Can atheists actually have morals?

[Sopranos Republican]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

[afleitch]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

Oh, really? Have you heard 'The Juniper Tree'? Because that sh**t's bananas.

[afleitch]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

Oh, really? Have you heard 'The Juniper Tree'? Because that sh**t's bananas.

I actually love that story. Been a while since I thought about it

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

Oh, really? Have you heard 'The Juniper Tree'? Because that sh**t's bananas.

I actually love that story. Been a while since I thought about it

It's one of my favorites too.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now I have to change my dinner plans.  I don't think I'll have stew tonight after all.

[Darth Maul]

yes

[fezzyfestoon]

No, this is my daily life.

[Wiggle Your Yummy Moist Preggers Cake Ben Shapiro]

Yes, but that's in spite of atheism, not because of atheism.

[nclib]

It depends what the moral in question is. If it's "thou shalt not kill" then of course atheists can have morals. If it's "love the Lord your God with all your strength" then obviously not.

The fact that some religious morals are unapplicable to atheists, doesn't mean atheists can't be considered to have morals in general. Say "Joe" plays basketball and baseball, but not football--Joe can still be said to play sports.

[afleitch]

Yes, but that's in spite of atheism, not because of atheism.

What does that even mean?

[John Dibble]

Yes, but that's in spite of atheism, not because of atheism.

What does that even mean?

It's kind of like how Christians can be moral in spite of their Christianity.

[pbrower2a]

Non-ideological atheists and agnostics must contemplate their ethical values and the consequences of their behavior. Theists and ideologues can always defer judgment to someone or something higher -- even if that entity has very low values.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Non-believers have stronger values than religious people.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Non-believers have stronger values than religious people.

I'm not sure how a generalization like this can conceivably follow. From anything.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Non-believers have stronger values than religious people.

I'm not sure how a generalization like this can conceivably follow. From anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

And yes, of course I am generalizing.  But religious people have always tried to interpret their "holy" books in whatever way suits them best while accusing non-religious people or follwoers of different religions than theirs of not having morals.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

[DC Al Fine]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

Another fine example of the skilled atheist in debate.

What exactly do you base your moral code on? Your arbitrary preferences?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

And instead on what? Something that has to be axiomatic, I should think, if it's going to make any sense whatsoever and not turn to an exercise in circular reasoning that is going to either be unutterably tiresome or end up mystical anyway despite one's best efforts. Why are moral axioms that don't happen to be written in a specific type of book 'stronger', inherently or solely on that basis, than ones that do?

[DemPGH]

Morality transcends religion, IMO. Morality at its heart shows a concern and an empathy for the situations and plights of other creatures as well as the community overall. Religion says, "I want you to do this or that because at some point in the past someone thought he found out in a dream or a secret message what God wanted everyone to do." That, of course, isn't truly worth contemplating since no one can ascertain what God wants. What God wants is based on a culture's own ideology. In Exodus, for example, you're supposed to execute your child if he / she disrespects you, and it's possible to go on and on ad nauseam with these examples. "Because God said so."

Now often I hear religious people come back and say, "Well, you have to know how to read that stuff. You can't always take the Bible literally." Well who in the eff is to say?! And if that's the case, which I'll grant, then you can't say the thing is the word of God, IMO, because you can't have the best of all worlds based upon however well it suits you. You know, religious people find something they dislike in the Bible, and so they say, "Oh, that's not literal." Then they find something they do like and say, "That's the word of God." Can't play the game that way, IMO. Morality transcends that. As we improve, so do our morals. Religions provide snapshots in time as to where we were at a given point, and much of it is pretty scary, I'm afraid. 

[patrick1]

Non-believers have stronger values than religious people.

I'm not sure how a generalization like this can conceivably follow. From anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

And yes, of course I am generalizing.  But religious people have always tried to interpret their "holy" books in whatever way suits them best while accusing non-religious people or follwoers of different religions than theirs of not having morals.

So in essence your criticism of religious people is that they claim to be superior to others based on their holy books and this makes you superior to them.  Flawless.

[afleitch]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

And instead on what? Something that has to be axiomatic, I should think, if it's going to make any sense whatsoever and not turn to an exercise in circular reasoning that is going to either be unutterably tiresome or end up mystical anyway despite one's best efforts. Why are moral axioms that don't happen to be written in a specific type of book 'stronger', inherently or solely on that basis, than ones that do?

For me, and I’ve discussed this before, religious texts ‘co-opt’ intrinsic human moral values and stake a claim to them. Human morality is shaped by the evolutionary process. Our base morals, which are in essence instincts are no different from most other mammals. For example, neither we, nor they kill simply at will; the killing of another of the species is preserved for self defence, rivalry or competition over resources. However our morality is inherently more flexible; it changes based on situations in part because humans are highly social animals (the down side is that our evolved sentience, increased self awareness and socialisation also pops out the occasional human who is essentially a sociopath) The end result is that we can now track changes to societal standards of morality within each lifetime. Some societies and nations hold different standards to others either in culture or exercised through law and even two villages ten miles apart can have differences in social mores even if the legal situation in both villages is exactly the same.

Religion often claims that we have an inherent set of values and morals which is no different from the Darwinist approach. Where they part is that they often claim these are universal in that they are God given and those who do not adhere to those values are rebelling against nature (god). Furthermore for the Abrahamic faiths, these laws are given some 3500, 2000 and 1500 years ago. If you peruse the Old Testament many of the laws are objectively immoral. Can we go back and amend these? Can we form a committee to revise them? No. Because they are gods laws and the faithful have been on a continuing exercise to uphold their relevancy and re-interpret their relevancy thousands of years after they were written down. You could not, and cannot structure a society based on that principle. Our state laws however are subject to revision. Forgotten laws may still rest on the statute books but if they are identified and deemed irrelevant they are either revised or purged.

Even when it comes to personal morality that may be restrained by civil law but the law has no jurisdiction over someone’s conscience, individual interpretations of what is right and what is moral is revised incrementally on a daily basis due to personal experiences and socialisation. If we express that to ourselves or to others and it is contrary to standard morality people tap on either the ‘revealed truth’ of a holy book or a civil law and tell you ‘it is wrong.’ However if collectively as a society and as a nation we take the same journey and reach the same conclusions on matters of morality, through the political process we can have the civil law amended. We’re not allowed to amend the holy book and for some people that is all that matters. I have seen amazing changes in society in just a decade on LGBT rights. I’ve seen people loose their fear of the unknown, get to know LGBT friends and family, refuse to be exploited by bigoted people and to and accept evidence that it’s just another facet of the humanity. I’ve seen laws change because as a society we make that journey and we do not wish to have the legislation say that is an immoral state of being. But for the faithful and the afraid they clutch to their holy book. The great arbiter of law that they believe it to be. It is not unfair, or unjust to criticise that mindset. I do not believe any of the Abrahamic holy books are moral.

[DC Al Fine]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

And instead on what? Something that has to be axiomatic, I should think, if it's going to make any sense whatsoever and not turn to an exercise in circular reasoning that is going to either be unutterably tiresome or end up mystical anyway despite one's best efforts. Why are moral axioms that don't happen to be written in a specific type of book 'stronger', inherently or solely on that basis, than ones that do?

Furthermore for the Abrahamic faiths, these laws are given some 3500, 2000 and 1500 years ago. If you peruse the Old Testament many of the laws are objectively immoral.

What is your objective basis for whether something is immoral or not?

[afleitch]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

And instead on what? Something that has to be axiomatic, I should think, if it's going to make any sense whatsoever and not turn to an exercise in circular reasoning that is going to either be unutterably tiresome or end up mystical anyway despite one's best efforts. Why are moral axioms that don't happen to be written in a specific type of book 'stronger', inherently or solely on that basis, than ones that do?

Furthermore for the Abrahamic faiths, these laws are given some 3500, 2000 and 1500 years ago. If you peruse the Old Testament many of the laws are objectively immoral.

What is your objective basis for whether something is immoral or not?

I gave a detailed outline in my post as to what basis I determined things to be moral. Morality is shifting and relative but is structured around our evolution as a sentient and social species. I’ll elaborate a little. You and I don't go around killing people left right and centre because it is not an evolutionary advantage for us to do so (as we ourselves may be killed) If we did that there wouldn’t be many of us left, we would live in a constant state of fear and we wouldn’t have the necessary time to hunt and eat and therefore fuel our rather expansive brains if we had to watch our backs at every turn. The same is true of monkeys, bison, fish and geese. Sometimes however, nature spits out a sociopath. So our morality is that murder is generally wrong and it is not something we are driven to do (unless you are the said sociopath) however survivalism, again an evolutionary trait may require us to kill. If we are attacked, if our community is attacked etc we will fight and we may kill. The same is true for our monkey, bison, fish and geese friends. We have a legal system which also generally says it’s a crime to kill with the same caveats which vary across jurisdiction. However the Bible suggests that the Israelite’s didn’t know that it was an offense to kill until God spoke through Moses to tell them. Which makes you wonder how on earth society functioned. If animals who have plodded along for several hundred million years could grasp this, why on earth couldn’t we? Our internal morality that tells us it’s generally wrong to kill, wrong to take things from other people, wrong to wantonly destroy and so forth and it does not need to be given to us.