Can atheists actually have morals?

[kobidobidog]

It should be obvious that to be moral is to be like jesus is.  Religions made being moral everything other than what jesus is not teaching anyone about the character of Jesus, and how he resolved conflict, and avoided war when people wanted to war against him, and how Jesus loved all even the outcasts of society. The atheist loves what Jesus loves doing what Jesus would do.   The atheist does not like war,  Jesus likewise. What else can  an atheists be? They should therefore acknowledge him as Lord.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It should be obvious that to be moral is to be like jesus is.  Religions made being moral everything other than what jesus is not teaching anyone about the character of Jesus, and how he resolved conflict, and avoided war when people wanted to war against him, and how Jesus loved all even the outcasts of society. The atheist loves what Jesus loves doing what Jesus would do.   The atheist does not like war,  Jesus likewise. What else can  an atheists be? They should therefore acknowledge him as Lord.

This is your first post outside 'Should zoosexuality be legal?'. Ever.

[nclib]

I always like to say this: if a person's religion keeps them from going around mugging people or raping women, I hope they never have a crisis of faith!

Yes, though that isn't inherent to religion. If someone's fear of dogs keeps them from robbing a house/person with a dog, that's good in that particular case as well.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Atheism has no morals. But they can have morals, because they have been exposed to religious texts and those who follow them so much that the morals are (in most cases) absorbed in them.

[fezzyfestoon]

Atheism has no morals. But they can have morals, because they have been exposed to religious texts and those who follow them so much that the morals are (in most cases) absorbed in them.

Morals don't exist without religion?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

People have a natural tendancy to be amoral.

[fezzyfestoon]

People have a natural tendancy to be amoral.

How do you figure that? And without religion we'd have no hope of being decent human beings?

[JRP1994]

Atheists can absolutely have morals. Morality is not dependent on religion, therefore it is possible that those who have no religion can have morals.

[anvi]

As an atheist, I can confirm that I do occasionally have morals.  They usually stay in the homes of my religious neighbors, and I'd much prefer that they stay there.  But, when my neighbors go on vacation, their morals now and then smell good food in my house, and somehow they sneak in, work their way into my cupboards and fridge and get it in their heads that they can take up permanent residence without me catching them.  But I soon go down to the neighborhood Atheist Depot to buy some good traps, borrow a cat from an atheist friend, and in no time at all, my castle is restored to its natural state of complete villainy. 

[LBJer]

I'm an atheist (I'm also Jewish, but it's not inconsistent to say you're both an atheist and Jewish).  I don't find the question offensive so much as strange, and ultimately, downright stupid.  Let's say there is a God after all, a creator who rules the universe.  How does it follow that this God is morally good?  How does power necessarily mean goodness?  There have certainly been many powerful people who, by any rational assessment, were horrible.  And if God is not necessarily good, then the rules laid down by God aren't necessarily "moral"--they would only be moral if God was indeed good.  I find it baffling that this point is rarely brought up--even by atheists responding to the question of whether an atheist can be moral.  Their usual response is rather defensive--they pretty much say: "yes you can still have morals without God" and leave it at that. Their rebuttal would be much stronger if they pointed out that a deity would not necessarily be morally good at all, and challenged believers to explain why the believe God is good.

Additionally, those who say an atheist can't have morals might well be asked: "Do you really think the Holocaust, the Charles Manson murders, and the rape of an innocent woman are wrong only because they violate supposed commandments laid down by God?!  If you didn't believe God existed, would you see nothing wrong with these things?!"  If the answer was "yes," I would think the personally was profoundly morally bankrupt, regardless of how pious they claimed to be.

I want to touch on something else. "Do unto others" has been brought up as a common sense moral code, one which can be followed even if you don't believe in God.  To be honest, I think it has limitations in practice.  I'm pretty sure Harry Truman wouldn't have liked to have a nuclear bomb dropped on him.  Does that automatically mean he was wrong to have the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  I don't think so.  No one would like to be dumped by their spouse or significant other.  Does that mean you're obligated to stay in a marriage or relationship you no longer want to be in?  I don't think so. 

I think a better ethical code than "do unto others" is one that looks at the rights people have, and says these should not be violated.  For example, it's not wrong to steal from someone because you yourself wouldn't like to be stolen from, it's wrong because you're violating their property rights.  In cases where the rights of different people conflict, such a code would try to answer which one is most important and why.

[pbrower2a]

I'm an atheist (I'm also Jewish, but it's not inconsistent to say you're both an atheist and Jewish).  I don't find the question offensive so much as strange, and ultimately, downright stupid.  Let's say there is a God after all, a creator who rules the universe.  How does it follow that this God is morally good?  How does power necessarily mean goodness?  There have certainly been many powerful people who, by any rational assessment, were horrible.  And if God is not necessarily good, then the rules laid down by God aren't necessarily "moral"--they would only be moral if God was indeed good.  I find it baffling that this point is rarely brought up--even by atheists responding to the question of whether an atheist can be moral.  Their usual response is rather defensive--they pretty much say: "yes you can still have morals without God" and leave it at that. Their rebuttal would be much stronger if they pointed out that a deity would not necessarily be morally good at all, and challenged believers to explain why the believe God is good.

God as Creator of a Universe that makes sense may be the best that we can have. It is up to us as human beings to use the powers of the universe for good. One can know much about poisons and explosives without using them criminally. There are honorable uses for such dangerous substances as sulfuric acid and nitroglycerine. There are also not-so-honorable uses of those potentially-horrible substances. Before people get familiarity with those substances they had better develop some core values that keep them from applying sulfuric acid to live human flesh or using nitroglycerine in a letter bomb to an economic rival. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An atheist is obligated to accept the general norms of morality. The atheist Bertrand Russell might not find a solid religious pretext for opposing the Holocaust, but he had the perfect understatement with Nazi war crimes as "disgusting in the extreme". That is how I see any murder. As for the crimes of the Manson family -- the Nazi functionaries at least kept some distance fro their victims. Those who did the systematic killings never got to know anything about the Jews that they killed. For them, killing Jews was no different from spraying a poison upon termites. (Creating such a view of Jews was itself an abominable crime, which explains why such propagandists as Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg were hanged as major war criminals even though they never set foot in a concentration camp and never participated in a killing). There was never intimacy between exterminators and their victims. The Nazi apparatus made sure that those driven into a gas chamber or executed in a mass shooting never got to express their human individuality. The Manson 'family' and such serial killers as Ted Bundy and John Gacy often developed some trust in their victims before killing them. If they killed fewer people they committed a more complete betrayal of trust.       

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

War releases many of the usual constraints of human conduct. War is an old practice, and no prophet has yet found a way to nullify the temptation for war. Maybe the best that humanity can do is to decide that military aggression is itself a great abomination. This also applies to atrocities.  I am perfectly satisfied that had the Poles successfully turned back the Nazi invasion they would have extirpated the Nazi regime if they had a chance and would have set up a puppet government in liberated Germany.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" implies that the other is a moral actor.  It would have been far more difficult for President Truman to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it not been for atrocities by the Japanese Armed Forces. No Bataan Death March -- no atom bombs. In life-and-death situations we have informal rules of engagement. The violation of those rules makes an ethical calculus of good and evil much more difficult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Were I a thief I would not want others to confiscate the loot that I enjoyed or expected to sell for my indulgence. But as a thief I would violate normal expectations that tangible property not be taken from legitimate owners.