why do people ask atheists how they can have moral values?

Question

ok please don't be mean,i'm new here and i'm not even an atheist-i'm a hindu....i've seen several questions here by christians asking how atheists (since they don't believe in God/s) can have morals...and i don't get it...i mean,just because you don't believe in God/s doesn't mean that you can't have moral values?!!

a lot of buddhists are very moral and they are atheists....and even though i am a theist,i don't follow ethics simply because of my belief in Gods!

and even if you say that morals may have had their starting point in religion (though by no means limited to theistic religions ONLY! ),still an atheist can take those ETHICS into consideration while not believing in the supernatural right?

Buddhists don't regard the Buddha as a god but as a great teacher......surely there are people who DO believe in an afterlife who do these bad things as well!! and atheism by definition means non belief in God....not ALL atheists reject the idea of afterlife although most may

and in any case it's not ONLY after you're dead that you pay for your wrongdoings! people pay in this life itself

BRIAN:Atheist DO HAVE MORALS which they derive morality from unconsciously borrowed capital from Christianity, which allegedly proves the truth of the Christian worldview.

you're insinuating that this entire world is divided into "christians" and "non religious"? please understand that there are many many religions MUCH older than your own and a lot of religions share the same teachings anyway

BRIAN:The Christian worldview holds that God wrote the commandment on the heart of man from creation (can't get older then that) .

you are mistaking the view of your religion as THE truth....which i may say is extremely arrogant and is the VERY reason that turns people away from christianity

Answer 1

Of course you're right. Unless you are a sociopath, you'll have some kind of moral code, or moral sense, with or without any particular belief in the Almighty. As a matter of fact, I think you could argue -and I WOULD argue- that a strong moral code is more likely to emerge in a strictly social context than in a religious one.

Why? Because the social context is all around us, easy to observe; we're in the middle of relationships all the time. What works and what fails is demonstrated in actual behavior -there is no need to refer to some external rules or moral system handed down by religious authority. And on the other hand, religious conviction and belief can sometimes be a strong incentive to commit acts that are highly immoral -taking of human life, for example. But that's no guarantee that moral systems don't move people to do bad things as well. For example, a highly narcissistic, manipulative person will dominate or control another person in the psychological arena, while, at the same time, following all the "rules." Here's an example from my own experience: I am a believing Christian, my (former) girl friend was a devout atheist who described herself as "spiritual and moral." And she was; she was a nurse by profession, a wonderful mother and devoted to her friends. At the same time, she was terribly bothered by my religious conviction, and often tried to persude me to become an atheist because religion is "stupid." She would berate me and belittle my beliefs in an attempt to "help" me. I never understood why my respect for her atheism was not echoed in her respect for my belief -but it never was and dealing with her abuse on the matter eventually contributed to the end of the romance.

All THAT said, it also occurs to me that no person can be a truly devout member of a religion without also being moral and ethical. And I'm referring here to orthodox religious institutions which hold the golden rule as a central tenet of their belief system; that picks up your basic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (atheist or not) Hindi, Janes, Zoroastrians, B'ahi, etc.

Which leaves us with the troubling reality of radical religions whose mission involves or requires the destruction or subjugation of non-believers. Yet devotees to these faith-systems also do follow a moral code; it just happens that the code (unhappily for the non-believers) involves getting rid of the bad as well as doing "good."

The world of the non-believing moralist is hardly any different, and frequently is played out in the context of radical politics. And thus, people who are normally very kind folks wiil shout down -will sometimes injure or kill- a public speaker who, to them, is the antithesis of what they believe.

Moral commitments -values- are also tested when something personal is at stake. And this is why the most morally upstanding people you know will take pleasure in winning an ugly divorce proceeding which becomes a venue of revenge and retribution.

Perhaps our moral nature is most tested when we think "nobody" is watching us. What do we actually do when we become wealthy and no longer need to be good to "get by?" What do we do when we are away from a spouse or partner and the opportunity of a sexual liason presents itself?

There is an old Jewish story about a youngster who started work in his father's store, which his father and a business partner owned. A customer accidentally left a $5 bill on the counter, and the boy approached his father, asking what he should do. And his father said, "Son, this is a case of business ethics and morality. What is the first question you are asking yourself?" The boy replied, "Should I run down the street and return the $5 to the customer?" With that, the father cuffed his son on the ear and said, "You are a fool! The first question is, 'Do I tell my partner?'"!

I think your question will be debated for all time, but here is how I attempt to reconcile it for myself: moral codes and ethical conduct come from SOME place. Because religious institutions were among the very first systems of human organization historically, it makes sense that they were the first gate keepers on matters of human interaction, and thus, morality and ethics finds it roots in religion as a SOCIAL system. Call it "cultural evolution."

In time, social systems became concerned not with survival, but also with dominance, economic viability, and power. Gradually, political and legal systems began to compete with religious imperatives as both the SOURCE of moral "law" and the MECHANISM of enforcement. Perhaps the communist revolution was the greatest example, both in terms of the ideals it pursued and the brutal application of force to attain them.

And now, especially in western democracies, where personal needs are as likely to be experienced in the desire for personal fulfilment as hunger for your next meal, moral systems are more detached than ever before from some central institutional, social identity. Consequently, the basis of moral judgement and behavior is fragmented among those interest groups with whom we personally identify. But, even though today's "rules" are couched in terms of "good" and "bad," "should" and "shouldn't," and sometimes expressed under a veneer of mystical origin, the underlying basis of moral commitment and behavior is unchanged though all time: we behave well under the expectancy of a reward for so doing. The reward may be simply living -or living well -but it is a reward nonetheless. Likewise the reward may have a negative benefit: avoidance of penalty, avoidance of exclusion.

The evolution of human conduct has not occurred evenly, and each iteration brings ahead something from the past to use in the present as is indeed the case in every aspect of human existence. Thus, religious systems continue to be identified with morality both directly and in terms of support for (or competition with) other civil and social institutions or movements.

What will the future hold? I wonder.

Answer 2

Some people believe that you can only have morals through 'God', it's as simple as that. It's just what they believe and I can't criticize them for thinking that way. There are others who live in fear of God and follow the 'rules' only because they want to please a God and don't want to go to hell. They are the ones I'm afraid of because they obviously feel they would have no self control without feeling they are being 'watched'. They may not understand how anyone can possibly be any different from them.

I'm agnostic which some people feel may as well be the same as being an atheist but I have no desire to do 'bad' things. I believe in living a good life and not hurting others. It's pretty simple. There is no reason to cause any more problems than there already are in the world. I lack belief but I'm not a jerk.

Answer 3

Yes, they may be able to and DO have ethical values. Many occasions it's greater than genuine Christians. Atheists are probably laid again participants who wish not anything greater than to have a peaceable lifestyles with others. They get angry if anybody attempt to manage them via replacing their brain and "Correct" the Atheists strategies approximately Christianity...I could get angry too. Another factor to be made, by way of out historical past the worlds religions difference from one dominate perception to yet another. The handiest steady, is the truth that there has continuously been Atheists. Jeanmarie, Hitler used to be CHRISTIAN as used to be Germany as a complete. What does that need to do with Atheists and their ethical codes?

Answer 4

You're so right, thank you.

These Christians who ask how atheists can have morals (I see only Christians asking this question) are simply ignorant. It makes me sad how they think the only reason why someone would act morally would be the fear of punishment in the afterlife. I think these people simply don't really have morals, they don't understand what it means to be convinced in morals because you believe they are right and you follow them for the sake of good and not for your own advantage in the afterlife.

I have much more respect for those theists who have their morals because they are convinced in them and don't follow them only in order to earn reward. These ones also don't ask how atheists can have morals. There are also Christians like this.

Answer 5

I certainly think atheists can be moral. Most are moral.

That said, I do think there is a certain strain of atheism that is teetering on the edge of being a post-moral philosophy. The Dawkins inspired "mimetics" types who think of all behaviours and notions as being DNA-like packets of culturally transmitted information, awaiting mutation and evolution....

Frankly, I think this is a dehumanizing codification of moral relativity and social-Darwinism. I worry what could become of this theory in the heads of folks with a poor grasp of science.

Answer 6

Basically, its not a question of whether they have morals, but how do they define those morals. Where is the basis of that code for them. Since a moral code ultimately comes from a belief, what does and athiest's morailty come from.

Answer 7

Ignorance, plain and simple. What makes them think our morals are not actually higher than them.
I know my morals are much stronger that most of the so called Christians I have met.

Answer 8

morality means nothing if there is no God. whether you live a moral life or not has no influence on anything after you die. Morals make no sense in this belief system.

Answer 9

You are right. There is no reason that atheists can't have morals. Morality is not necessarily based in religion. There is "natural law" and "divine law". Natural law makes sense in that...you don't murder your children or neighbors. You obey laws for the sake of an orderly society. You help others if you can afford to because it is for the common good. These things are done for the glory of humanity and of self.

But divine law and morality tells us to take natural morality further, and at points to go against natural law. We are told to give when we have nothing left to give, that hating someone is akin to murder, to love our enemies, if someone asks for our shirt to give him our coat too, and to forgive. But the main thing is to do this all for the glory of God...not for the glory of self.

Answer 10

Very well said hon, I agree 100% Mankind's sense of values, fair play, and piety, have got nothing to do with religion. Have a good day.

Answer 11

You're being too logical for those kinds of Christians. Just learn to laugh at them whenever you're not feeling sorry for them. I can't even begin to imagine what it's like to think someone is immoral because they don't share my faith.