How do atheists determine what is evil and what is good?

Question

(Caveat -- this is not a "trick" question, nor is it being ask to purposely offend or "bash" atheist.) I am in a discussion group with people from all kinds of religious backgrounds. We have been addressing this question from a religious point of view and wanted to get a non-religious person's take. Thanks in advance for your serious answer that will shed some light on our discussion.

Answer 1

You know... It amazes me how non believers here, can say things like "Disgusting" and "disturbing." when speaking about those who believe, that a historical belief in God forms and maintains the balance of good and evil, right or wrong in todays society. None of you are any better than all the things that you hate Religion for and worse than all the reasons you left them behind.

I have a bible... I swear to God, It is really really old and it is a solid structure that I can read and everything... Really!

Anciet people were not anti God. Atheism is a Man made belief based on a decision against God, because of the ills and errors of man made Religions. Religion is a man made belief on the way to find God. God has nothing to do with either state or result. God is, what He is if you believe or not, or chose to do it in a mosque or a Temple or a Church or not at all... I honestly think that none of you can stand that fact... That there is something out there that you can't control, can't make, can't change. It is Ego and nothing more.

People think that they are so wise and believe with such conviction all these things that no one can prove or disprove either way. And tear each other apart over something as personal as Faith or a decision against it.

But to call believers "Disgusting" for understanding that the moral basis and foundation for what is considered moral and just in society came from the Bible, from the koran, from every religious culture and belief in society is very shortsided and delibrately goes against something true and historic, because you don't agree with it, is just as... if not more ignorant that you accuse believers of being for believing.

The Ten commandments were laws that are as old as History. The Beatitudes, all of it... If you do not believe in the Bible or the Torah or Koran or God, that is fine, but historically, to remove God and the Bible from the history of the world and negate it as being a vital part of our moral structure becuase you come along in the 20th century and decided not to follow it, does not make it untrue! just because you personally find some fault with it...Takes NOTHING away from any of it That , to me, is the epitomy of ignorance to assume that your modern OPINION of history should be stronger than history itself. You are trying to change what was... You can do that for yourself but not for everyone.

These things are the basis and moral foundations for all of society... Maybe try actually reading them before completely discrediting them just because you are on some personal mission to make everyone believe that your way is the only right way to live.

Modern man makes his choices... I am certain that there were very few people that walked around proud and full of themselves somuch so that they didn't believe in some higher power. Even the Pagans and the Druids believed... Historically, Moral structure comes from God. Sorry... You are wrong!

Answer 2

I use ethical calculus myself, predicated on the axioms that human potential is to be maximized to the extent possible that one does not actively or intentionally reduce another human's potential.

That is, a murderer may conceivably derive so much pleasure from killing a thousand people that the pleasure outweighs the cost, however, because the cost is paid by others, the murderer may not ethically murder. This is a problem with utilitarianism which my axiom addresses.

Under this axiom, abortion is murder because human potential is present in the foetus -- passive action, that is, leaving things alone, will produce a natural miscarriage or a fully formed human being. An abortion is active action which negates that human potential. To this end, I believe that only if the mother cannot die to bring her child to the age of viability is an abortion morally allowed. For examples:

-- A woman cannot survive a tubal pregnancy long enough for the child to be viable. It is permissible to terminate that pregnancy, the child is already condemned, it cannot live without the mother, and the mother cannot get it to a viable age. Better the loss of one potential than both.

-- A woman has uterine cancer and is pregnant. Her doctor feels that she could make it to the age of viability, but the cancer would spread so completely that it would mean certain death for the woman. Morally, the woman must sacrifice her life to save the child. She is old enough to be pregnant, she has lived some of her potential. The child, however, still has its full potential.

I also ask myself if I believe it is true that the universe would be a better place if all people everywhere and at all times acted as I am about to act. I'm about to disrespect this person, would it be a better universe if all people everywhere at all times considered disrespect viable? If not, I should not do so.

I admit, I'm certainly not perfect in carrying out my analyses, but I also don't write off my failings as something for a deity to forgive -- I seek to correct myself by making right with those I have wronged.

Answer 3

The exact same way that religious people do it- "seems right/wrong to me".

People do not sit around with their favorite religious text and look up things when there is an opinion needed on some subject. They simply look inward and the answer is there. "Is it wrong to kill that kid who is bugging you?" No one really thinks it is ok until they run accross it in thier bible or koran.

What happens is that we have a set of values and moral judgements already in place and we accept that ethical system which fits these. It isn't the other way round at all. We judge our own religion or ethic valuable. We never change our innate ideas about right or wrong merely because we read something that says it differently in a book. The only thing a religious text can and does do in this area is get you thinking and clarify those morals you already have but might not have noticed.

Answer 4

I believe that social norms are defined before religions are made, because religion is a product of society. I believe that many social norms are instilled in humans as part of our normal behavior. These norms exist in secular and religious law, such as the belief that murder is almost always wrong.

However there are differences also, such as the Old Testament idea that a woman should be stoned to death if she is not a virgin on her wedding night. The secular world doesn't punish this at all. I'm sure you are aware of other differences also between religious and secular law.

I hope this helps in your discussion! :)

Answer 5

There have been many people who have used the existence of morals to point to a "higher power". Unfortunately, this isn't actually proof. Animals don't believe in "god", but all of them work toward the continuation of their own species.

In humanity, we work toward the continuation of our species. Our morals are that set of rules that insure that we do so. The evidence that they are culturally based can be seen simply by investigating other cultures. They are quite different in different places, but in general, they work toward the preservation of cultural identity.

In the end, morals come about by watching the outcome of certain actions. If we do something wrong, we likely incite anger in the one wronged. Often, we can with our wrongful actions anger an entire group of people. This can have dire consequences.

In the end, things work themselves out. If an action has a negative consequence, it becomes known that such actions shouldn't be taken. Society builds rules to reinforce actions that benefit it, and provides negative feedback for actions that harm it.

Answer 6

Look at our primate cousins and their grooming and sharing behaviors that have been documented by scientist for years. Look at your own dog and his social behavior. Neither of these organisms have religion, yet they have a crude morality. Do you not think that humans could have evolved a more complex morality? This question has been addressed since the time of Darwin and philosophers, such as David Hume have addressed your innate morality. I suggest that you and your discussion group get a real education here, as you are years behind. A recent book by the evolutionary biologist, Mark Hauser, called " Moral Minds ", would be a good a place to start as any. Look up the altruism theories of Robert Trivers, also.

Answer 7

You do not have to believe in God to know Right from wrong. What is good and what is evil is really only a perception of the person who defins it. If there were no Good - then how could you define Evil and if there were no evil how could you define good. What is good to some is evil to others - vice versa - I believe there has to be a balance between the two. - Things can not be all good and things can not be all bad - there has to be a mid point - a ballance between the two.

Answer 8

I think the determination between good and evil comes down to personal assessment.

The bible, depending on how it is interpreted, can be used for both good or evil. Anything, depending on how it is depicted by the individual, can be used for good or evil.

I am completely nonreligious, yet my own philosophy on life is also found straight out of the bible:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

You do not have to be christian or religious or even spiritual to appreciate this all encompassing and enlightening statement.

Answer 9

I think humans have evolved to have quite a bit of empathy. I think evil is anything that hurts me or others. Good is anything that benefits people. The subtle thing about my beliefs that to my knowledge don't map well to theistic concepts of good and evil is that I acknowledge that acts can be both good and evil. An act can benefit some people and hurt others. Sometimes an act is very hurtful to one individual, but somewhat beneficial to many individuals. Overall, the net benefit might be good.

Answer 10

i'm going initially criminal/unlawful, as that's the main ordinary. criminal is any act it is carried out in accordance with coded civil rules of the state/u . s . wherein the act is carried out. Any act which isn't in accordance with those rules is an unlawful act. appropriate and incorrect, are ordinary too. a reliable act is one that leaves the two the doer of the act besides simply by fact the guy or element having the act achieved to him/her/it feeling sturdy. Such an act leaves the finished undertaking greater advantageous than it exchange into initially. every physique feels sturdy approximately it. for this reason a bad act is merely the different, it leaves the placement worse off than while issues began. Now for the complicated section, sturdy and Evil. sturdy (Evil) is set by a coded set of "non secular policies" that are desperate by a particular concept or faith equipment. to illustrate below many Hindu Faiths that's evil to consume the beef of a cow for cows are seen sacred beings and are to be secure in any respect costs. between particular Muslim tribes specifically aspects of the globe, that's evil to greet yet another by the wave of the left hand, for the left hand is used to "cleanse one self" after defecation and for this reason to apply that hand in greeting is to tell the guy being waved at "here is feces on your face" or an evil insult. each faith equipment has that's very own set of "policies" which it calls "Morals" which actual at the instant are no further or much less ethical than the different faith equipment's set of "morals", purely diverse. Brightest advantages, Raji the golf green Witch