know? Never met a gay or fornicator that believed in god? You must live in a very small world to have never met the thousands. And is sexual activity the only thing that morality covers?

The best way to judge atheists is through their practice. Prominent atheists in history are mass murderers (Stalin, Pol Pot etc). Atheists I know fornicate on a regular basis, some becoming parents at an early age and regretting it. Other atheists are strongly intolerant of the faithful. I can go on and on but my personal view is that atheists are the side effects of a healthy society.

If you look back at the definition, remember, you provided the link, religion is not the only source of morals. So by definition, atheists can be just as moral as anyone.

Religion is not the only source of morals, that is true. But it is religion that make people abide by moral codes throughout their life through restrictions. If everyone was atheist in the world, there would indeed be a chaotic hell on earth.

PS: You might notice that basically, no one agrees with you. That in it’s self is a good indicator.

I never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.

 

[wilberhum]

never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.

What, both of the atheists you know are immoral. I never saw an atheists kill for god.

 

[QuranStudy]

What, both of the atheists you know are immoral. I never saw an atheists kill for god.

But then there are atheists who killed millions of their own people to satisfy their own selfish agenda.

 

[wilberhum]

QuranStudy
You are obviously a victom of “self-imposed ignorance” and you are beyond help. Go on with your bigotery, noone really cares.

 

[QuranStudy]

You are obviously a victom of “self-imposed ignorance” and you are beyond help. Go on with your bigotery, noone really cares.

Thank you for the very scholarly comeback.

 

[glo]

I never tried to imply all atheists are immoral. However, most are.

I wonder what information you base that judgement on??? :?
On your personal observations?
Or do you have some statistics on 'atheist immorality'?

peace

 

[Woodrow]

I have come to the conclusion that no 2 people on this thread have the same concept of what morals mean.

It looks like we are all comparing from our own view points and deninitions.

I see apples being compared to donuts and the result being swordfish.


Perhaps a few can state what they believe what morals are and based on what their concept of morals are explain if Atheists do or do not have morals.

 

[wilberhum]

Perhaps a few can state what they believe what morals are and based on what their concept of morals are explain if Atheists do or do not have morals.

Well let’s start with the definition.
the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil…shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community.
Notice “Shared Within”. So the morals of one religious community need not apply to another religious community. The same is true between two different secular communities. The problem comes in with the concept of superiority. Almost every group conceders themselves superior to all other groups. Therefore there morals are superior to everyone else’s. My favorite term is “Moral Compass”. Because they may point is slightly different directions.
Example:
I believe that polygamy is immoral. Therefore if I take more than one wife, I am being immoral. Also, to expect everyone in the world to accept my code of morals, to me is immoral. Therefore I can not claim that someone who takes more than one wife is immoral, unless it is against his moral code.

 

[Woodrow]

Well let’s start with the definition.
the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil…shared within a cultural, religious, secular, humanist, or philosophical community.
Notice “Shared Within”. So the morals of one religious community need not apply to another religious community. The same is true between two different secular communities. The problem comes in with the concept of superiority. Almost every group conceders themselves superior to all other groups. Therefore there morals are superior to everyone else’s. My favorite term is “Moral Compass”. Because they may point is slightly different directions.
Example:
I believe that polygamy is immoral. Therefore if I take more than one wife, I am being immoral. Also, to expect everyone in the world to accept my code of morals, to me is immoral. Therefore I can not claim that someone who takes more than one wife is immoral, unless it is against his moral code.

A long time ago I heard a quote, sadly I can not remember the source:

It is immoral to call another persons morals immoral."

I do not fully agree with it, but I find it to be an interesting concept and perhaps part of that may apply to all of us. It is odd it seems we want people to have morals but we tend to call their morals immoral. It is probably safe to say that every person can see some immorality in the other persons morals.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Just because some people consider a code of conduct to be moral, that code of conduct isn't necesairly moral.

Nazi's thought that ethnic cleaning was the moral thing to do. Am I immoral when saying the morality of the holocaust is immoral?

 

[Md Mashud]

The morals - which would seem good - will actually be for self benefit - whether for image, reputation or self-good feel factor and in the more common case of just guilt - Not really if its correct or not, which truly can only be made by fear of Allah.

 

[wilberhum]

which truly can only be made by fear of Allah.

Here we go again. If I fear not Allah, I’m immoral.

 

[Md Mashud]

I didnt say atheists cant have morales - read thread, just saying it will be like an impure form of morality, very different from that of believers.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Here we go again. If I fear not Allah, I’m immoral.

Woaw there, take it one step at the time Wilberhum. that statement has a lot of depth. I'd start by saying that if you don't aknowledge the existance of Allah, against better knowledge that you are immoral. Wheter or not your disbelief is against better knowledge is unknown to us, it might just as well be out of confusion or lack of knowledge. So we don't know if your disbelief is immoral.

But regardless of that, Md Mashud only Said that Allah is the only source of morality. That doesn't necesairly mean disbelievers do not have acces to morality indirectly.

 

[KAding]

That's an interesting difrence, but it begs the question, what motivation does an atheist have to follow this morality? Lets assume for a second nobody ever will get hurt from it (she won't find out) is it still a repulsive thing to do? you see, just because nobody has been wronged by it, doesn't make it ok.

We need to keep things seperated. I said that I believe the 'harm principle' is a decent way to determine when the law may intervene to punish whoever is causing the 'harm'. If there is no harm involved the government should keep out of it. I never claimed that the 'harm principle' is enough to base a complete set of morals on.

Just because I do not believe it is the job of the state to impose morality does not mean I think morality is a completely individual matter. Society as a whole and communities can of course exert social pressure to impose some basic norms and rules of conduct.

Besides, your example is flawed. Even if 'she does not find out' you will still have to lie or at least hide the truth. That in itself is dishonest towards that person and thus 'wrong'. That person is after all denied some basic information that is essential in any relationship.

wheter or not the law needs to step in is a whole difrent discussion. We would have to measure up benefits of rule versus limitation of freedom. In Islam usually the wellbeing of the peopel and teh community is more important than individual freedom. To me that seems to make sense, but in the west peopel usually think freedom is more important, which quite frankly I find selfish.

I have the impression Islam essentially believes virtually all morals should be enforced by the state. Am I correct in this? I am personally opposed to such an approach since I believe it is likely to lead to totalitarian and repressive rule. Especially if one considers that these morals are based on religious doctrine and thus highly subjective. I mean, there is no sane reason why anyone not Muslim would consider eating pork more 'immoral' than eating beef.

Well you need to see the whole picture, look at a society where fornication is considered no problem and look at a society where it isn't. I think you'll find a lot less heartbreak, and a lot less emotional distress, a lot less broken up familys in the on where it's not alowed.

Maybe, I think that is far from conclusive. Are people in societies with strict rules on relationships any more happy then societies which are more liberal? In the West people often engage in many different relationships before marrying to one specific partner. Since there is no huge barrier in finding new potential partners and socializing with them is easy, people are IMHO less likely to get stuck in an unwanted relationship. I don't think it's a coincidence that forced or arranged marriages are much more likely in societies where sexual norms are strict and little room is left to youngsters to explore their sexuality on their own.

I agree that essentially broken marriages with children are bad, but it is hard to tell whether continuing a relationship which is clearly unhappy, just because society demands it, leads to more happiness and less 'heartbreak'. Divorces are not merely a problem, but for many people also a solution! My problem with Islam is that it seems to assume one lifestyle is 'perfect' and that it should suit all. But that is clearly not the case. Different people have different needs to become 'happy'. The indiviual himself is best positioned to determine how to achieve maximum happiness. If that means a lifestyle that is not 'normal', then so be it. If some want to wear headscarf and refrain from sex until marriage, so be it. If some don't, thats fine too. It's simplistic to think there is one solution to make all people happy, humans are too diverse for that.

There might be an unquantified 'social cost' in having these liberal rules on sexuality, but there is a obvious cost in an individuals ability to direct his own life.

Also you need to consider that marriage will be an entirely difrent proces, that wife-husband relationship will have a totally difrent character. In teh end you need to look at the whole puzzle (=society, with all sorts of rules and conduct), rather then taking a single piece of "our" puzzle and trying to fit it in "your" puzzle. No you can argue that cost of this rule, the limitation it sets on freedom is not worth the welbeing it offers the community. However I think it's clear that having this rule offers a benefith to society, and thus can be considered "more moral" then not having this rule.

Taking away 'freedom' is in itself immoral if there are no proper grounds for it, since I think limiting people in their ability to organize their own life is wrong. Religious people often seem to think society will collapse if, say, gays can get married or people have premarital sex. I think thats an unproven statement. It can as such not be used to limit peoples personal freedoms.

Well you need to think bigger. The reason something is considered immoral is not always only because of teh direct effect an act has on the participants of that act. Those participants are also a part of a community, and their private acts will in the long term affect the community.

Agreed. But like I said, vague expectations that there will be all kinds of adverse effects on society are not enough to warrant top-down intervention in society IMHO.

The reason sodomosation isn't allowed isn't revealed to us, it's simply said that it is not alowed. However if we look at it we find that it is undesirable. First of al if large numbers of society would be gay we'd have a problem with reproducing and that society would have problems with senior citicens and so on, but that's just a minor thing. Let's for a second forget the AIDS problem in Africa, since it's to wide spread there to make conclusions about it. But if you'll look in Western countries, America and Europe. You'll find that 90% of AIdspatient are homosexual or bisexual. During anal sex, the chance of passing on this disease (as well as other diseases that pass trough bloodcontact) is a lot higher, since there's a much higher chance of internal bleedings! You need blood to pass Aids, the reason heterosexuals can pass aids to is because sometimes in the womb or in the sperm are small particles of blood. When sodomising the chance of bloodcontact is so much higher, and statistic back that up, so it's only natural for Allah (s.w.t.) to forbid this act, afterall that is not why he designed us those shapes.

So sodomy should be outlawed? This is exactly the kind of reasoning I simply can't agree with. Simply because AIDS prevelance is higher among gays we must outlaw them? Simply because rape can happen women and men must be seperated? Sorry, I simply can't accept that such broad draconian solutions to fairly minor social ills are 'moral'. The solution is generally worse than the problem!

 

[جوري]

wanted to make a quick comment on marriage in Islam... Islam gave women rights to choose and divorce I think are unprecdented soceity wise except recently and certainly none that I have seen in any other religion or organized ideaology... so the term forced or arranged is more a cultural issue than Islamic
I need to run but here are exerpts on marriage and divorce from first chapter
فَآؤُوا فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {226}
[Pickthal 2:226] Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

وَإِنْ عَزَمُواْ الطَّلاَقَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ {227}
[Pickthal 2:227] And if they decide upon divorce (let them remember that) Allah is Hearer, Knower.

وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ ثَلاَثَةَ قُرُوَءٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَهُنَّ أَن يَكْتُمْنَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ فِي أَرْحَامِهِنَّ إِن كُنَّ يُؤْمِنَّ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ إِنْ أَرَادُواْ إِصْلاَحًا وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلِلرِّجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَةٌ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكُيمٌ {228}
[Pickthal 2:228] Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَأْخُذُواْ مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ أَن يَخَافَا أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ {229}
[Pickthal 2:229] Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers.

فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلاَ تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىَ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا أَن يَتَرَاجَعَا إِن ظَنَّا أَن يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ وَتِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ يُبَيِّنُهَا لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ {230}
[Pickthal 2:230] And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge.

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النَّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ سَرِّحُوهُنَّ بِمَعْرُوفٍ وَلاَ تُمْسِكُوهُنَّ ضِرَارًا لَّتَعْتَدُواْ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَقَدْ ظَلَمَ نَفْسَهُ وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُوَاْ آيَاتِ اللّهِ هُزُوًا وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَمَا أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ يَعِظُكُم بِهِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ {231}
[Pickthal 2:231] When ye have divorced women, and they have reached their term, then retain them in kindness or release them in kindness. Retain them not to their hurt so that ye transgress (the limits). He who doeth that hath wronged his soul. Make not the revelations of Allah a laughing-stock (by your behaviour), but remember Allah's grace upon you and that which He hath revealed unto you of the Scripture and of wisdom, whereby He doth exhort you. Observe your duty to Allah and know that Allah is Aware of all things.

وَإِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَبَلَغْنَ أَجَلَهُنَّ فَلاَ تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ أَن يَنكِحْنَ أَزْوَاجَهُنَّ إِذَا تَرَاضَوْاْ بَيْنَهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ذَلِكَ يُوعَظُ بِهِ مَن كَانَ مِنكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكُمْ أَزْكَى لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ {232}
[Pickthal 2:232] And when ye have divorced women and they reach their term, place not difficulties in the way of their marrying their husbands if it is agreed between them in kindness. This is an admonition for him among you who believeth in Allah and the Last Day. That is more virtuous for you, and cleaner. Allah knoweth; ye know not.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

We need to keep things seperated. I said that I believe the 'harm principle' is a decent way to determine when the law may intervene to punish whoever is causing the 'harm'. If there is no harm involved the government should keep out of it. I never claimed that the 'harm principle' is enough to base a complete set of morals on.

Ok, sorry for misinterpretation.

Just because I do not believe it is the job of the state to impose morality does not mean I think morality is a completely individual matter. Society as a whole and communities can of course exert social pressure to impose some basic norms and rules of conduct.

Will the community be able to establish morality well enough when it's not backed up by an institution (goverment or religion or both).

Besides, your example is flawed. Even if 'she does not find out' you will still have to lie or at least hide the truth. That in itself is dishonest towards that person and thus 'wrong'. That person is after all denied some basic information that is essential in any relationship.

Sure, but you still got my point right?

I have the impression Islam essentially believes virtually all morals should be enforced by the state. Am I correct in this?

I'm glad you asked. I can see how you got that impression. But normally when a state follows shariah law, it should not punish every immoral act. Some things are punishable, while other things are between Allah and the sinner only. In reality of course we see that a shariah-state doesn't always turn out like that. Remember, according to the Qur'an, there should be no compulsion in religion.

I am personally opposed to such an approach since I believe it is likely to lead to totalitarian and repressive rule. Especially if one considers that these morals are based on religious doctrine and thus highly subjective. I mean, there is no sane reason why anyone not Muslim would consider eating pork more 'immoral' than eating beef.

So no compulsion, means it should be ok for a non-muslim in a shariah country to eat pork. I don't think the state should even interfere with a muslim eating pork. Not everything is state affair. But I think that as long as the benefits greatly exceed the downsides that it's perfectly normal. Take an alcohol ban for example. Nobody will be wronged by depriving them of this, and both on individual level as on community level you will see a lot of benefits. This isn't just religious doctrine, even an atheist has to admit that a society as well as a single person is better of without alcohol, no matter how much he loves it.

Maybe, I think that is far from conclusive. Are people in societies with strict rules on relationships any more happy then societies which are more liberal? In the West people often engage in many different relationships before marrying to one specific partner. Since there is no huge barrier in finding new potential partners and socializing with them is easy, people are IMHO less likely to get stuck in an unwanted relationship. I don't think it's a coincidence that forced or arranged marriages are much more likely in societies where sexual norms are strict and little room is left to youngsters to explore their sexuality on their own.

I don't think there's any person in the world qualified to answer that question from a psychological pov, but as a believer I am convinced that people will be more happy in such a society

I agree that essentially broken marriages with children are bad, but it is hard to tell whether continuing a relationship which is clearly unhappy, just because society demands it, leads to more happiness and less 'heartbreak'. Divorces are not merely a problem, but for many people also a solution!

Of course, and divorce is perfectly possible in Islam, the difrence is that since there is no dating proces as in teh west, that people pick out partners more carefully (rational rather then emotional) and the necesity for divorce is a lot lower.

My problem with Islam is that it seems to assume one lifestyle is 'perfect' and that it should suit all. But that is clearly not the case. Different people have different needs to become 'happy'. The indiviual himself is best positioned to determine how to achieve maximum happiness. If that means a lifestyle that is not 'normal', then so be it. If some want to wear headscarf and refrain from sex until marriage, so be it. If some don't, thats fine too. It's simplistic to think there is one solution to make all people happy, humans are too diverse for that.

I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. I think the problem doesn't lie in people being happy with the Islamic lifestyle, but that people just don't realise it. By the way, there is no compulsion in religion, so a non-muslim is not obkiged to follow all islamic rules. Of course not everything goes, and some things have to be limited. But I think that even goes in your view. Afterall what do you do with the psychopath who's only happy when he kills, do you allow him his lifestyle to? Or the cleptomaniac, or the pyromaniac?

Taking away 'freedom' is in itself immoral if there are no proper grounds for it, since I think limiting people in their ability to organize their own life is wrong. Religious people often seem to think society will collapse if, say, gays can get married or people have premarital sex. I think thats an unproven statement. It can as such not be used to limit peoples personal freedoms.

Well I think there is proper ground for it. And it's not like a society will collapse just like that, but I do think the effects of certain tolerance far exceeds our limited minds. It's not just alowing to people to have sex, it's alowing a whole difrent set of morals, it's enabling a whole difrent way of life wich eventually WILL get mixed up with the other one. Look at liberal countrys like Turkey. There's a whole group of believing people who follow their religion halfway, and follow western morality the other way, which eventually causes for a lot of confusion and problems. the islamic way is perfect, but in it's pure form, from the moment you take away some of it's teachings, the other rules will no longer provide the best answer either.

So sodomy should be outlawed? This is exactly the kind of reasoning I simply can't agree with. Simply because AIDS prevelance is higher among gays we must outlaw them? Simply because rape can happen women and men must be seperated? Sorry, I simply can't accept that such broad draconian solutions to fairly minor social ills are 'moral'. The solution is generally worse than the problem!

Next to the common welbeing being more important then individual freedom in Islam. there's another important difrence wioth the west. Practability is more important.

So from a western pov (which holds freedom as very important) i can understand you think it's overreacted for women to veil so that man wouldn't jump them, afterall it's the men that should control theirselves. First of all this isn't the only reason, there are other reasons beside rape. But regardless of who would be the wrongdoer, and who should adapt, if veiling solves the problem in the most effecient way it's a small price to pay for a big reward. And yeah, though for woman who have to endure this because of men, but there's other rules that aply on men and not on woman. It's not fare to focus on this single rule, in the end I think all the sisters in here will tell you that the woman has the most respected position in Islam compared to woman's position in any other society.

 

[dougmusr]

I think as a Christian I would agree with many of Steves points. One problem with the concept of using harm as a criteria is that it tends to be limited to that which is physical and observable. There are things that don't hurt physically which may do more harm to the individual and society.

 

[Joe98]

Can the parents of an athiest have morals?

Can the religious friends of an athiest have morals?