Questions on atheist morality

[S.A.M.]

There are some atheists who do not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. They point out to the evils of religion such as child abuse and the death of innocents.

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values. Which means that for an atheist, there should exist no notions of abuse or suffering or wrongdoing with regard to others, only natural selection and need-driven actions of the self and those related to self.

Most if not all atheists ground their moral concepts in the good of the individual. This "good" itself is utilitarian (actions are only good which act as instruments to produce personal pleasure or satisfaction, along with health and the extension of life). Furthermore, what counts as "evil" or "bad" are those things that harm personal pleasure and health, and go against our "instinct of self-preservation".

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

 

[ashura]

This is absolutely incorrect. Just because you presume that it's either utilitarianism or divine command theory, and nothing else, doesn't make it true. There are other brands of ethics that have been derived away from those two.

Your question is not so much one that's directed against atheists as it is one directed against utilitarianism.

 

[Repo Man]

Science and Ethics

 

[Lori_7]

morality is bullshit and religious folk are probably some of the worst perpetrators of harm in this world. judgement is a realization of the truth according to law. law...not religion.

 

[cosmictraveler]

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

And when priests can rape children and their Catholic Church protects them and then hides them at another church to rape again and by paying off the children's parents with hush money is that any better? Religions have been at the forefront of wars throughout time as well. They kill others that won't "believe" in their mythology.

 

[(Q)]

There are some atheists who do not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. They point out to the evils of religion such as child abuse and the death of innocents.

There is factual evidence to support that.

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

Good and evil are religious notions and have no meaning in nature.

In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values. Which means that for an atheist, there should exist no notions of abuse or suffering or wrongdoing with regard to others, only natural selection and need-driven actions of the self and those related to self.

Morals and ethics are derived from reason, the same reasoning that would preclude the need for gods. Theists also have to produce evidence to their claims of judgment, for which they have none.

Most if not all atheists ground their moral concepts in the good of the individual. This "good" itself is utilitarian (actions are only good which act as instruments to produce personal pleasure or satisfaction, along with health and the extension of life). Furthermore, what counts as "evil" or "bad" are those things that harm personal pleasure and health, and go against our "instinct of self-preservation".

Theists have no idea what morals and ethics entail beyond their own doctrines.

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

Theists commonly use deception and intellectual dishonesty to create scenarios that support their fallacious arguments.

 

[ashura]

And when priests can rape children and their Catholic Church protects them and then hides them at another church to rape again and by paying off the children's parents with hush money is that any better? Religions have been at the forefront of wars throughout time as well. They kill others that won't "believe" in their mythology.

This is irrelevant. Just because members of a religion do bad things doesn't make the religion itself bad unless it's explicitly stated those bad things should be done. Where in the bible do you see priests being instructed to have sex with children?

 

[cosmictraveler]

This is irrelevant. Just because members of a religion do bad things doesn't make the religion itself bad unless it's explicitly stated those bad things should be done. Where in the bible do you see priests being instructed to have sex with children?

This isn't irrelevant because I was just showing that crimes take place with or without religions. When a Catholic hierarchy can find the money, time and hiding place for criminals that break the laws of man, then I'd say they aren't any better than what atheists are all about. It is like the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[ashura]

This isn't irrelevant because I was just showing that crimes take place with or without religions. When a Catholic hierarchy can find the money, time and hiding place for criminals that break the laws of man, then I'd say they aren't any better than what atheists are all about. It is like the pot calling the kettle black!

What you see there is a corruption of religion by man, that corruption isn't inherent in the religion. So no, it would be wrong to call religion the pot in this case. Similarly, if some atheist bozo makes some atheist bozo organization and does things that I find reprehensible, I'm not going to start thinking that atheism is inherently corrupted.

 

[cosmictraveler]

What you see there is a corruption of religion by man, that corruption isn't inherent in the religion. So no, it would be wrong to call religion the pot in this case. Similarly, if some atheist bozo makes some atheist bozo organization and does things that I find reprehensible, I'm not going to start thinking that atheism is inherently corrupted.

So when does the Catholic Church get to override the laws of the state? Few athiests have the billions of dollars as the church has to pay off everyone and get away with criminal activities. You cannot say that the Catholic Church isn't getting away with breaking the laws and covering them up with their own religions money, power and businesses. Again I only state this because the religions are always telling people to do the right thing yet they turn around and do whatever it is they want to against the laws of man.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There are some atheists who do not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. They point out to the evils of religion such as child abuse and the death of innocents.

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values. Which means that for an atheist, there should exist no notions of abuse or suffering or wrongdoing with regard to others, only natural selection and need-driven actions of the self and those related to self.

Most if not all atheists ground their moral concepts in the good of the individual. This "good" itself is utilitarian (actions are only good which act as instruments to produce personal pleasure or satisfaction, along with health and the extension of life). Furthermore, what counts as "evil" or "bad" are those things that harm personal pleasure and health, and go against our "instinct of self-preservation".

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

Atheists and theists share the same exact moral base. In the U.S. a survey was performed on human morality and both atheists and theists responded identically.

It's my observation that human morality is based on these fundamental built-in biological assessments:

* Is X mean? (rational threat assessment)
* Is X nice? (rational value assessment)
* Does X satisfy? (emotional value assessment)

Of course there is alot of wiggle room for culture and religion to overload these assessments in various scenarios.

 

[phlogistician]

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

People understood the concepts of good and evil long before they invented gods and religion. You do understand that all gods are made up bullshit, right, S.A.M.?

 

[Syzygys]

Here we go, vacation is over, Sam is back with her INANE questions. There is clearly no god:

In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values.

I happened to grew up in an atheist country and guess what, the murder and crime rate were way lower than in most Western European countries. Now, that it is a free for all religiously speaking, the crime rate is way up again.

Of course I made a logical fallacy, but you wouldn't have noticed it anyway. But there is a thingy called : THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!

Anyway, I wasted too much time on this thread already...

 

[EmmZ]

There are some atheists who do not believe in God because of all the pain and suffering in the world. They point out to the evils of religion such as child abuse and the death of innocents.

However, IMO, notions of good and bad, right and wrong are based in religion.

There are plenty of people who don't believe in a creator god who still have fully functioning discriminatory abilities. The pain and suffering in the world prove the non-existence of an all-loving, omnipotent, creator. Even we mere humans can see there is no logic in the dispensation of suffering. If such a being existed that allowed for that on the promise of a grand plan, then that would directly contradict the definitions of aforementioned all-loving, etc. creator.

In a nonreligious universe, there is no judgment, there is only opinion and personal values. Which means that for an atheist, there should exist no notions of abuse or suffering or wrongdoing with regard to others, only natural selection and need-driven actions of the self and those related to self.

This is basing the case on the assumption that without religion there is no discriminatory mind. It's also basing assumptions that anything other than humans don't have intentional abilities. I don't subscribe.

Most if not all atheists ground their moral concepts in the good of the individual. This "good" itself is utilitarian (actions are only good which act as instruments to produce personal pleasure or satisfaction, along with health and the extension of life). Furthermore, what counts as "evil" or "bad" are those things that harm personal pleasure and health, and go against our "instinct of self-preservation".

I'm not sure I agree. Most people base their morality on a general consensus. but I do agree good is utilitarian, but then what isn't, or can be? I don't agree good equates to pleasure though. Not immediately. Some actions are good but difficult. The last part of this statement is unclear to me. I understood it to mean that there is a negative connotation to low moral behaviour, which is discordant with our self grasping. I'm sorry, I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

So applying this morality to society, if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

This does beg the question "Why are there laws?", "Do we follow laws just to fit in, or because of fear of the ones who uphold it?" "Are laws something we should follow without question"?

Lastly, I've noticed there is a lot of opinion that seems to suggests if we are not a religious being then we are nothing more than animals. While, for the most part, I do think this applies to society as a whole. I don't think most people would agree we are animals. This means those of us who are atheists may also have a moral code without thinking they are merely some genetic anomaly wandering around an ever expanding universe. Created by something other than a god.

 

[S.A.M.]

No one has answered the question.

 

[SnakeLord]

if an atheist finds personal pleasure and satisfaction in say, abusing a child, should there be a moral objection from their moral perspective?

Whether he is an atheist, theist or golf playing astrologer is neither here nor there. If the person finds personal satisfaction and pleasure in what they do then it is unlikely they would have a moral objection to it from their moral perspective. (That's not to say they couldn't recognise the action as against societal laws).

 

[S.A.M.]

Do all atheists agree with this?

Good and evil are religious notions and have no meaning in nature.

If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of morality?

 

[Syzygys]

For educational purposes:

Do all atheists agree with this?

We just can not KNOW. There is only 1 (repeat, ONE) thing what atheists agree on, you make an educated guess what it is.

If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of morality?

Usefulness. I personally like to use useful or not useful instead of good or bad, since it is LESS subjective than the notion of goodness or badness..

 

[Syzygys]

No one has answered the question.

Which one? You know me, I can answer ALL questions, except why do you have the need to start a thread in every 3 days on this topic.

So again hon, what was your burning question that left you unstatisfied??

 

[S.A.M.]

For educational purposes:



We just can not KNOW. There is only 1 (repeat, ONE) thing what atheists agree on, you make an educated guess what it is.



Usefulness. I personally like to use useful or not useful instead of good or bad, since it is LESS subjective than the notion of goodness or badness..

Hmm so you agree with my opening post. No morality except utilitarianism. Thanks.