Morality of Atheists

There seems to be a little misunderstanding on whether or not atheists are moral? whether they are less moral than pious Christians? and lack of clarity of where they are getting the basis of their morality (assuming they are). Does the absence of fear of divine wrath gives the atheist the license to do all the fun and immoral things? Are atheists generally less moral than Christians?

I don't want to put my friend, Marc, on the spot, but his post in another thread is a good example of this thinking. Marc seems to worry that atheists are "too free" and "worry free", although he did not generalize. I quote him below:

MarcCatholic wrote:
@Ateo

Alam mo na tinutukoy ko diyan pero hindi ko sinasabing mga imoral na kayong lahat talaga. Ahehehe! Of course may kaibahan yon kumpara sa isang tao na masyadong free lang at wala nang iniisip na baka mali ang gagawin dahil wala naman siyang inaasahang pagkakasala. Ahehehe! Of course hindi ko sinasabing lahat kayo ganoon.

I will post several arguments in this thread. But, first, what do you think, guys? This is a less controversial topic so let us make this a learning thread. We can be specific with actual practices of atheists here and we can also be more general is tackling the source of morality and ethics.

Post away...

Atheists are human beings. Highly social. Human beings just like anyone else. We behave the same way other people behave. Morality is the sum of all learned experiences in a society or culture. No deity or deities are needed to learn what is right and what is wrong for a given society.

Fundamental islamist thinks stoning to death a person found guilty of adultery is right because their god said so or their Sharia law or whatever but to me it is wrong and barbaric. But this moral I did not derive from a deity but from an inherent trait human beings acquire over the years.

I would not kill my son or daughter if a deity told me to do so because it is not right and utterly stupid to kill your child as sacrifice. The bible teaches their followers to follow a deity blindly to the extent of killing their children as described in the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Even if there exist a god, i would still not obey him if he ask me to sacrifice my child. He can throw me to the depths of hell burn my soul forever but i will never sacrifice my child to any ufkng god . My soul will forever rebel against this hideous being.

ETHICS without god-American Atheists:

".....Because we have the nervous systems of social animals, we are generally happier in the company of our fellow creatures than alone. Because we are emotionally suggestible, as we practice enlightened self-interest we usually will be wise to choose behaviors which will make others happy and willing to cooperate and accept us - for their happiness will reflect back upon us and intensify our own happiness. On the other hand, actions which harm others and make them unhappy - even if they do not trigger overt retaliation which decreases our happiness - will create an emotional milieu which, because of our suggestibility, will make us less happy.

Because our nervous systems are imprintable, we are able not only to fall in love at first sight, we are able to love objects and ideals as well as people, and we are able to love with variable intensities. Like the gosling attracted to the toy train, we are pulled forward by the desire for love. Unlike the gosling's "love," however, our love is to a considerable extent shapeable by experience and is capable of being educated. A major aim of enlightened self-interest, surely, is to give and receive love, both sexual and nonsexual. As a general - though not absolute - rule, we must choose those behaviors which will be likely to bring us love and acceptance, and we must eschew those behaviors which will not.

Another aim of enlightened self-interest is to seek beauty in all its forms, to preserve and prolong its resonance between the world outside and that within. Beauty and love are but different facets of the same jewel: love is beautiful, and we love beauty.

The experience of love and beauty, however, is a passive function of the mind. How much greater is the joy which comes from creating beauty. How delicious it is to exercise actively our creative powers to engender that which can be loved. Paints and pianos are not necessarily prerequisites for the exercise of creativity: Whenever we transform the raw materials of existence in such a way that we leave them better than they were when we found them, we have been creative.

The task of moral education, then, is not to inculcate by rote great lists of do's and don'ts, but rather to help people to predict the consequences of actions being considered. What are the long-term as well as immediate rewards and draw-backs of the acts? Will an act increase or decrease one's chances of experiencing the hedonic triad of love, beauty, and creativity?

Thus it happens, when the Atheist approaches the problem of finding natural grounds for human morals and establishing a nonsuperstitious basis for behavior, that it appears as though nature has already solved the problem to a great extent. Indeed, it appears as though the problem of establishing a natural, humanistic basis for ethical behavior is not much of a problem at all. It is in our natures to desire love, to seek beauty, and to thrill at the act of creation. The labyrinthine complexity we see when we examine traditional moral codes does not arise of necessity: it is largely the result of vain attempts to accommodate human needs and nature to the whimsical totems and taboos of the demons and deities who emerged with us from our cave-dwellings at the end of the Paleolithic Era - and have haunted our houses ever since."

From the looks of it, it would seem that God believers are the ones who have the tendency to become 'immoral' from the feeling of loss of certain reasons/purpose for existing if they found out that God doesn't exist.

Anyways Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Deities. In the way we interact with others in societies, Secular Humanism comes in.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I think a distinction between being Godless and being an Atheist must be clearly defined... a lot of misconceptions arises from this.

There are many sophisticated definition of morality, but let me use a simpler, more practical one: Morality is the basis for determining what is right and wrong is one's behavior. There are, in fact, many drivers of morality, the most obvious one is divine law. According to believers, God is the unchanging and absolute source of guidance of what is good and bad. We will examine this assertion in later posts. In the meantime, let me focus on one basic driver of morality -- laws!

People assert that their behavior is guided primarily by Christian moral rules. Not quite true. The strongest determinant of the limitation of our behavior and what guides us on what we can and cannot do is in fact the laws of the place we are living. And the laws affect each one -- atheist or Christians. Thus, it is not true that if a person lost his faith in a God, he suddenly becomes a rapist or a killer. Behaviors are still governed by laws. And society will not collapse if Christianity suddenly vanish because society's laws will still continue to determine behavior.

Christian seems to be think that they are more loyal to their religion's morality codes than those of mere human laws. It is not true in practice. A couple of examples will suffice:

a. Religious intolerance. All religions teach to look less favorably at those of other religions. Jesus taught this in his famous/infamous Parable of the Talents in Luke 19. The moral story ended with the King ordering that those who did not acccept him be put to death. It is a lesson of religious intolerance. It is also illegal now. Much as we are mandated to kill those of other religions, particularly atheist blashphemers, the law simply won't allow it. So, we refuse to follow the Scriptures and instead respect our laws. Laws are the primary determinant of what we do, not the Bible.

b. Slavery. I'm sorry for raising up often the issue of slavery. It is so because this is the clearest example of failure of the early Christian leaders to declare slavery immoral. During the time when slavery was still being debated in the US Congress, those who were in favor of slavery always quoted the Apostle Paul unforgettable instructions in Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants (slaves), be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ..."

Imagine that! Paul addressed Christian slaves, but instead of saying that they are free, he asked them to be obedient to their masters. If Paul were here today, he would be imprisoned because slavery, according to our laws, is illegal and immoral. And the reason why Marc will not make Yidda a slave is because it is prohibited by our laws. It is laws that govern our behavior.


So, today, Christians, Muslims and atheist, we all follow the law. And, thus, we are guided with what society determines as good or bad.

In addition to laws, there are other determinants of behavior and we will look at them shortly. We will also examine what are the basies of human laws. But remember this, atheists like Christians follow the laws. We are all law-abiding people and morality is primarily signalled by our laws.

So, guys, first off, it is the laws of the land that will keep us all moral -- atheists and theists alike. Now, here's an interesting tidbit of information before I move on.

According the US Federal Bureau of Prisons, these are the affiliation of their prisoners:

Catholic 39.164%
Protestant 35.008%
Muslim 7.273%
American Indian 3.222%
Atheists 0.29%

Atheists are less than 1% of the prison population! Considering that we are 10% of the US general population, we certainly are less represented among the criminals. One possible conclusion that we could make is that atheists follow the law and are more moral as far as the law is concerned.

So, Marc, don't worry about being murdered by an atheist. The risk is higher somewhere else.

My next topic is about the development of ethical principles. Humans are social beings -- we like and need to live close to one another. Living in close proximity with other humans require that we develop some form of principles to guide other rules. The principles of ethics are the the basis of informal rules (do's and don'ts in the dorm) to more formal rules (laws of the land).

So what are these ethical principles and how did they develop? Do they need the Christian God to get them introduced to humanity?

Ateo wrote:So, guys, first off, it is the laws of the land that will keep us all moral -- atheists and theists alike. Now, here's an interesting tidbit of information before I move on.

According the US Federal Bureau of Prisons, these are the affiliation of their prisoners:

Catholic 39.164%
Protestant 35.008%
Muslim 7.273%
American Indian 3.222%
Atheists 0.29%

Atheists are less than 1% of the prison population! Considering that we are 10% of the US general population, we certainly are less represented among the criminals. One possible conclusion that we could make is that atheists follow the law and are more moral as far as the law is concerned.

So, Marc, don't worry about being murdered by an atheist. The risk is higher somewhere else.

Interesting statistics Ateo! Can we get data from Philippine Bureau of prisons? Is 0% safe to say for atheists here in the Philippines? Is the rate proportional to population? Maybe we can get data from secular nations like Japan and Korea or in Europe.

Hmmm... problem is, Christians might say those who get jail terms are not 'true' or genuine Christians. They can always declare these people are only nominal christians (or muslims or protestants etc..).

How do we go deal with such argument?

Christians cannot argue that those in jail are only nominal Christians. The Evangelicals have the OSAS principle. Anybody who accepts Christ as his lord and savior receives the grace that is his forever. He is forever guided by the HS. No excuses. The HS is to be blamed.

Is the OT the fountain of morality?


As humans live together, they start to devise some rules. Thou shalt not kill each other. It does not require a Yahweh level of wisdom to devise that. Any tribe or group can easily see the advantage of that rule. Thou shalt not steal? Even puppies are able to establish that rule. So ancient humans start to create laws. The Sumerians were, of course, always first. Each culture, not just the Jews, create laws. Some laws were better than others. There is no proof whatsoever that the so-called biblical rules in the OT are superior than those of neighboring cultures. Their rules simply reflect their simplistic and primitive values. They worked for them but they were not spectularly wise. In fact, if you ask any Christian now which OT laws are particularly wise and inspired, they would have difficulty pointing out of any particularly law. And yet, they somehow believe that their OT God is the source of all wisdom and morals.

As civilization and human culture progresses, the OT laws were starting to show their primitive origins. They need an overhaul. There were two approaches to improve on the limitations of the OT moral laws -- the rabbinical approach (more laws) and the Christian approach (overhaul, modernize and simplify). There are problems with each approach. The Christian approach is particularly problematic because it exposed the illusion that God's moral law is unchanging. The Christian approach, in fact, overhauled the rusty Jewish moral laws.

more on this...

Pls. check this thread regularly. I will eventually cover the morality of sex. The main reason why Christians think that atheist is immoral is only in the tendency of many atheists (not all) to have a liberal attitude towards sexual issues. We will explore why sex is deemed immoral by Christians.

Ateo wrote:So, guys, first off, it is the laws of the land that will keep us all moral -- atheists and theists alike. Now, here's an interesting tidbit of information before I move on.

According the US Federal Bureau of Prisons, these are the affiliation of their prisoners:

Catholic 39.164%
Protestant 35.008%
Muslim 7.273%
American Indian 3.222%
Atheists 0.29%

Atheists are less than 1% of the prison population! Considering that we are 10% of the US general population, we certainly are less represented among the criminals. One possible conclusion that we could make is that atheists follow the law and are more moral as far as the law is concerned.



So, Marc, don't worry about being murdered by an atheist. The risk is higher somewhere else.

Ateo, that data is misleading. Of course you expect most people doing crimes are Christians because that's a Christian country. What would you expect? Now to get your margin on the stat why would you not rate all the atheists in terms of their crimes on the ratio of their population? Or find where atheists are just living in a country. And even if that's the case whether you can still prove to me that they're less, what I am pointing out is there are sets of moral codes to Christianity yet the persons are the one not following them since they choose to do a crime. If you could look at Christian morality, it's basic and very beautiful. Love your neighbors plus the golden rule, etc which are being embraced also by atheists. Our morality teaches us to avoid all evil conducts. My point here is when I say atheists are some kind free to do what they want (referring to the dont's of Christianity) because they don't believe it as bawal. Of course we have common grounds also. You say it's delusional and irrational prohibiting this and that like when you encourage someone to masturbate, to have sex, etc. Of course as a Christian we just don't do it because we believed differently from you. Gist, I am just trying to imply that at least I chose a refined girl in terms of morality (from the statement you quoted from me). I did not accuse atheists to be immoral because you're aware now what is good and bad at least but the intensity of our good and bad to your camp is different to ours. Bottom line, let's just respect.

Marc, on your first point, yes, there is in fact less percentage of atheists in prison than their percentage in the general population. They is less than 1% in prison even as they are much more than that in the general population.

Now, that we are going into Ethical Principles, are you telling me that Christian morality is just that: (1) Love your neighbors; (2) Golden Rule. That's it? That's all that you follow and that is all God in His wisdom gave to humanity?

That seems not very difficult. Why did you think that atheist are less capable of following those two ethical principles?

The fact is that those two principles don't suffice in many human situations and Christianity added much more. For example, masturbation. Where does it violate either of those two principles that you mentioned? The fact is that you have hidden somewhere some other morality rules. What are they? Tell me.

The fact is that all humans -- atheists and theists -- agree on general principles. In fact, all moral cultures have devised principles similar to the Golden Rule -- nothing unusual about that. It is when principles collide that we differ in how to resolve them. Let us love our neighbor alright, but if our neighbor wants to sleep with you what does your Bible say about that? Well this is where more ethical principles need to be introduced to resolve that unusual situation. We atheists introduced secular humanistic rules while you have a panoply of religious rules (church dogmas). This is where we differ and this is where the two should be compared.

Ateo, I said "etc" right because I can't just tell them all plus I did not limit it only to two thus I said avoid all evil conducts. You asked " Let us love our neighbor alright, but if our neighbor wants to sleep with you what does your Bible say about that?". What do you want to imply? To engage sex with the person who asks to sleep in your house? If ever you're asking what to do then you can do whatever you want and yes you can do whether you continue to sleep alone and let the person rest. But, the bible is clearly telling us to avoid all adulterous acts so the statement you said is misleading because the bible actually says it. There's nothing unusual there because of you're single you might be tempted but the bible still says don't do adulterous acts. The more that you're married already and si mister or misis is on vacation would you still do it?


Yeah I agree with you to compare the morality between theists and atheists. You try to think honestly what if atheists were now the Christians what could be our society today? It might start that you fear no one and so on the making of morality would rely. This is not just about liberal attitude on sex matters but also on life.

Marc, please read my earlier post about the role the laws play in guiding morality. Why did you say that atheists don't fear no one? We don't fear God, but we follow the laws. So, on your question of what happens to society if the atheists are the majority? Well, it is the same society because the laws are still there.

Back to clarifying your morality principles, let us check what exactly do you mean on God-based morality. So, adultery is prohibited because it is in the Ten Commandments? Clarify this to me, Marc? Are all moral laws in the OT valid to you (reflect first because it is a loaded question)? If not all because Paul discarded the Jewish laws, which ones are not operational anymore? All? Only those that are mentioned again in the NT? So, what are these rules, Marc? The NT is not very clear on what is good or bad, except for those two principles that you already mentioned. You cannot just say "don't do evil deeds" because it is the "evil deeds" that we are trying to define and clarify.

Perhaps, if there are too many rules, you may only mention those that you think are not being observed by atheists. But be observant of the fact that Christians may not be in full agreement with you on principles. It is clear that Christians sects and groups differ on each other what is moral in the areas of divorce, abortion, etc. So, what moral laws do atheists violate? Magkalinawagan nga kung papaano naging immoral ang mga atheists?

MarcCatholic wrote:...There's nothing unusual there because of you're single you might be tempted but the bible still says don't do adulterous acts. The more that you're married already and si mister or misis is on vacation would you still do it?


Yeah I agree with you to compare the morality between theists and atheists. You try to think honestly what if atheists were now the Christians what could be our society today? It might start that you fear no one and so on the making of morality would rely. This is not just about liberal attitude on sex matters but also on life.

Maybe it goes like -- atheists don't need the 'fear' that theists get from a Deity para 'umayus ayus' sila... it's more about being stressed out knowing that one's partner would do things behind our backs. So the best thing to do is NOT to do those things behind their backs as well (Golden Rule). Betrayal would evidently reveal itself through 'strange' behaviors and unusual diseases more often than not anyway. The case is different for singles though.

It's not about 'having fear' but 'being aware' of personal and societal repercussions.

Secular Morality

Element is alluding to the emergence of secular ethics. Competing with the so-called biblical morality is secular morality. It is development of moral laws without the use of the religious scriptures. As such, you are excused to call them atheist morality.

The first and most significant of these secular principles is the Utilitarian Principle. Utilitarianism says that something is morally good if it is benefits more people. The ultimate good therefore is to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number. This is, of course, in competition with the religious thinking of the ultimate good as being the complete obedience to the will of a God.

Viewed in utilitarian perspective, many of our moral laws are easily understood. Murder and robbery are obviously non-utilitarian. Adultery breaks down the order of society, so it is not utilitarian.

Utilitarianism gives us a handle on how to analyze moral dilemma. A moral dilemma can be resolved by analyzing where society's greater benefit lies. Divorce is a good example. Divorce dissolves marriage and therefore affects an important social institution of family. But divorcees are given a chance to start new families and to end a malfunctioning marriage. It also protects a marriage partner who believes he/she is harmed by the ongoing marriage. There are pros and cons for each side, thus a moral dilemma. Christians would resolve this dilemma by consulting the Bible. Utilitarians would resolve this dilemma by consulting with experts in various fields of social science -- economics, heath, etc. -- which option provides the greater benefit to the society. Thus, governments all over the world legalized divorce.

If you think governments are based on Christian principles, you are very wrong. Governments are utilitarian -- they seek for the greatest benefits for the greatest number of their people. Democracy itself is based on utilitarian ground -- we need a government run by the people (or its representatives) if we are to determine what benefits the people. Thus it is not a surprise that governments make laws (moral rules) that seemingly violate the Bible. For exampe:

a. Fornication is not a crime. Adultery is, but fornication among singles is not. I am not saying that governments promote fornication, but I am saying that governments consider the punishment of fornication as causing harm to society. A pure utilitarian reasoning, not biblical at all!
b. Divorce and abortion are legal in most countries. These are clearly frowned upon in the Bible, but are proudly protected by governments.
c. Blasphemy, the greatest sin against God, is not a crime. The opposite principle -- Free Speech -- is in fact given a sacred status in current society.
d. Slavery and polygamy, which are tolerated in the Bible (you can never see anywhere where they are prohibited), are banned by governments and considered morally evil. So, you can see where modern society and the Bible don't see eye-to-eye on what are evil and what are not.

It is clear that our current societies are guided by secular morality such as Utilitarianism rather than biblical morality. Politicians act as if they are Christians but governments operate as an atheist, bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.


More... there are other equally important secular moral principle other than Utilitarianism. I am referring to the rise of Humanism.

The rise of Utilitarianism easily exposed biblical morality as less morally acceptable. Societies and governments easily adopt the whole idea of "greatest good for the greatest number" and society is going to be governed by the "voice of the people". Democracy, which is a derivative of utilitarianism, became the new moral order. The highest good is not anymore what God wrote in the scripture but what the people decides. Democracy was so powerful a force that even monarchies were swept away by it.

The religious establishments were certainly in strong disagreement with democracy. They have a competing governance structure -- the theocracy -- which is really nothing but a monarchy with religious claims. Thus, the rest of the world have become democracies and it is no wonder that religious states cling hard to the monarchical rule -- the KSA and the Vatican are clear examples.

Under the democratic paradigm, morality is therefore determined by analyzing what actions provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. And this determination is made democratic processes such as election, referendum and parliamentary debates.

Thus, if a society decides that abortion, fornication and blasphemy are legal, then they should be considered as moral too. And people who believe in them in their renamed versions -- pro-choice, safe sex, and free speech -- should not be considered as less moral than those who oppose them. Thus, just because I believe in fornication (safe sex) does not mean that I am less moral than Marc who is opposed to it.

You just have to read books that detail the valiant fight for pro-choice to realize that people who fought for these rights to become law are considered as heroes and highly moral beings. The UN distributes condoms in Africa and that too is considered as highly moral and important work. The long battle for free speech such that it won't be an automatic death sentence to question God was a proud and moral battle. So, morality has changed, I admit. But people should not view us who don't follow the biblical morality as less moral than you religious folks. And atheists who used to be embarassed that they were so liberal should not be. Society's view of morality is actually on their side.

Anu b naituturong morality na aetheist? Meron b?

Anu ba naituturong morality ng mga aetheist? Meron b?

Napadame kang matutunan moralidad sa biblia. Pakikisama ng ama sa anak,ng anak sa magulang, ng mga mag asawa.Madame.

Halimbawa sa mag asawa, huwag kang sisiping sa iyong asawa,sa panahon ng kanyang karumalan or sa madaling sabi pag may buwanang dalaw sya.Maganda yun eh, pero ayaw ng aetheist yun.Kasi ayaw nila sa biblia.

Pero tanungin naman natin,in terms of moralidad,anu naman ang naituturo ng mga atheist?

proud2bechristian wrote:Napadame kang matutunan moralidad sa biblia. Pakikisama ng ama sa anak,ng anak sa magulang, ng mga mag asawa.Madame.

Halimbawa sa mag asawa, huwag kang sisiping sa iyong asawa,sa panahon ng kanyang karumalan or sa madaling sabi pag may buwanang dalaw sya.Maganda yun eh, pero ayaw ng aetheist yun.Kasi ayaw nila sa biblia.

Pero tanungin naman natin,in terms of moralidad,anu naman ang naituturo ng mga atheist?

It's not that 'we don't like it coz it's in the Bible..." no! it's not that... there are many good things we can learn not just from the Bible but from other sacred books as well. But the point is we don't need deities to tell us those things... it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out how yucky it is to have sex with a menstruating partner, for example. Even other animals don't do that.

proud2bechristian wrote:Napadame kang matutunan moralidad sa biblia. Pakikisama ng ama sa anak,ng anak sa magulang, ng mga mag asawa.Madame.

Halimbawa sa mag asawa, huwag kang sisiping sa iyong asawa,sa panahon ng kanyang karumalan or sa madaling sabi pag may buwanang dalaw sya.Maganda yun eh, pero ayaw ng aetheist yun.Kasi ayaw nila sa biblia.

Pero tanungin naman natin,in terms of moralidad,anu naman ang naituturo ng mga atheist?

Hi Proud,

let me ask you, when you think of an act, what is the basis of your decision? The bible? Why?

Do you do something good because the bible said so? Do you do something good because your god says so?

If god tells you to kill your child as a sacrifice, will you do it?

mas maraming immoral na
theist