Atheists: I ask this question seriously, will you answer please?

Question

Please do not misunderstand. I am not accusing ALL atheists of being criminals. Many of you no doubt live moral lives. On this mornings news, I viewed a tape of a mugger punching a 101 year old woman so he could steal her purse. Our society is becoming more violent every day and people without conscience are taking over our streets. I know you do not believe in God but if you are a moral person as many of you claim to be, it stands to reason that you at least were taught to adhere to the rules that were established by men of God on which most laws in civilized countries are based. It is apparent that even with these laws, violence and crimes without conscience continue to escalate. My question is this: If Christian beliefs and being accountable to God simply go away as you seem to want them to do....what standard will people in the future use to teach their children the difference between right and wrong? Are laws enough without a reason to obey them?

Answer 1

Morality has very little to do with "the laws of 'God'". If you followed the laws of the biblical god you would be stoning your kids to death for disobeying you, murdering infants of your enemies and raping their virgins.

The bible is a very immoral piece of work. It is for an army, not humankind.

In a very real sense religion can promote crime, because religious people believe that no matter what they do they can be absolved of the wrong they've done.

Answer 2

The rules were not established by the men of God. Most civilized laws actually came from Hammurabi's code, which predated the 10 Commandments. It was written in about 1760 BC, and there are much older codex than that. The Old Testament, in comparison, was authored around the 5th century BC, though some parts may have come earlier.

In any case, such laws and rules evolve as society evolves, even for those who are religious. The Christian of today bears little resemblance to the Christian of a thousand years ago, or even the Christian of a hundred years ago. In fact, even when people use the Bible as their moral basis, they generally use their own experience, develop their own morality, then pick and choose which Bible verses match. For example, while most people, secular and sectarian, would agree that the Golden Rule is a good general moral precept, most would be reviled by the Bible's rule that: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father's doorstep. (Deut 22:13-21).

There are many reasons to follow laws, and those reasons have nothing to do with whether a god exists or not. Religions make people morally lazy by spoon-feeding them what they want them to believe is right and wrong, without really saying why it is right or wrong, other than "God said so". Secularists put much more thought behind their morality because they don't tend to use such crutches or shortcuts.

Answer 3

I'm not an athiest I'm a buddhist, but to answer your question is the only reason you don't do unto others because you fear hell?

When people are raised to respect each other, then there is no crime. Whether that is from christianity, islam, buddhism, etc.. or without religion.

If you break the law there is punishment. that is what makes you follow the law, not individual morality. (which in some cases is extreme). Fear of punishment should be enough to keep you following the law.

The reason I didn't pee on the floor wasn't because if I did my mom told me I'd go to hell. No it was because she spanked me, and showed me the right way.

you don't need promises of eternal salvation, or eternal damnation to bring about a just honest society. You need firm pushishment NOW. Not in 80 years when you die. Very few people will buy into that, and it doesn't help..

If you want concrete examples look into behavior modificaiton psychology from the 1950s. In order to change behavior, a reinfocers has to be immediate, not threateded at some point down the road.

p.s. violence is not increasing signficantly. The reporting of it has. The news picks up each and every little thing, and makes a mole hill out of it and scares you more and more each day.

Answer 4

People will use the same standard they have used since before religion copied down their morals from popular society. You make the mistake of believing that these moral ideas come from religion, whereas religion simply incorporated the simple morals that existed already. These will continue with or without "god".

You also make the mistake of believing that, without god, heaven, hell, etc. there is no reason to obey laws. This is fairly ridiculous. Living within the laws is far more enjoyable and simple than being a criminal. There are legal consequences to our actions. In addition, we have to answer to ourselves. You seem to believe that people WANT to do bad things, and I think that, in most cases, this is also a fairly ridiculous idea. I think "good" actions would be far preferable to "bad" actions for the majority of people. The rest will commit crimes no matter whether they will go to hell or be shunned or even executed.

On top of all this, the basic human instinct is to continue the species and protect oneself. These two concepts are the basis for all morals, ultimately. These instincts will keep people acting more or less "morally".

Answer 5

But what makes you think that the mugger is an atheist? You move from the premise that believers are good people and atheists are not. Good manners - and morals are not an exlcusive fiefdom of religious people. What if the mugger regards himself as a believer notwithstanding the wrong he did. But maybe we should move the argument out of the mugger's actions, and find out what wrongs people claiming to be believers in God do to others and society as a whole. The mugger was violent in his commission of crime. Many believers are seasons criminals without being violent. What does that say about their God or morality/

Answer 6

The idea that any set of 'rules' could be an effective moral code for more than a few years is ridiculous. Atheists base their morals on the same sorts of principles that your religious rules were based on (the Golden Rule, social contract theory, etc.), but because we have no rigid doctrine we don't have the problem of our morals becoming outdated. Rather than a system of specific rules (like 'thou shall not commit adultery') we have moral principles that allow us to evaluate whether an action like adultery is wrong in a specific context.

Laws aren't designed to dictate morality, it's the other way around. Laws have two functions, social cohesion and social progress. Social cohesion is only achieved when laws reflect the values of society. There needs to be a value before there can be a law.
When parents teach their children the difference between right and wrong, they tend to do so using specific examples. It's right to say please and thank you, it's wrong to hit people, etc. This isn't morality, because generally the child only does as it's told out of self interest. It's more likely to get what it wants if it says please, it's likely to be punished if it hits someone. This is what Kohlberg called the pre-conventional level of moral development. It's also the level of moral development required to folow a religion, where one does good (as defined by specific rules) for fear of punishment in the afterlife.
At the conventional level of moral development people obey laws (and other perceived rules) because they believe that this is the best way to maintain a functional society. The fact that society holds a certain value means that the value is morally right. Someone at the conventional level would choose not to hit someone because they wouldn't want to violate the law.
It's only when we come to the post-conventional level that laws are viewed as social constructs without inherent morality. At this point, laws are not enough without a reason to obey them. People are viewed as separate from their society and the idea of 'societal values' becomes less easily defined. People at the post-conventional level of moral development would choose not to hit someone because they wouldn't want to violate the other person's freedom from being hit.

I'm sure I was going somewhere with that. Anyway, what standard will people use to teach their kids right and wrong? Well basically kids don't need moral standards, they need rules and direct consequences for breaking them. Whether that consequence is burning in hell or sitting on the naughty stool doesn't make a huge difference. And are laws enough without a reason to obey them? No, but for some people the sanctions and social recource associated with breaking the law is enough of a reason. For other people the fact that there is a law is irrelevant, the morality of an action is evaluated independently from its legal status.
Christianity doesn't encourage morality, it encourages obedience. If the only thing keeping you fom robbing a 101 year old woman is one of the ten commandments and the threat of hell, then you're not a moral person.

Answer 7

I wonder whether there was any indication on the tape that the man doing the punching was an atheist.

Aside from that, I will draw your attention to the fact that long before Christian beliefs evolved there was moral behavior. In places in which Christianity was never heard of there was moral behavior.

Christianity is not the fountainhead of morality. Morality is the product of a combination of social instinct and the experience of humans living together. The social contract exists without the need for supernatural explanations.

Answer 8

What that mugger did was obviously wrong.

What you think that has to do with atheism is a complete mystery. If you're suggesting that we need religious belief - "being accountable to God" - to have laws against beating up 101 year old women, you're mistaken. It's not just wrong when you get caught - it's wrong even if you get away with it. Are you able to understand that? An act doesn't become wrong when it is punished - it is already wrong.

In answer to your last question, these things are not wrong just because there is a law, either. Morality runs far deeper than that. Right and wrong are absolute - this relativist "it's wrong because someone says it's wrong" morality of yours frankly has been the cause of a lot of the world's problems.

Answer 9

"it stands.... rules that were established by men of God ... are based."
- NO. I was raised about morals without a god. The most my parents did about God was church and prayer - I ignored them on all of it - I never believed. Morals are instilled in our genes via Natual Selection - NOT GOD. We are further taught how to USE those morals for good by parents, society, culture, etc.

"what standard will people in the future use to teach their children the difference between right and wrong?"
- Common sense? Theism will cease to exist one day. Morals do not come from threats (e.g., "Do this or you die and go to HELL!").

Answer 10

"were taught to adhere to the rules that were established by men of God "

You mean the parts where they stone people?

Look sparky, morals evolve with society. You cannot deny this. Over the past 2000 years, we have abolished slavery (which was OK by the bible, no problem), given women the right to vote (women are not generally treated well in the bible), and got rid of a lot of nasty racism, although we still have plenty of work to do in that area.

The ten commandments? Most of it IS SELF-EVIDENT TO REASONABLE PEOPLE. Don't kill, don't steal, THIS IS NORMAL. All the funny stuff about false idols and other gods before me is nonsense, of course, but the core parts are common to all human beings.

Because we do not exist in a vacuum. We have parents, lovers, colleagues, friends, peers, children. All these people that love us and trust us. This is why we are moral creatures, because we care.