Atheistic morality is?

Question

at best relativistic and in fact based on emotion and competely without a scientific basis. Why do atheists who have such hard-ons for science and scientific proof put so much faith in their un-scientifically based morality and humanism? For example many atheists are not at all bothered by the fact that animals must suffer being slaughtered but if you touch a hair on their dogs or childens heads then they freak out. Why is that? If you were a true atheists you would see that "this is not truly my son it is only animated chemicals." Which would be the proper atheistic conclusion. What is personality? According to atheistic theory there is no true substance behind personality. It is just some chemicals on a trip. Where is the scientific basis for your morality? I don't want to hear your emotional reasons.

wow so many scientifcally minded atheists. I want proof and you give me emotions. Morons

Answer 1

Gee, atheists aren't allowed to have emotions. Or base our decisions on them. We should never be allowed to marry or bear children or get promoted, because we're evil and have no religious basis to our morals.

Isn't it nice when we get demonized?

So, by your logic, anyone with a different religion than you would be atheistic towards your god and would also be morally relativistic? Because clearly you think YOUR god gives you the ability to be moral.

Answer 2

Morality is a deeply emotional experience, whether one is a believer or a non-believer. So your question is misleading. But allowing some room for your mismanaged attempt, I hope to offer the following: Your are right that morality is a relavistic contrivance, but this fact is just as true for religious believers. The main difference is that the atheist is more prepared to accept this reality than believers, who wrongly believe that their morality comes from some "true source" such as god or holy books.

Unfortunately, many atheists are just as sloppy in their presentation about the reasons as are believers. So allow me to clarify: there is plenty of scientific investigation into morality, and it suggests that the basis for morality can be found in our biology. Models such as kinship selection and game theory go a long way in uncovering the biological basis for ethical and moral behavior. But it's simply too much to discuss in this very limited forum.

Atheists are just as emotional as believers. Simply allowing for a more rational understanding of nature (and having the courage to dismiss anything supernatural) does not make anyone less emotional. In fact, it might be argued that removing the supernatural (god, ghosts, transubstantiation, the divinity of Jesus, etc) allows a person to be more emotionally balanced.

Answer 3

Well, let's try and answer this wonderful question of yours.

One mistake you made is the assumption that cruelty to animals doesn't bother me. That is not correct. It does. However, there is only so much I can do to protect every animal living on this earth.

I can however protect my children. And I do, like a mama bear. I am sorry to tell you, "moron", that emotion *is* scientific. Ever heard of psychology? Yes.. of course you have. We humans, regardless of our faith (or lack thereof) have an instinct to protect our young. Part of that instinct ensures the survival of the species. However, as we are human, intelligent, and cognizant of our own mortality, and therefore the mortality of our children, we cannot completely remove emotion from the equation.

One of the reasons I *know* I protect my children from harm is that I love them. What is love? A chemical reaction in the brain caused by certain stimuli? A figment of the imagination no more real than god? Who knows for sure. But what I can tell you is, anyone messes with my kids, I will f*ck them up.

Frankly, I don't quite see the direct connection between morality and protecting one's own children. So the basis for your question is flawed. Ask an intelligent one you will get intelligent answers, "killah" *rolls eyes*.

Answer 4

In practice, atheistic morality is based on some gut level feeling that certain actions seem to be wrong because it feels bad to hurt other people, or cause pain unnecessarily. But this is obviously relative, since not all people share these feelings. Ted Bundy, for example, got turned on by torturing people to death.

And the "social contract" theory of morality seems not to work, since in practice, it comes down to whatever is popular at the moment is what is right (using that logic, then the Nazis would have been moral, because they were popular in their own country in their own time).

Morality is not about what is popular, or efficient, or convenient, or what comes naturally, or what feels good; morality is often none of these things. Morality is saying that the way things are is not how they are supposed to be. If there is no god, then there is no purpose, and therefore there is no “supposed to be”. Without a supreme judge, the words “right” and “wrong”, or “good” and “evil” are just words that have no intrinsic meaning.

Answer 5

"hard-ons"???? Is that an example of believer morality? Are you an example of the superiority of believers? And are you saying that it's only your belief in God that keeps you from murdering people? And there are many, many believers who are not at all bothered by the fact that animals must suffer being slaughtered? Are you a vegetarian? Are you saying that I cannot possibly love my children because I don't believe in God? Wow! That's just cruel...

Answer 6

You sir, are a classic example of why I am proud to be an atheist, if only because it puts me on the other team. I think you're possibly confusing aetheists with aesthetes, or possibly just confused.

Trying to define why atheists do particular things or think the way they do is like trying to herd cats. We don't have a rulebook which rigidly states what and how we must think, nor do they have to have a slavish devotion to science. I'm not even sure what 'atheistic theory' is.

I think the only answer really here is 'If you have to ask, you'll never know'. Sorry. :|

Answer 7

You've made a very big mistake.....you assume all Atheists are the same.

I'm an Atheist who isn't an Atheist because of anything scientific.

I was a Christian who started to read and question my beliefs and decided I could no longer support those beliefs with logic or common sense.

You can't ask a question like this of millions of people and get one common answer.....people are complicated and we're still individuals.

Answer 8

you may cope with others the way you anticipate to be taken care of your self. this is how society works. in case you cope with human beings like airborne dirt and airborne dirt and dust then you are unlikely to be commonly used nicely by potential of society. Then there is the subject of a judgment of right and incorrect. maximum societal species are needless to say vulnerable to assist one yet another, or a minimum of participants of their very own nuclear kinfolk. Failure to assist or inflicting soreness to those human beings reasons an emotional reaction referred to as guilt that's style of the preventative for such risky strikes as robbery, actual harm or homicide. Guilt isn't the only emotion that stops those type of strikes - sympathetic awareness additionally performs an excellent place in battling human beings from harming others, however this is questionable whether it is an innate trait or a discovered one. the two way, it would not require the perception in a deity to journey it.

Answer 9

Your ignorance is glowing.....


As an Atheist I base my moral standards and behavior on what is good for mankind and society as a whole. Just like you do.

Your religious morality is more relative than mine. Back in the OT you would have believed that stoning Hindu relatives was not only OK but moral. You would have believed that forcing a woman to drink water tainted with sacrificial blood because she was accused of cheating was required and moral. If you lived during Paul the Apostles time you would believe that women should keep their mouths shut and get all opinions from men, you would have believed that they are saved through childbirth, as Paul stated in 2 Timothy 2:11-16.

Today, I am assuming that you don't believe that stoning Hindus or Muslims is a moral way to act, you don't believe in purposely infecting women with jealous husbands or demeaning any woman with an opinion. That is immoral behavior, you know it, but your bible teaches you to follow it.

Who's moral standards are relative again?

Answer 10

So by your generalization, those with religion are the only ones who could possibly care about their kids, about those poor Foster Farms chickens, and have reason for a personality? A person cannot even pass a BOWEL movement without religion apparently.

Do you venture out of your cave much? Or is it against your religion?

By the way, I would recommend taking the word 'priest' out of your ID name because you're an insult to the very title.

Answer 11

Not atheist, but wow... your "question" is very offensive. Someone doesn't have to be religious or spiritual to live a moral life or to have opinions or to have emotions. It's comments like this one that give people of faith a bad image to nonbelievers.