Atheism and Morality: Being Good Without God?

You should take a class in Sociology. A person either incorporates the mores of the society ich he/she is raised, or doesn't. Society imposes those sanctions, n God. For those who find comfort in believing ina Deity, let them. They have the 10 Commandments or some other religiously based rules. Those who don't believe have the logical conclusion that survival depends on getting along with one's neighbors and not weakening the community, so they have the 10 commandments without them being a handout from God.

That's interesting, but still not quite right. Is it okay to have sex with children, even if you have their consent? You probably believe it's okay to kill someone, say a person who wants your help to commit suicide.

The bottom line is the reason you don't rape and kill is because the God who created you also gave you a conscience. Without God, anything would be allowed. If you go by what society thinks, then what Hitler did was okay because that's what his society believed at the time. Perhaps if you read some good apologetics books, and quit only looking at atheists resources. The problem is that they tend to only tell one side of the story, and you never get the whole argument. Atheism is morally and intellectually bankrupt. It can only be rationalized by illogical arguments and actual lies. I know you won't believe this, but it's true.

Well ((Alexis)) I'll give you credit for taking the time to clearly express your beliefs regarding morality, and while you offer some well argued points, I would politely argue against a few of them...

First and foremost ANY belief surrounding morality can not be proven with certainty, the simple fact that Moral Nihilists exist is a testament to that. Now, we must argue who's idea is the most reasonable.

I'm glad you're leaning more towards a form of moral objectivism than subjectivism, I think that it's either one or the other, the later holds huge difficulties with the legitimacy of the principle of justice and righteousness (if they exist).

Now you've suggested that Theists (let's go with Christians; my position) are essentially subjectivists and "don't know it" because God sets his subjective will to determine morality and Christians believe they should adhere (subjective) but that's not really what Christian theologians profess..in fact the "Euthyphro dilemma" predates Christianity and Christianity has managed to survive despite it..Why? The Christian God (it is argued) is Good itself (it's nature) What is moral is an alignment with "the good" (God). What is good is not determined by God's choice (subjective) God does not choose his nature. So... as Christianity sees it when you're good, you're "like God"

You may not have considered this traditional Christian idea, but Catholics and Orthodox both embrace it. Now, back to morality and atheists being moral...

Dismiss outright any claim that morality is established by the Bible... Clearly atheists and agnostics and other theists all (as a rule) act morally...all though some don't, for the most part, usually most people respect each other and act accordingly. So I would argue that Christians do so too...and many of them haven't even read the Bible.

It seems that it is part of our human nature to intuitively perceive ("validate"; we learn morality from others) the "right thing to do" and usually do it.

When a drowning man screams "HELP" atheists act as swiftly as theists and neither first consults a "social contract" or a "theological treatise".

It's a fascinating subject to be sure, one that has compelled me to try the Catholic church in it's outlandish claim to teach with moral infallibly....

It's too bad I'm about to withdraw from the forum for Lent or I would invite you to try some one on one. I'm not officially logging of until Ash Wed, if you e-mail me I'd love to offer further respectful dialogue.

Peace; DD

It think it's kewl that you made a website with your beliefs. I think it would be better if you set it up to enable public comments under each blog or perhaps a link to a message board where a discussion could take place. You might even have a chatango chatbox on the page.

I agree that morality is not exclusive to theists. In fact morality is a human invention. The god of Abraham, God, gave us commandments, not morals. Some beliefs in a god or gods cause immoral behavior, such as sacrificing children or people in the hopes it will bring wealth. Pagan rituals involving decadent sexual ceremonies are considered to be immoral by some.

There are those who believe in God who rebel against Him, called Satanists. The actions of Satanists are often considered immoral.

The only thing that unites Atheists is their denial of the existence of God or gods. Atheists may choose to be moral or not. However, I think your basis of objective versus subjective is divisive and a subversive assault against theists. Your basis of an OLMD is shallow at best. What is your moral response when a person attacks you? If you defend yourself, is that not pitting your will against another? So self defense is considered immoral to yourself? Surely not every Atheist will agree, but do any of them? Yet Jesus taught that if a man strikes you on your cheek, offer him your other one. If a man forces you to walk with him a mile, go with him an extra mile. Obviously many who claim to be Christian do not actually follow the teachings of Christ. So too an Atheist may claim to follow the OLMD, yet not. Many Satanists go incognito as Christians in order to gain seats of authority by which they can mislead the masses.

Satanists also go incognito as Atheists and scientists.

What do you think about the Georgia Guidestones? Codex Alimentarius? Fluoride?

Do you think it's moral or even necessary to depopulate the planet by increasing the incidence of preventable disease and lowering the birth rate through the intentional introduction of toxins into the environment? I know onion articles are tongue in cheek, but what do you think about this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-o...

Isn't the increase of preventable disease in order to lower population and preserve resources no more moral than human sacrifice to bring rain?

BTW, Christ's explanation that Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul as the first and greatest commandment, and love your neighbor as yourself as the second commandment pretty much explained that morality based on those commandments was objective. The commandments were given because the people were demanding a written law, just as they later demanded to have a human king. Otherwise, the law is said to be written in the hearts of those who love God. Love is the objective morality that is superior to the sympathy/respect objective of OLMD. Atheists can love their neighbor, so in as far as humanity is concerned, they can be moral. But morality or being a good person won't get them into heaven.

well first of all, i'd like to say that you are a skilled writer and it seems as though you were willing to put in at least a decent amount of writing to make that article regarding god, humans, and morality (https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/atheis... i liked the length of it particularly because it wasn't too long or too short. as you might expect, i do have some questions and comments.

"Using the Imposition of Wills as a foundation, an objective moral framework can be constructed, and this construction leads naturally to a moral code based on harm, or, more specifically, upon consent. In other words, the only “immoral” actions are those that violate the rights of another person"

why do you believe that actions which violate the rights of another person are immoral and are the only actions which are immoral? is it because that's the way you feel? surely as a skeptic of the ultimate truths religion you believe that biological evolution blindly programmed a sense of right and wrong into you by chance.

"This is in direct contrast to the moral code of theists who claim that actions are either "good” or “evil” based upon whether they are, by completely arbitrary criteria, decreed to be."

here it seems you might agree with the euthyphro "dilemma," although not all theists agree with the euthyphro dilemma. one of those theists i'm referring to is myself, and another is one who i've deeply admired for a long time, and still deeply admire: william lane craig. both he and i reject it for this reason: we believe god's nature is the basis of morality; that is, god's nature is intrinsically good and thus, what's not for his nature is bad (matthew 12:30). this doctrine of god's nature is what christian scripture teaches, and isn't effected negatively by the euthyphro "dilemma."

"Even *if* God existed, and *did* decree rape, torture, and murder to be sins, it is first and foremost my basic, fundamental nature as a person who does not enjoy causing harm to others that would compel me to behave morally, and that would just as equally compel me to refrain from such actions even in the case that they were declared by God *not* to be sins."

it might first and foremost be your basic, fundamental nature as a person who does not enjoy causing harm to others that makes you feel disgust toward such actions as rape, torture and murder, but according to some christians, including myself, that's because god's endowed you with a sense of right and wrong.

i hope that although this thread is quite old, you'll reply and we come to a conclusion upon having that conversation, on this extremely important matter.

What the hell Olga?

Is that God + 0 = GoOd? Did God plan that? WOW!!

What do you make of other languages' words for God then!?

Notice how the word "good" has "god" in it with one extra "o"? That's not a coincidence.