Can atheists tell right from wrong?

[SnakeLord]

How can you say they are wrong if they think they are right? It's like telling someone they are "wrong" if they think a certain color is the prettiest

That is not going to change even if you assert that a 'god did it'. If someone thinks they're right, they think they're right. You can however, unless you make claims to gods, show that what they're doing is wrong given the objective facts mentioned earlier.

 

[scorpius]

Of course I, and atheists, had morals; my point is, they aren't set-in-stone.

no, they are set in the Laws each member of our society has to obey,or else.

Although they probably won't go raping and stealing and murdering, they still CAN without any un-hypocritical action taken against them.

so why dont YOU become atheist and go steal rape and murder etc??

but first reread my first line above again!!

belief in god is really no deterent against stealing murdering or rape etc,,
since the perp can simply repent, accept Jebus and be on his way to pearly gates anyway,..
so whats the incentive for NOT comiting crimes from xians POV???
none whatsoever!!

in case of Islam those fvks are even allowed to LIE to STEAL from even KILL anyone who aint Muslim like them,
how can you trust peoples with such beliefs??

 

[Leo Volont]

The Atheists really are backed into a corner on this one.

It is as difficult to prove a logical basis for Morality as it is to provide a proof for the physical existence of God.

Morality is as much a matter of Belief as Belief in God.

When you start tossing out Beliefs, its not easy to stop... or at least I should say it is not Logically Consistent to stop.

Don't all of the Atheists wonder why the Atheist Regimes all eventually arrive at Systems of Administration which stress legalistic enforcement of Rules and Regulations. They simply can't issue a Public Plea for Moral Behavior because they know they can't define it. They have Universities just like everybody else, and I am sure they tried to find a Morality... it WOULD make things so much easier if there was something to TELL people besides "Follow the rules or we will toss your ass in the Gulog".

Now the Atheists who feel it is an unfair question know that THEY themselves know the difference between Right and Wrong. But, really, isn't it the same way that the God Believers believe in God... it was taught to them on their mother's lap. They Assume the Belief and have never questioned it.

As Reasonable People, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

On the other hand, though, Knowing the difference between Right and Wrong is not exactly the same as acting upon it. How many of these Moral Minded Atheists would not cheat on an important exam if it were CERTAIN they would not be caught. yes, they know, in principle, that it is wrong to cheat, but if they are presented with a HUGE ADVANTAGE to cheat, with the certainty that there will be no negative material consequences... well, we know from Studies that these Modern Atheist Kids cheat like the Blazes!

All their "We still know Right from Wrong" is simple posturing. Their pretending outrage to avoid answering the question... well, if the Best Socialist Universities could not find a Morality, I doubt that any Knumb Knut on this Page would be able to do it.
G

 

[Hapsburg]

Hmm, have you seen the states where atheism is the state religion?

There are no states where atheism is official government policy on religious beliefs. The only country ever to do that was Albania under Enver Hoxa. And that policy ended after he died.

 

[Leo Volont]

Well, as a matter of diplomacy many atheist regimes hid their profound atheism behind euphemism... the French Revolution said they were willing to be considered Deist... they tranformed Notre Dame Cathedral to what they called "The Temple of Reason" and had a ceremony in which they placed a very famous prostitute of theirs on the throne, calling her the Goddess of Reason. It was all good for a laugh. And America did not break off diplomatic relations because of Atheism concerns.

But we need to understand that Working Policy may be a bit more important in our considerations than Official Policy. For instance, officially, the American Government is not Corrupt. But the Working Policies all allow for money exchanges in return for official governmental considerations. Are we really consoled that the Official Policy is not Pro-Corruption, when we can see that Corruption permeates all actual behaviors. Simularly we are struck by so many regimes that appear in every way to be thoroughly Atheist, except maybe in regards to their small print... and, again, probably only to appease American sensibilities.

It doesn't take much. Einstein was once told to pretend not to be an Atheist... that it would help him with his American Public Relations, and its more difficult for an Atheist to get the Nobel Prize. He was adamant about his Atheism until he was told how easy it is to appease the Stupid Americans. He could do what the French did with their Deism... "God is Everywhere, God is Everything". yes, that is theological foolishness... to call Something Anything is only to eliminate distinctions... to NON-define it. But it worked. Still does. People are still quoting Einstein like he is a frigging Saint.

There are no states where atheism is official government policy on religious beliefs. The only country ever to do that was Albania under Enver Hoxa. And that policy ended after he died.

 

[Ophiolite]

I see you are still having issues with reality, vol-au-vent. Have you considered stronger medication?

 

[buckybeam]

I have children, you are so wrong. We are social animals, without an innate sense of morality we would not survive, we need each others, therefore we must be empowered with an innate ethic of reciprocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Yes we learn the morals of the group, as we grow. But we all start with an innate morality.

yep that's exactly what my son was thinking when he smashed his x wing fighter purposely into his twin brothers head. out of anger at the age of 1 1/2 add. his innate golden rule morality. sure it suggests an ability to put oneself into another point of view. but, that alone does not indicate an innate moral.

the "golden rule" is an [almost] automatic rule when society is created. as individuals it would not exist. societies exist where the golden rule only applies to some members. if morality was innate then we would have little trouble following the "moral values" of the specific society we live in. but, in fact, we do have trouble and break the rules constantly.

the link for wakipedia suggests more in my favor, imo.

 

[audible]

yep that's exactly what my son was thinking when he smashed his x wing fighter purposely into his twin brothers head. out of anger at the age of 1 1/2 add.

irrelevant, people go to war, people kill, all have morality whether they get angry from time to time is irrelevant, not everybody leads a virtuous life.

his innate golden rule morality. sure it suggests an ability to put oneself into another point of view. but, that alone does not indicate an innate moral.

the only way your child could be deemed to not have an innate social morality, would be if it wished to be solely left on it's own, and if that was the case, I would get the child to the shrink, it could be a sociopath.

the "golden rule" is an [almost] automatic rule when society is created. as individuals it would not exist.

exactly the point if we weren't social animals we would not need this innate morality.

societies exist where the golden rule only applies to some members.

some links to this claim, would be handy thanks.

would be if morality was innate then we would have little trouble following the "moral values" of the specific society we live in. but, in fact, we do have trouble and break the rules constantly.

exactly but it does not stop us from being social animals with a innate social morality.

 

[buckybeam]

irrelevant, people go to war, people kill, all have morality whether they get angry from time to time is irrelevant, not everybody leads a virtuous life.the only way your child could be deemed to not have an innate social morality, would be if it wished to be solely left on it's own, and if that was the case, I would get the child to the shrink, it could be a sociopath. exactly the point if we weren't social animals we would not need this innate morality.some links to this claim, would be handy thanks.exactly but it does not stop us from being social animals with a innate social morality.

exactly we do not lead virtuous lives, if morals were innate then we would.

wanting to be left alone has nothing to do with being born with morals. your comment concerning being a sociopath has nothing to do with my earlier statement.

link to societies on the golden rule only applying to certain members....... hmmmmmm let me think......



you fuck didn't you ever hear of the civil rights movement?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Without objectivity, morality is subjective, and therefore, nonexistent.

That's just dumb. Does ice cream taste delicious or horrible? Whichever you pick, your answer is subjective. That *does not mean* that taste and taste preferences do not exist.

"Right" and "wrong" are a similar thing. They are ways of describing behavioral preferences.

 

[Pandaemoni]

How can you say they are wrong if they think they are right? It's like telling someone they are "wrong" if they think a certain color is the prettiest

You always need, implicitly or explicitly, to assert reasons for being wrong...we are simply used to asserting no reasons for your moral judgments because we take them to be obvious.

Murder may be wrong because the value of the life lost is greater than the value gained by killing them or, on a deeper level, because that net loss hurts society as a whole. On a deep level we judge right and wrong based on their perceived impact in relation to our society, because we are social animals. Many are the cultures who thought that enslaving others was fine, but who limited the right and opportunity to enslave members of their own group. The same with murder. Kill a roman citizen, and the Romans saw that as a potential crime. Kill a Gaul? Not a crime. (On the other hand for a father to kill his chidlren was "his right" through much of Roman times, and not considered immoral if done for a passably understandable reason.)

If morality were objective, then this—the past 40 or so years—is the first time in the history of humanity that anyone has been moral (so morality is improving). And even then, only here in the west. Modern muslims and other non-westerners are still immoral, by and large.

In ages past, no one shared our views on what the "objective" rules of morality were. Strange that, given how morality is supposed to be "innate" or "objective" or "set forth in my religion's holy texts."

 

[buckybeam]

morals are ethnocentric.

some think abortion is immoral, others think its moral. some think that its moral to some extent. some think that all abortion is immoral. others purposely abort their fetuses all the time and do not even think of it as the abortion they are against. so what is the moral? leave religion out of it. it is normal to think that abortion is immoral and be an atheist.

 

[Balerion]

It is as difficult to prove a logical basis for Morality as it is to provide a proof for the physical existence of God.

Bogus.

Morality is a product of society, not religion. Now, some religions pass off morality as their own, but in reality those morals are simply the product of the society they were born in. A great example is the fact that three distinct religions all prescribe to the same god: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

All three of those religions believe in the same God, but each was developed as a result of a displeasure with the morality of the society it was in. Actually, this example provides proof that God doesn't exist. As in, at least two of those religions are wrong, because they each claim to be the unalienable word of God, and yet each fundamentally opposes the other.

There is no legitimate argument for morality being a result of religion, let alone an argument for morality that proves the existence of God.

 

[iceaura]

And violating your moral principles is wrong to YOU.

Yep. See how that works ?

 

[Thoreau]

Is it possible for an atheist to know right from wrong?

For the love of sanity, Norse! Come on man, I don't even care for you but damn man, I know you're smarter than that.

 

[Yorda]

some think abortion is immoral, others think its moral. some think that its moral to some extent.

some get their morals from a 5000 year old book, others get their morals from their heart and brain. atheists can tell right from wrong better than religious people.

 

[Balerion]

What's funny is that people here are trying to argue that morals are set in stone. Completely untrue.

For example, in this country we used to believe it was perfectly OK to tell a woman she could not vote, and to keep black people as slaves. And after the slaves were emancipated, we then told them they were not full citizens, even though this nation's economy was built on their backs.

Today, those three items are considered overwhelming immoral. And we're only talking about this country.

Now consider how a Christian or a Jew might think about his wife being forced to wear fabric from head to toe so that no other man can look upon her.

Morals are ever-changing. Even the church changes its interpretation of scriptures to fit the times...at least in some ways. So please, please, please, don't try to argue that morality is the result of, or even exclusive to, religion, because it isn't. And no, they are not set in stone. If any of you spouting this BS took a minute to think, or even read, then you'd know it.

 

[Yorda]

What's funny is that people here are trying to argue that morals are set in stone. Completely untrue.

not completely. for example, most people agree that murder is wrong.

For example, in this country we used to believe it was perfectly OK to tell a woman she could not vote, and to keep black people as slaves. And after the slaves were emancipated, we then told them they were not full citizens, even though this nation's economy was built on their backs.

these things don't have much to do with morals. they have to do with racism/sexism.

Morals are ever-changing.

god's moral never changes, but human moral does. and by god's moral i don't mean the inflexible moral of the bible. i mean the moral that god wrote in our hearts.

 

[Ophiolite]

these things don't have much to do with morals. they have to do with racism/sexism.

They were defended as right and proper upon the moral authority of the Bible. They had everything to do with the morals of that time.

 

[Yorda]

They were defended as right and proper upon the moral authority of the Bible. They had everything to do with the morals of that time.

they were not real morals because they didn't come from god. they were just stupid ideas from the racists who wrote those parts in the bible.