Can atheists JUSTIFY morality?

"I'm not saying atheists can't be moral, but how do they justify it?"

Of course. I feel like crap when I behave in certain ways, and I'd like to avoid that in my short foray into life. If I didn't, then others would make me feel like crap.

"If we're all just a bunch of molecules in motion and came from nothing, isn't it just preferences?"

Well, first of all, we're not just a bunch of molecules in motion, we are, in fact, minds. Our minds are caused exclusively by physical means, but we do have minds. I think you should understand that before reading on.

Secondly, no, it's not a matter of preference. We don't choose our morality. It is defined by our upbringing and our society.

"If we came from nothing, how can we OBJECTIVELY say killing is worse than loving?"

We can't, and the ancient Spartans might chime in there with at least some interesting debate. What we can say is that killing is SUBJECTIVELY worse than loving, and to us individually, that's as effective as 'objective'.

"Why would your opinion have more merit or value than someone who does think killing is better?"

Again, they are not opinions, but there's nothing objective that would preference one person's ingrained morality over another's. But, inevitably, a person can make a subjective judgement about someone's morality, and societies can develop consensuses over certain issue. But yes, the only thing beyond individual judgement that defines what is good and bad is popularity. Make of that what you will, but it's the truth.

"If there is no objectively law-maker, no objective judge, how can we say the Nazis were wrong?"

I can say that I think the Nazis were wrong, and that most of the world today would agree.

"How can we have good, bad, wrong, right, if we evolved from goo?"

Where we come from has no bearing on this. It's about us right now.

(I think I've said everything I have to say on the topic. I think you can guess my answers to your other questions.)

"Also, why are you so hostile towards the idea of a God?"

Define 'hostile'. I argue for fun. The fact that I can see directly through every theist argument ever lobbed at me just serves to make this hobby a little less fulfilling than it ought to be.

I'm not saying atheists can't be moral, but how do they justify it?

- It is called intelligence, try it some time.

isn't it just preferences?

- That is where intelligence comes in.

If we came from nothing, how can we OBJECTIVELY say killing is worse than loving?

- Intelligence and evolution, beginning to catch on yet?

Also, why are you so hostile towards the idea of a God?

- You mean that guy that slaughters people by the millions because of his ego, we should follow his example? Sadly, many people have.

I've never seen anyone grow furious about unicorns

- I have never seen people kill for one either, but millions kill for their gods.

It's weird to have all this pent up animosity towards something you don't think exists.

- We don't, it is against those psychotic followers.

That's all I'm asking. If there is no objective law-maker, with no biases, how can you justify it?

- Intelligence and evolution.

From the evolutionary perspective though, it's all preferences. Your's against mine

- No, evolution states very specifically what is good or bad, but then you have to actually understand evolution.

This really depends on where you draw the line at natural events and evolution. At what point does our technology and society stop being a natural part of being human and become unnatural? Biological evolution obviously isn't everything, even though some animals have definitely evolved social structures and basic "morality", but social evolution is also very important. You only have to look at primates or dolphins to see how separate groups can have the same basic social norms and wrongs and rights but also have different cultures that make for some subtle, and some major differences. I'd really say it's not arbitrary, but grown out of all these factors that are part of our basic biology, the natural world we are a part of, and our created world, civilisation etc, that gives us our morals. Some seem universal but others are flexible across cultures.

You cannot justify morality objectively or universally. That being said I think love, empathy, peace and tolerance are rationally desirable to all reasonable human beings considering that our violent (primate emotional-territorial) brawls are becoming increasingly omni-lethal and after years of enchantment with warfare I think we are just finally realizing that it can kill us all. Also, mentally and emotionally healthy human beings are able to empathise - we know how things feel to us so we should be less inclined to do them to others. Plus of course it feels better to give or recieve a hug than to give or recieve a punch.

Religion has never been a good candidate for morality, in fact most religions foster a territorial mindset because no two religions agree on what is 'moral' and what isn't, and seeing as religion has no more power to prove their moral codes universally (because none of them can provide evidence for the existence of their God - the law giver, or who better understands said God) you get lots of groups of people all thinking they know what is moral and then they end up fighting over it - it allows them to justify it because people who aren't part of their moral code must be 'evil', 'sinners', subhuman. Religion also breeds a patriarchal mentality which further increases territorial behavior. There have been endless religious wars and crusades, regardless of whether there is any kind of objective morality or not one thing is clear - if the answer is no, religion cannot fill the gap.

Hostility towards religion isn't 'atheism.' It's a personal quirk. Let's say you're catholic, and suddenly all your neighbors put up mosques, and have the morning call to prayer blaring at 6 AM. You'd probably resent it, being catholic. If an atheist has someone throwing religious icons, and terminology at them all the time, it'll irritate them the same way.

With regards to morality, why does there have to be religion involved? Do unto others isn't necessarily a religious concept. It can also be a social compact--I treat you well so you'll treat me well. There is also empathy--I hurt because I see you hurt, and I want to make you feel better,

You don't need religion to be a good person. Logic can get you to the same place. We all want to live in a good place, so we follow the rules of society that best get us to that 'better' place. We don't kill others because we don't want to be killed (or go to jail)--that's a social compact that makes sense to an atheist. Common rules of courtesy are the same thing. These vary by culture, but at the end of the day, it's a morality system based on logic not fear of a higher power.

There is also an argument that we help others because it makes us feel good. Thus, charity as a self-serving function.

Whether you argue it's logic, social compacts, or ultimately self-serving to make ourselves feel good, why does it matter what's driving someone to act as a better person?

There is a neurobiological as well as cultural basis for morality starting with the mother/child bond. This has been demonstrated scientifically. I recommend two books which explain the cultural, evolutionary and neurobiological origins of morality: why we believe in god(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith by J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., MD with Clare Aukofer and The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures* by Nicholas Wade.

*I don't necessarily agree with this book's conclusions, but the actual scientific information seems to be solid.

It is opinion based on empathy; implemented and confirmed by the majority. The nazis thought they were being perfectly moral; the rest of the world had a different opinion therefore they were stopped. Those who execute people under sharia law think they are being moral, the majority of the West disagrees.

We did evolve and yet we do know right from wrong.

It is not beneficial to eliminate people who are simply weak; we may all be weak at some point and with societal support the weak can be help and play a beneficial role in our society.

Why am I hostile to the idea of your God? Lookie here:

Kill Men, Women, and Children: "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night: But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents: 1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery: If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication: A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)Death to Followers of Other Religions Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers: They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

How do you justify that lack of morality in your religion whilst attempting judge ours?

Yes the idea that killing is wrong boils down to an opinion. That doesn't change no matter what your belief. Even if you believe God exists, and he made up rules, God's rules are his opinion and the idea that God's opinion matters at all is just your opinion. None of it can be 'justified' without first agreeing on some basic assumptions.

The point is enough of the human race shares the opinion that killing is wrong so that together as a society we can enforce it. That's not going to change because humans generally like living, and killing clearly goes against that.

Morality is just a label used to describe a series of behaviors for an individual within a group that tends to maximize survival and satisfaction of the group with respect to the environment it resides in. It's rooted in cooperative behavior, which evolution favored, because it improves the odds of survival.

Consider cooperation.I'm neither strong or fast enough to hunt and capture a wild bull on my own. However, if I engage in a hunt with a group of others, my chances of succeeding, eating, and surviving increase.

Consider sharing. If I try to keep the kill for myself, the group will either take the kill from me, and remove me from the group, or refuse to help me obtain another kill. It's much more beneficial to share the kill.

Consider stealing. If I steal another persons belongings, he wont trust me, or help me hunt bull. Nor would i trust or cooperate with someone who stole from me.

Consider killing. This should be obvious at this point.

etc, etc

They can't That is the Athyphro Dilemma, Are moral acts good because atheists recognize they are good by nature, or do atheists simply declare moral acts to be good?

If moral acts are good by nature, then atheists are recognizing a standard of goodness that exists independently of themselves and they then appeal to an external standard of goodness. But if that is the case, they are recognizing that goodness has a natural existence, a kind of essence of goodness to which they must appeal. We have to ask the atheist to explain how is it possible to have inherent moral goodness in a purely materialistic worldview. In addition, if there is a standard of goodness outside of themselves, then it means that there's a moral obligation to which all atheists are obligated to follow. This then could not be subjective and implies a universal moral law giver.

On the other hand, if atheists say something is good simply by their declaration, then they are saying goodness is arbitrary, that it is simply stated to be good, not that it is good by nature. This is problematic for several reasons. First, it would mean goodness is arrived at by vote, which is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Second, it would mean that the atheists could declare murder to be good and honesty to be bad. Third, how do you know what would be good and bad to begin with? After all, just saying something is good or bad doesn't make it so. It would all be too arbitrary.

In light of this, atheists have proposed a standard of goodness by saying that which is good is what reduces unnecessary suffering; afterall, people don't want to suffer. Therefore, they say that it is a kind of objective moral standard since it does not rest with any individual atheist, but with the whole of humanity. However, there are problems with this position.

How do atheists know that reducing unnecessary harm is the proper moral standard to begin with? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.

How does the atheist connect moral obligation with what a majority of people want, so that reducing unnecessary harm is the morally right thing to pursue? It reduces morality to an arbitrary preference of the whole.

If atheists say that reducing harm is the proper standard because that's what the majority of people want, then they are begging the question by saying that what people want is what makes something morally right. In other words, what the majority of people want to be morally good is morally good because that's what the majority of people want.

If atheists say that reducing unnecessary harm is the proper standard because that is what the majority of people want, then they are committing the logical fallacy of argumentatum ad populum. This error states that someone ought to accept a position because the majority people hold to that position.

If atheists say the majority of people decide what is morally right, then that is problematic, because what people want can change as has been evidenced throughout various cultures throughout history where societies have drastically changed their moral persuasions.

What would the atheist do if society discovered that atheism is harmful to society and that atheists ought to be imprisoned and/or isolated from society in order to reduce the overall suffering of society? Under such a scenario, would the atheist position then necessitate support for such imprisonment and/or isolation? If not, then wouldn't they be refuting their own position?

What do atheists do when someone disagrees with the idea that reducing unnecessary harm is a proper moral standard? How do they judge who is right or wrong without another moral standard to begin with, other than "that is what the majority want"? Wouldn't it mean appealing to a standard outside of themselves (not to mention argumentum ad populum) by which moral judgments can be made, thereby refuting their own position?

As you can see, there are a host of questions that can be asked about the standard of reducing unnecessary suffering that expose the problem with the Athyphro Dilemma. But, atheists are not too keen on answring them.