http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnkt6usO2d1qb5gkjo1_500.jpg

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can understand that atheists, along with theists, wish to do what is right and have a moral code. But knowing WHAT that moral code is and how far it stretches is very difficult for me. I used to be a "hardcore" christian, and now I am a skeptic for the time being. I don't know what to think about certain aspects of morality that are wrong according to the God of the Bible, but are not a problem for other people. Examples: divorce, premarital sex, drugs and alcohol, profanity, etc. I just hope that some atheists could illuminate me to their way of thinking and distinguishing between "good" and "evil". Saying you try to be a good person only means something if you can define what you think is right and wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What is there to think about? If you are a Christian and if God says in his Word that divorce, fornication, poisoning your body etc. is wrong than it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinion is of the matter. It is wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Would you execute a woman for being raped and not screaming loud enough? No? Then you are disobeying the bible. Therefore you do not need the bible to know right from wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

INORITE? Without a predetermined set of unquestionable rules that we all must conform to, we might actually have to resort to just using common sense.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Simon, see above. And if common sense leads to different conclusions for different people, is all of our morality relative? And do any of us have the right to say what someone else is doing is wrong? What standard of common sense do you use to determine right from wrong? I understand that certain things are obvious and consented upon by society, such as murder, rape, etc. This is because they do obvious harm to someone else. But a lot of issues aren't so clean cut as "hurting" someone else, are they?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I find it funny how much the comments above are dodging or misunderstanding your point. Without God, there are no objective morals. Under atheism, rape and murder may not be socially advantageous, but that does not mean they are wrong. Atheists have to follow moral relativism, and under moral relativism, you cannot condemn Hitler for the Holocaust, as he was simply doing what he thought was right.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

yeah, thanks for understanding the point. I don't necessarily think atheists have to be relativists completely. I think that society kind of makes a moral consensus that people are subject to based on what allows everyone to be safe and prosperous. But on finer points of morality, people will disagree and there isn't really one person that has a right to tell the other person that he is wrong, because they are not an objective authority

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Even if society makes something socially unacceptable, that doesn't mean its actually wrong, and you can no more judge somebody for raping someone than for being a social outcast.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

it might not "actually" be wrong, if there is no objective morality than nothing is "actually" wrong. But if someone acts out of accord with a society's laws, then they will be punished. Doesn't mean they were objectively wrong, but it does hold people in check a bit.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, they can have laws and stuff, but if there's another society or country that is sacrificing children, you're not allowed to judge them, because their society simply believes differently from you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

WTF of course you're allowed to judge them for sacrificing children...you seem to be quite confused about whether or not atheists have emotions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What makes your emotions superior to theirs?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I never said my opinions were superior to those of religious people...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I meant superior to those of the society that's sacrificing children.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's not that mine are "superior", because one opinion can't be superior to another. But, I am still allowed to judge them because it's my set of moral guidelines, which I have even without a god. Secondly, if people are sacrificing children it's likely because they believe in some sort of deity, which makes the point that there IS no sort of absolute moral guidelines for anyone, religious or not. It's not that it's hard to identify good and evil but it's up to the individual. That can be said even with religion, because each chooses his own religion, and therefore his own moral code.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then that's like judging people based upon their favorite color. Their moral opinions hold no more weight than their preference in colors.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Morality affects others. Colors don't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So what? You're presupposing the intrinsic moral value of humans. That's circular reasoning.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What? You said morality has just the same weight as colors, but it doesn't because morality affects everyone. There is intrinsic moral value in humans, just that they might not be the same for everyone...what are we even arguing right now? Back to the post, without a god it's still easy to tell right from wrong because gods are chosen by ourselves according to our own moral values.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/26/atheism-theism-and-violence.htm Christians murder, rape and steal at the same exact rate as everyone else. Atheists, who take their morals from common sense and don't believe that they will be "forgiven" for horrible crimes, commit crimes at a far lower rate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I wasn't implying that atheists are more sinful than anyone else or that religious people are less. The information in your link was very interesting. But philosophically, what authority in an atheistic world says that raping, murdering, and stealing is objectively wrong? Common sense and decency of an organized society, perhaps? But as panther said above, if you lived in an ancient culture where human sacrifices were normal, would I have the right to say you were wrong? My judgment would only be an opinion based on my societal values. There would be no universal yardstick to measure up good and evil. By the way, I am not arguing as a strong Christian, but as a skeptical one who is very much on the fence. A friend debated with me on this topic, and I was on the side you have just put forth. All I'm saying is that as stupid as it sounds, he had a point

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, there was a study that babies can tell what's right from wrong. I could describe the case if you want to but my point is telling good from evil is an evolutionary benefit. Someone who is raised in the wild will never acquaintance themselves with someone who is visibly vicious or has been seen stealing another's food, because that would put them in personal danger. Being morally competent is what helped us survive.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I guess for me, my parents are my "god". When I think about whether something is right or wrong, I think about what my parents would think, say, or do. I'm currently trying to develop my own code of ethics. I was really mad when I first read this post, but OP's comments were great and I get what he means now. Thanks! Being atheist really does mean you have to think more, not just blindly rely on someone else's decisions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

depends on the person. personally, i believe there is no real purpose or reason for humans to exist, so instead of trying to fill out some nonexistent prophecy, my main goal is to spread happiness and keep myself sane. So I try to make as many people as possible as happy as possible. I look at it from a logical, mathematical point of view. what are the possible scenarios, and which one produces the most happiness? that's how i decide. that's not true for everyone though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, it's the same either way. You still have to decide //which// god you're listening to. Their opinions seem to differ just as much as ours.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I understand what you're getting at, but humans are programmed to feel compassion/love/other emotions that keep us from doing certain things, along with basic common sense and reasoning skills. What's right and what's wrong on a general scale is naturally imprinted in our brains (though obviously not for everyone). If you took away religion, we'd still have some sort of moral code because we naturally feel guilt. Guilt isn't something that stemmed from religion.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

After reading OP's comments, I definitely see his point. Overall, morality is subjective. Yes, we have laws and feelings that guide us, but there is no universal idea of morality. Stealing, cheating, lying--what tells us that these are negative ideas? Society? Our conscience? Our religion? Personally, I believe it almost goes along with the nature v. nurture idea. In a society where rape is condemned, will anyone see it as immoral? Or will it seem perfectly acceptable? I needed a topic for my Psych term paper...I think I just found it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Condoned* not condemned. Ugh

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd rather life a good life out of my own free will, then because of some sort of deity. I think it's actually a lot more meaningful to live a morally right life out of your own free will (okey, free will is somewhat debatable) then living it because I just want to avoid punishment (of course, not every Christian does that because, but in quite a few instances it does, doesn't it?) Also, if I have to believe the Bible/Genesis story, God wouldn't have wanted us to have morality. I mean, didn't he forbid Adam and Eve NOT to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (so knowledge of morals) I'm slightly sidetracking here though

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also, I think in certain ways, the Bible (and other religious works) can provide a great moral code. If you take different religions, you'll notice they have quite a few similar moralities And after reading the OP's comments, I understand what he means better Like someone else said, you can judge by what kind of effect your actions will have on others

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you actually need to read a moral code in an ancient book to tell you what's right or wrong, you are either very stupid, very unlucky or just a bad person

by Anonymous 11 years ago