For athesists on morality?

Question

I'm a very firm atheist too so don't think I'm going to make the stupid morals come from religion argument. But my question is do you think the world would be a better place if more people acted morally based on true compassion and completely non religious motives?

Personally I think that the world could do with more atheists or at least agnostics. I think it allows us to make moral decisions without conflict or cloudiness a little better. And you could say then less people would be scared into being good or tempted to be good for heaven's sake but then again less "holy" wars ( an oxymoron in the most absurd sense). What do you think?

PS for theists who read this anyways, I believe Jesus existed and was a great person and taught many values not enough people live up to, it's most gods I have extreme distaste and disbelief of. And I don't think anyone is less of a good person for being religious. Please don't misinterpret me. I would never suggest religious suppression either.

I just think it shows more character to act morally completely of your own accord.

here3, no, just no. That argument is dead I'm done with it.

Looneydude I don't mean it that way. I don't want to set up any authority, just that people act good of their own free will and don't make excuses for what is obviously bad behaviour. I understand your point but that is a little different than what I mean.

splinterjah that is not true. I've never met a person who used that they don't believe in hell as a reason to be evil. I'm not saying they don't exist but they feign in comparison to those who do bad in the name of God, both are wrong. And most people still get something out of doing the right thing and don't need a promise or heaven or fear of hell for motivation that I've met.

dzeyoyo, I do have inherent morals. Animals have no religion and some are still known to adopt abandoned babies, feed a family, and help others in general. Where was their religious influence? Or are animals more rligious than humans?

Answer 1

Well, it depends on whether you are interested in the outcome or the spiritual "place" that the giver is in I suppose.

I agree that it show more character to be good regardless of any benefit, whether this-wordly or otherworldy, but if the world would be a better place is tough.

What if people just did nothing without some kind of incentive? It's almost like communism, expecting people to work regardless of compensation just for the sake of helping their fellow man.

Sure, it would be great if people did so, but I can't promise that they would. That said, I would love to see less religiosity for various reasons: more rationality in decisions about science, sex, raising children, pregnancy, health care, etc...

Answer 2

If more people were atheists/agnostics, yes, there probably would be fewer religious wars and less religious tension. The question is whether people are capable of being moral without religion is tougher. Although a strong majority of atheists and agnostics are every bit as moral as their religious counterparts, a majority of the total population may not be able to accept morality without a supernatural justification. I would hope that people would realize that morality - laws, cooperation, compassion - are essential to the survival and success of any society. Therefore, a God or gods are not necessary to justify morality; in order to create the most peaceful, productive world possible, we must display morality. If people could understand this, then they would be able to accept a strong sense morality without God, and a better (still moral) society as a result.

BTW- This isn't suggesting we should try to make more people atheists or agnostics. In fact, if all religions were currently tolerant of each other, then many of the problems that arise from religion would be undone. I would aim to make religions tolerant of each others beliefs, even if they disagree, not to make more people atheists or agnostics.

Answer 3

From my point of view being agnostic or atheist means you're accepting more responsibility for your actions, an excellent idea compared to justifying ones behaviour on what some god wants. If there is this all powerful god why would he/she/it need anything? I believe almost everyone is capable of leading a good life and treating others decently because it's the right thing to do, not because this very scary god creature might punish us.

People are fundamentally good in their own right. The day I stop believing that will be a very sad day.

Answer 4

Yes, well, what morals? You need a consistent moral foundation to set up a system of morals for people to follow. And no matter what system you set up, any system is contrived because you arrive at this system without any sort of overriding authority. I don't care if you have a committee of 5.999 billion people. It would still be a contrivance and hold no more authority than something I would make up for myself based on my own preferences and my own world view. When you say "make moral decisions without conflict or cloudiness a little better" you say nothing, because there is no moral authority, therefore there is nothing to base that moral decision.

I do understand what you're saying, but you have to understand that every moral system in a godless world would be a mere contrivance and would only hold as much authority as the power of the social system to uphold it against an opposing authority. In other words, might would truly make right.

1st Edit: You say " just that people act good of their own free will and don't make excuses for what is obviously bad behaviour." But you see, what is "obvious?" You say you don't want to supress religion, but what if there is a society that condones child sacrifice. They're acting of their own free will as a society. Who are you then to impose your morality on them if you have no moral authority other than your own personal preferences? The Sambian tribe ritually sexually abuses their young men, from around the age of 7 or 8 on, forcing them to perform oral sex repeatedly on the older males as part of their passage into adulthood. It's sacred to them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Without an absolute moral foundation and authority of some sort, there is no "obvious" moral wrong, morality is individually defined, and if I feel it's right, then it must be right, and if you feel it's right, then it must be right. And if I have the power to force you into seeing things my way, then I'm right, and vice versa.

Answer 5

Most people base their actions on their desires, not religious doctrine. They may claim otherwise, but history bears out that religion, while powerful, has always taken a back seat to BASE DESIRES - the most powerful motivator.

Your question isn't one of morals, but ethics. My feeling is this... an individual must do whatever it takes to survive so that they can strive to eventually help those around them. This is natures rule, not mine. It has been demonstrated time and time again that human altruism is born out of abundance. When one has everything they need to be happy, they will tend to be incredibly compassionate towards others. On the other hand, if I don't have anything to eat, I may kill you simply out of anger.

The conflict we see in the world everyday is entirely driven by people being deprived of the things they need to live happy, fulfilling lives. This is Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory. Religion doesn't even factor in to it, because TRUE spiritual needs are near the top of the pyramid.

Religion that fuels wars is not really religion in a spiritual sense, but a distorted perception of what causes suffering. If I have no food (water/oil/land/whatever) because my land is plagued, and the country across the sea (who happens to worship a different god) has food, then the simplest way to rally the masses to war is to claim it's the heathen's god that's at fault. Fear and pain, two of life's constants, are more easily rationalized by the belief that such things are caused by external sources (ie. gods.)

Organized religion learned very early on that manipulating peoples fears via unseen deities was an easy and foolproof way to institute wide-scale population control. It still works to this day.

The answer is twofold:
1) Eliminate fear through education - knowledge of how and why things are the way they are removes fear. This is slowly being realized through the internet. It may take 50-100 years, but it will eventually happen.
2) Replace religious moral doctrines with universal principles. People who still wish to believe in god are welcome to, but as religion would no longer factor into an individuals decision as to how to behave towards others, the necessity for god in ones everyday life would be questionable. Of course, god may still hold validity in matters of the "afterlife" (if there is such a thing) which is technically the only place god belongs anyway.

Life is ultimately a HUMAN concern.

Answer 6

Short answer: Yes. Long answer starting with but:
But I would rather live with people whose moral views lead them to be compassionate and empathetic, kind and caring even if they think their morality is religion based than with people who are selfish and callous even if I agree with them that their morality doesn't come from the supernatural.
I agree that morality is more meaningful and heartfelt if people adopt their moral systems based upon choice and humanity rather than upon a fear that they'll be punished or a hope they'll be rewarded if they guess and sort of follow the one true divine moral code.
But religion's only one problem. I find that kind and gentle people tend to find moral systems (religious based or not) that share their outlook. Less caring people more interested in punishing their enemies and getting all they can however they can find moral philosophies supporting their outlook whether they look to religion or not.

So if someone comes up with a moral system that is similar to mine in outlook but that they think comes from God, that person ends up being a lot more to my liking than someone who I agree with when they adopt a secular moral system but whose moral principles differ greatly from my own.

I think we'd have fewer and less intense wars without religion. But there are many religious people I can't really picture supporting a religious war but there are a number of atheists I know who I could picture stridently urging warfare to wipe out a philisophical or religious "error."

Answer 7

Yes, I think the world would be a much better place if people based their opinions and decisions on what THEY felt was right. Not because "God said so" or "the bible said so". If people in general were more open-minded, we could probably agree on a lot more.

Answer 8

i am a "christian" person but sometimes think that my "religious" beliefs dont exactly conform to what some of the churches think and belivea and also hadnt relized it until a couple of years ago and a dfellow christan brought it up that it is weird how what it says in one part of the bible doesnt always jive with what it says in another part of the bible like it will say in one part to pray without ceaseing and in another part it will say if your faith is strong enough that you only need to pray for something once and you will get it. so are you suppose to pray for something until you get it (pray without ceasing or pray for it once and belive you will get it? guess the other thing that bothers me about being a christan and reading the bible is that people say whatever you have a question about the answer is in the bible and i have had questions about wheater sucide is wrong and if you go to hell for doing it and have never found anything about if you commet sucide you go to hell in the bible! the only thing i have ever found is that judas commeted sucide after he betrayed jesus and one or two others commetted sucide--it did NOT say one word as to wheather they went to hell for it! so it makes me think not all the answers to all your questions are in the bible some you have to read the bible for and some you are on your own with!

Answer 9

Atheists have morality, and don't act stupid due to superstition. Many theists believe you must fight to make everyone do what you do in the name of god, or you can do what you want, and repent so god says OK. There is no responsibility, or guilty conscience for most theists.

Answer 10

any morality you have comes from teachings somewhere inspired by religeous men ... so where do you cut off the learning of how deep that morality should be? or how do you even have a measuring stick to know what exactly is moral unless you go to the source ... and dont give me the argument that you are inherently moral because i wont buy it.