The long answer is no.
Can atheists tell right from wrong?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
this is all poo. all creatures capable of thought can decipher right from wrong using logic or at least instinct. right and wrong are of course relative, but if we look at things from a godless point of view-murder is wrong because it hinders society. honesty is good because it allows others to have confidence in them. I'm sure there are others, but that's all I feel like thinking of.
Yes, Norse it is. I am an atheist and I can decide what I believe to be right and wrong.
Satisfied or do you have more drivel up your sleeve?
first off in regards to the orig. post in this thread. yes of course atheists know right from wrong. so does a computer. does the computer have morals? does the atheist have morals?
of course the atheist has morals. the morals of atheism are dictated by what secular human society has determined.
but this leads us to defining morals. so, one definition is that morals are the ability to determine right from wrong. by that definition then a computer has morals. we have programed them to determine right from wrong. most would say that a computer is not moralistic. so it must be more than that.
oli you are correct, children by that definition are born with the ability to determine right and wrong, and i was agreeing with you on that point. but do children "know" what is right and wrong. from my observations, no. again they will steal, lie and cause injury. definitely wrongs. but this leads to, wrongs according to whom? well that is true. who am i to say that a society that believes that lying is ok, is wrong. that leads to the fact that the norm in American society is to lie, most would regard it as immoral. so morality is more than just being able to determine right from wrong. it also is based on what society dictates. is human sacrifice immoral, in my society it is. human sacrifice in my society is murder under most circumstances (lets leave self sacrifice out of this please, again i am already arguing with myself when self sacrifice becomes murder). in other societies human sacrafice has been considered moral and just. so, ants know, some how, right from wrong. they know they are not to go around killing members of their hive. but they have not (that we know of yet oli) gone on to create social morals, morals not dictated by nature i.e. instinctual.
so what are the other definitions of morals and morality.
i keep thinking of that woody allen flick. is the banana right or is it wrong?
that was woody allen, yes?
of course the atheist has morals. the morals of atheism are dictated by what secular human society has determined.
but this leads us to defining morals. so, one definition is that morals are the ability to determine right from wrong. by that definition then a computer has morals. we have programed them to determine right from wrong. most would say that a computer is not moralistic. so it must be more than that.
oli you are correct, children by that definition are born with the ability to determine right and wrong, and i was agreeing with you on that point. but do children "know" what is right and wrong. from my observations, no. again they will steal, lie and cause injury. definitely wrongs. but this leads to, wrongs according to whom? well that is true. who am i to say that a society that believes that lying is ok, is wrong. that leads to the fact that the norm in American society is to lie, most would regard it as immoral. so morality is more than just being able to determine right from wrong. it also is based on what society dictates. is human sacrifice immoral, in my society it is. human sacrifice in my society is murder under most circumstances (lets leave self sacrifice out of this please, again i am already arguing with myself when self sacrifice becomes murder). in other societies human sacrafice has been considered moral and just. so, ants know, some how, right from wrong. they know they are not to go around killing members of their hive. but they have not (that we know of yet oli) gone on to create social morals, morals not dictated by nature i.e. instinctual.
so what are the other definitions of morals and morality.
i keep thinking of that woody allen flick. is the banana right or is it wrong?
that was woody allen, yes?
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I think Dawkins has been far more honest than most of the answers given here.
Ive heard admit during one of his lectures that he simply doesnt know what determines the basis for human ethics.
Humans can be far more ethical...and unethical than animals, who only operate within a narrow range of behaviour.
Ive heard admit during one of his lectures that he simply doesnt know what determines the basis for human ethics.
Humans can be far more ethical...and unethical than animals, who only operate within a narrow range of behaviour.
So, for example, lying, theft, murder etc are not wrong, providing you get away with it?
There is no right and wrong. There is no try, only do.
its funny after having my own children, the many things that i assumed as truth concerning innate and learned, have reversed. my wife who studied child psychology in university discovered the same. my sister who completed her masters in clinical psychology and has yet to have children, thinks the opposite. i cant wait for her to have children. 
But are they atheists ?spider said:
What difference does it make to the argument if dogs learn right and wrong from humans ? - so do humans.SAM said:
Lessee - yep, I do know at least one dog that has a sense of right and wrong, and is owned by a couple of atheists. I think that settles the question - whether or not it's innate (at least partly, is my guess, as I have noticed breed differences in dog senses of right and wrong), and whether or not dogs are atheistic.
Umm...
Society decides what is right and wrong - so even it's workable (i.e. you get away with it) it's still considered to be immoral.