Achieved morality without God:

[Charles Darwin]

Good post up until the last part. Dont put your own thoughts in when talking about what god(s) say isnt moral b/c this will lead to a debate on why you think its immoral b/c personally i dont think either is immoral. Ok, the end, no more side tracking the thread...

 

[Hidden in Christ]

hello all,
I have not read all the posts on this thread, so forgive me if I repeat a point that has been made already...

Consider selfless love. The love of Christ motivates Christians to sacrifice their own comforts that others might benefit, not simply to do good to others when it is convenient. What could motivate an atheist to do such a thing?

Furthermore, Christians have motivation to forgive those who have done wrong to them, and to love those that hate them. Does an atheist have this capability within? Or does he only forgive because he knows it is best for him...he knows that carrying a grudge will not be a good thing for his own wellbeing?

 

[EltronRangamma]

I agree people, we're having a discussion on how the atheistic worldview affects one's perspective on achieved morality. So far no one has provided a convincing counter-argument. I want to hear more replies.

 

[EltronRangamma]

hello all,
I have not read all the posts on this thread, so forgive me if I repeat a point that has been made already...

Consider selfless love. The love of Christ motivates Christians to sacrifice their own comforts that others might benefit, not simply to do good to others when it is convenient. What could motivate an atheist to do such a thing?

Furthermore, Christians have motivation to forgive those who have done wrong to them, and to love those that hate them. Does an atheist have this capability within? Or does he only forgive because he knows it is best for him...he knows that carrying a grudge will not be a good thing for his own wellbeing?

Good post.

 

[USincognito]

I really can only comment for myself, but in the end atheist morality and ethics are the product of two influences - cultural and philisophical. For myself I was culturally influenced by my family, institutions I was a member of (school, chuch, Boy Scouts, military dependant) and places I have lived (overseas and in a variety of states). Philisophically I have adopted "The Rules" (Golden, Silver - do not do.. and Brass - do unto as they...) as my moral and ethical compass.

I'm sure some of you will respond to "The Rules" without some a priori standard as being problematic if for example one was masochistic or a thief. That problem is a non issue because the norms define the deviations not the other way around. The vast majority of humans do not like to be abused or stolen from so they represent the norm.

It is though those norms that the philisophical is translated to the cultural.

One quick anecdote. I attended a conference of Skeptics in Ft. Lauderdale and the vast majority of attendees were atheist or agnostic. I posed the question to the JREF message board asking if anyone had gotten into a fight, or cheated on their spouse or even stolen a towel. To my knowledge no one had. Certainly there was some effort, since it was the inaugural meeting, to be on our best behavior, but I think the biggest influence was that we're morally and ethically well grounded despite not having a deity to tell us how to live.

 

[Lillithspeak]

Is that me your talking to Lillith ?

I am also from Scotland; just outside Glasgow.

If any christian brags about his good works for his own sake, then the good (to a certain extent) has been takn away.

I agree with you on this point,

David

Nope, EltronRangamma, the OP, was who I was addressing. I don't live in Scotland, I'm in Vermont, USA. My ancestors are Scottish highlanders. The MacTavish clan. Since I've been involved in helping my clan be revived I thought it would be great to honor my ancestors by using the Scottish flag.

 

[Lillithspeak]

I mulled this issue over and determined that achieved morality without acknowledging God/a transcendent force results in vainglory.

Atheistic morality is not undergirded by humility because it is a concentration on the self and what it does.

The morality YOU achieve cannot be attributed to anyone else; you yourself are to thank:

• The self, the essence of "I", the individual, solely determines the moral choices; morals are not matters of human or divine assignment.
• Even if morals are humanly 'assigned' (for instance, a father passing on family traditions to his son), the task to exercise morals is still up to the individual ASSIGNED.
• Knowing that one who has FULFILLED the moral task is done so on ONE'S OWN DISCRETION AND ACTION, that individual thus celebrates/glorifies himself for exercising morals.

Not to say that every atheist praises himself when he commits a moral act that he himself determines but when in regards to the celebration of morality, it then becomes vainglorious.

You have yet to explain how this sentence makes any sense:

If one has fulfilled a moral task at ones own discretion and action- now equals-celebrating/glorifying himself for exercising morals?

I'd say, one who has fulfilled a moral task, at ones own discretion and action, has done a morally correct thing for no reason other than their own sense of morality, which is much more impressive than one who does it for the right to go to "heaven" or the glory of "God" or the impress their fellow parishoners.

 

[tcampen]

Morality not based on a supernatural being does not necessarily leave only a morality based on the self. This is a falacy of a false dilemma. It ignores empathy, compassion, humility, and altruism which exists, arguably, in non-theistic individuals as much as theistic. Finding moral choices in how an act affects one's community, society, the environment, animals, offspring, children, family, etc. are also valid references for determining right from wrong that do not depend on a supernatural entity, nor the whims of the self.

I personally do not rely on a supernatural entity for determining right from wrong. This does not mean I'm making it up as I go according to my own whims, however. Objective methodology and criteria can be used for making such determinations, as is routinely done in free nations with the passing of laws, especially criminal laws, which statutorily define right from wrong. These laws, at least in the U.S., are not created and passed based on theological analysis, but on a far more secular basis - using data, evidence, history and reason - usually. In other words, it makes sense.

Shouldn't right and wrong make sense? Shouldn't these distinctions be mostly comprehendable regardless of where one chooses to believe the ultimate rules come from? For some of us, asking "why?" is absolutely necessary, and a "because XXX said so" is never going to be a good answer. This is because too many people around the world claim the same "XXX" for their authority of right and wrong, yet invariable cannot agree on what that right and wrong is. Thus, that eternal, unchanging standard is not only elusive, but exists only conceptually and without any tangible evidence such exists at all. At least it is not unreasonable to come to that conclusion.

This is not to knock those who choose to follow a particular supernatural entity and what they believe to be its determinations of right and wrong. It is just presenting another reasonable way of looking at the issue.