Myth #5: Atheists do not believe in objective moral standards.
Like so many of these myths, they generalize nonbelievers and then equate morality with the supernatural. I'll be talking more about morality in up coming myths, but for now, let's focus on the myth that atheists have no moral fiber.
There are numerous ways to arrive at an understanding of morality without the need for a God. Humans are social creatures; we've evolved to work together. Working together is beneficial, is it not? Would you be sitting in a comfy house reading this wondrous electronic paper if it weren't for the help of anyone else? Because we know that working together is good for us, we also realize that certain things can be harmful to us as a society.
Not only has this been ingrained in our brains by evolution (along with our ability for empathy, sympathy, etc.), it's also reinforced by our societal upbringing. If we advocate or ignore those who kill, steal, and cause general chaos, our working society breaks down. It should be no surprise that we therefore deem things that are harmful to society as "bad" and things that are beneficial to society as "good". *We* do it…us humans; no need for a God to intervene. Do you really think people wouldn't have figured out that killing each other is bad unless a god told them? If you don't understand that killing is wrong, you won't learn it from any God. You don't need commandments to be good, you just need other people.
Critics of secular morality often loudly exclaim "Then it's all relative! If your society says eating your offspring is okay, then it's 'good'!" I don't see how they can overlook the fact that if a society killed their young, it would have an almost impossible time surviving. Those kinds of tribes would die out. Morality isn't relative – just because you think its okay doesn't mean I have to accept it. I don't need a God to tell me to take your child out of your mouth.
And morality isn't absolute either. "Don't lie" is generally good for society. But would it not be good to lie for the benefit of someone? If you knew the whereabouts of an abused wife and her husband asked you where she was, would you tell the truth? Would telling a lie be "wrong" or "bad" in such a case? Good morality includes ability to take circumstances into account, and every moral judgment should be tempered by those circumstances. Absolutes have no place in morals.
Still think it's not a myth? Atheists make up around 10% of the population. If myth #5 were true, 10% of the population would be raping, stealing, and killing – utter chaos. This all grows out of the idea that atheism is some sort of world-view or philosophy that one buys into. As we've covered: it's not; it's simply a response to theism. It doesn't imply any creed, positive or negative. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal or hope for an eternal reward, but because it's the right thing to do. Why is it right? Because we couldn't survive without it. We need each other.
Think about that.
-STA
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
Hmm...maybe he'll go shoot some faith-heads with me.
Well, my answer to that is that "I don't" and if you do, they most likely your a sociopath at the very least.
As Dawkins wrote about the privileging of religion, "On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that it is sufficient that they believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence."
Now, you or I can't use illegal substances and get away with it legally, but if we said that our god said it was okay, we could?
This doesn't mean that all atheists have morals either. It doesn't mean that all believers do. It means that people are people and there are all kinds in all categories. I can't believe I'm even responding to such nonsense.
"To say that believers think that all non-believers are void of moral fiber is about as absurd a statement as I've ever heard."
I never said "all believers" think that, but a lot of them do. The religious think that morality comes from God, so if you have no God, you have no morals. You and I see eye to eye on the matter, and I wish all believers were like you.
I just got through leaving a comment for a fellow Christian who is not fully understanding a basic concept of Christianity. It's not my purpose to argue these concepts, even with him. The issue is that you don't believe and I do. If there are concepts that even Christians don't understand, how much less can I argue these points with unbelievers? It's not going to prove His existence to you and that's the crux of the matter.
I know for a fact that the Lord bestows blessings upon unbelievers. Some believers do not think so. I'm not going to argue with them either.
Have a great day!
I am in the throes of a living, spiritual walk in my faith. For me to even begin to explain any of it to someone who doesn't have the faith is almost impossible for me. If you want to argue issues like this, you'd best do it with one who is less involved with its practice and more concerned with its mundane aspects.
Sue, I'm not doubting your faith...I know how it is to believe in something completely. You must understand that what looks like "blessings from God" to you, don't look like anything to us non-believers. If I asked you to show me a miracle, or to talk with your God and have him perform one, you'd skirt around it with reasons so that it wouldn't happen. Would your God spontaneously cure a disease? Would he wipe world hunger off the globe overnight? Or, would a plane crash, killing everyone on board but a young woman, and that would be a "miracle"? Then she'd have her baby, and that would be another miracle?
These kinds of things don't impress non-believers. I mean, sure it's good that she survived, but God-damn everyone else on the plane? If we're talking about an all-powerful, all-loving being, it's trivial that things like leukemia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson's, AIDS and the like exist. Why does your God not do something. In fact, what HAS it done?
Your words, "The issue is that you don't believe and I do. If there are concepts that even Christians don't understand, how much less can I argue these points with unbelievers? It's not going to prove His existence to you and that's the crux of the matter. "
" It's not going to prove His existence to you and that's the crux of the matter. " No, that is not the crux of the matter...not really.. and I will never disprove His existence to you...both of these propositions are impossible. Neither is the crux of the matte an urge on my part to " argue issues like this"..at least in conversations like this one. For me it is simply an exchange of views and ideas...
I saw what I consider to be an invalid statement...and I pointed out that invalidity.
( You can deny Him but he cannot deny that which He has created.)
This would cause a mass hysteria of repentant atheists as they scramble to line up to be converted...unless, of course, somebody spots Penn and Teller in the vicinity.
Even as a practicing Christian today, if I were to tell you that I haven't doubted because of the many infirmities that I see and injustices that I have both seen and experienced, I would be lying. Through some very grueling personal trials I have gone through, I have, in my utter frustration and anger, even called God sadistic. Then I stop my rantings and think and hope that I know better than that now.
If there is a God, would my understanding be equal to his? If it were, would I not then be equal to God? If that were the case there would, indeed, be no God because there would be no reason for his existence. I would have his understanding of all things, and therefore the power that comes with such knowledge.
Faith is the belief in things not understood by man. Some people say that it's a crutch, and that may also be. If I didn't have faith I would rather be dead though. It's just all too meaningless otherwise. Are any of the questions you asked answered without belief in God? Who can say why some people are cured of terminal illnesses and some die? Who can say why the unjust propser while wonderful people are living in squalor and indigence?
I have my ideas but I'm not sure. I certainly don't think it's a result of some punishment, but it may be that people like myself who profess to believe in God need to stop proseletyzing and do something about that which we can so that God can SHOW himself to those who don't believe.
Unbelievers are far more to be envied in this world, for they have no one to account to but themselves and their final judgment will be much more merciful.
I don't have all the answers, but I'm not about to stop believing, if only because I must believe.
I know you love to argue philosophical issues. You're such an intelligent guy which is one of the reasons I like you so much. There was/is a member who is a Christian and he pops up on some heated religious debates once in awhile. I don't usually get into those discussions so I'm not sure if I just haven't come across him recently, or if he's no longer around, but I'd love to see the two of you debate. He's a very intelligent guy, a Christian, but he's a little on the self-righteous side, and much more into theory than practice, at least as I see him. I think you'd give him a run for his money.
If I find him and can interest him in an article I write, would you debate him?
If you've read my other articles, you should know my stance on faith, purpose, and God. Faith is a ridiculously way to go about life, because it's believing in something for which you have otherwise no good reason to do so. Believing in something doesn't change reality. This is not to say that if you don't put your mind to something, you can't accomplish it. That's not what I mean. I mean that if I believe that there are magical universe-creating fairies that talk to me when I get drunk, it doesn't make the fairies real. Reality isn't subjective, as Michael implied.
But there's no point in me telling you this, just as there's no point in you telling me a) God is real but b) I don't know. I agree with B...that's the best thing you could possibly say.
I will also go toe to toe with any person who assumes the catbird seat of superiority associated mostly with the evangelical types. These types of encounters are the ones most likely to get messy...but I just can't resist.
I always enjoy taking to you Sue B...you are a breath of fresh air in a room mostly full of boring, stale and tiring rhetoric. Thank you for providing that fresh air. I really mean it.
It's not my purpose or my business to try to change your way of thinking. I respect your choice not to believe. I just ask that you respect my choice to believe.
Michael, I know you can't resist, and I can't resist inciting riots! I'm a hellraising sort of Christian, oxymoronic as that may be.
Thank you so much for your kind and sincere words, Michael.
If a Christian is following that command only because of an anticipated reward, that's following the command out of fear of not getting it if they don't do it. That's as cheap and as much a farce to God as it is to you.
One of the things I don't like about gift giving is the idea of reciprocity. If I've given someone a nice gift, I don't expect them to give me one of the same value or even give me one at all. That's what makes it a gift. The idea of exchanging presents at Christmas has never been one I've liked. I've heard so many stories of families who really argue as to whether they gave more and got less. Totally ridiculous stuff!
If I do something for you, I wouldn't expect you to be grateful. I'm not doing something for you because I want your thanks or because I want or expect anything in return, either from you or from God. I also understand that if an atheist did something for you, you might be grateful, because in your mind, it is purer and without an ulterior motive, at least not one that can be equated to God.
And I agree with you on the exchange of gifts. It does suck. Especially around the holidays where it's become expected.
When I said that life would be meaningless without God, I wrote it in the context of the questions I posed that you had also posed in the previous comment to do with the seemingly senseless injustices that a benevolent God would not allow to happen. I went on to explain that I think it's because I don't have that superior understanding which God does have, thereby giving those injustices some kind of intrinsic value and meaning that is just not understood by my limited understanding.
I'm not sure what my subconscious mind does to make me do some of the things I do. I don't consciously think that I am doing something nice for someone because of the 2nd commandment, but it's part of my experience, so I can't be sure.
Do you think you could still find a purpose if you somehow found out for sure that there no God?
If there were no milk, there would be no "plain" milk OR chocolate milk.
And yeah thanks for that comment, Stephen. I agree with Sam Harris on that; I wish there was no such thing as atheism. It's just a word that signifies what we're not (we're NOT theists). As many of my readers have pointed out, we don't have other words to describe what we're not. For example, I don't have a word that makes you know I don't think an ancient race of rabid moles live under New Mexico and are planning to take over the world. I don't have a word that defines me as not a believer in the Easter Bunny. But for now, we must have a word that sets us apart from god-believers because they are...how shall I say...infecting every part of the world around us.
"We can take it back to one of those objects in the dark discussions. The object is there. You don't perceive it in the dark. Does it exist? For you it doesn't. Some argue that it does, and on and on and on..."
let's not argue.
if you say that there's a snake in a room,
and that room is dark,
and i don't believe you,
and we're both IN it,
and you decide to leave (fearing the snake),
and light spills into the room,
and I CAN SEE THE SNAKE--
you see where this is going?
let's say it's an INVISIBLE snake. PLUS it's in the dark room. fine: invisible, dark room. you leave, light spills across the carpet, still can't see it.
can it still bite?
if i tread on its tail, will...it...bite.
that's all i wanna know.
because Jesus and The Incredible Faery Syndicate (read: all gods, goddesses, and snakes that just won't bite)?
they need to start biting.
there's been reference to the Miraculous along this stream-- i saw a touch on Sodom & G, pillars of salt, et cetera... these would qualify as bites.
as things stand, lots of Christians think we're in the time of the Apocalypse. scripture dictates a certain level of Magick Crap being flung right about now:
where is it?
i want my "signs".
i want my "wonders".
my mother-- a hardcore Christian-- asked me yester'eve' if i was really ready to die (i'd just said as much, a minute or two aforehand). "Yup," i assured her.
"Even though you Know Better?"
"Mom: i DON'T 'Know Better'. -For the last time: i will be convinced by a Road-To-Damascus scenario. if god wants me on his team, fine: he needs to open up the sky and TALK from up there. i know you believe that really happened to Saul; i know you place that occurence after Christ's resurrection.
"if he can do it for Saul of Tarsus, he can do it for me.
"if he doesn't, that means he WANTS me in Hell."
needless to say, she continues to pray.
and i continue on this road.
to Hell, apparently.
that word is "logical."
lol
they live under New ZEALAND, though... and have no interest in global domination.)
Anyhow, I called it "Just Say No To The 10 Commandments"
Regarding what you wrote though, it's a bit more complicated than what you presented Tristan. There are 613 laws (Mitzvah) in all, and they are very specific in their scope and application to the Jewish people. They had a different set of laws for what they termed the ger, or stangers in the camp, but to the people of the Book, the law was given to them by God as part of several covenants (or agreements).
From your perspective as an atheist I can see how you suppose that you don't need God to be moral, however you have to base motals on something or else you have embraced moral relatvism (which is another way of saying moral anarchist). Most folks look to our nation's laws to settle many moral matter such as murder, theft and rolling though stop stop signs, but if that is what you base your morals on then they can change if enough people vote to change the laws. Correct? If that is the case then you would have to agree that morals then are the result of human compact.
The Mayflower Compact was just such an agreement...
It's kind of hard to fail to see that we were founded as a nation with some pretty pointed and strong language that stated quite clearly that they believed that God played a very central role in their quest to settle the New World. In any case, the notion of creating laws by compact was not necesarrily unprecidented at that point in time of history, but it certainly was during the Age of Enlightenment that mankind began to equate the notion of freedom (individually) as an inherent human right granted by God to all men, in the same breath. Up until then Kings were thought to hold the ability and moral authority to develop and institute moral codes.
Perhaps the world will someday find a new set of morals to live by, and perhaps we'll understand that although the system wasn't perfect in 1787 when the United States Constitution was ratified, that they did indeed have a very good understanding of the science of human compact and the necessary form of government to ensure that all people remain free.
I do not agree that human rights are granted by god of course...but I may concede that many people of this period did subscribe to this notion.
Certain parameters of acceptable behavior are pretty much universally acknowledged...other definitions are subjective. You may call these descriptions morals...or you may call them codes of conduct or laws. The laws can be changed, but so can the definitions for the morals. Unless of course...you believe that my morals..in the more specific area of personal and private behavior...can be determined by your interpretations of god's intent....and that you have the authority to do so.
I have a very strong feeling that your hope for the "new set of morals to live by" includes the greater influence of what persons of faith determine those morals to be, than by the standards of personal freedoms of which you have previously spoken. The debate will become one of definition and subjectiveness....any way you slice it.
Did you know that the founding fathers believed that the best way to protect religious freedom was to ensure (codify) federal protection for religious plurality? It's a fascinating evolution, and one that I feel most Americans are largely clueless about.
Former President Jimmy Carter is strongly opposed to the notion of any kind of religious influence on government policy. The protection of individual rights, for Jimmy Carter, is more important than the advancement of his personal set of moral standards.
Carter: "I'm a Southern Baptist, and I have always believed in a total separation of church and state. And I think the interjection of religion into politics is not good for this country....I don't accept human definitions of what I have to believe, you know, to be a Christian." (Jimmy Carter, 39th President [1977-1981], interview, USA Today, May 12, 1986
And..." I have a great respect for the flag, [but] if the government ... passed a law saying that I had to pledge allegiance to the flag, I don't think I would do it. I've always felt that I lived in a country ... where if I wanted to worship God as a Baptist I could do so. If I were an atheist, I could be one. If I wanted to be a Catholic but was born a Jew, there's no condemnation ... from a government authority." (Jimmy Carter, 39th President [1977-1981], at Emory University, Atlanta, September 14, 1988, as reported in the Los Angeles Times on September 16, 1988, p. I-17
I believe that unless one's actions cause harm...direct or readily definable harm or danger....no other person should have any authority over another concerning matters personal preferences or activities.
But I am completely dedicated to the following concept...I have no reason nor right to be concerned with the actions of any person unless those actions cause me or society as a whole...harm. The "society as a whole" part is where the judgmental nature of many people takes license to interfere with the actions of others based upon undefined and subjectively defined preconceived notions of allowable civil behavior....morals.
There are many abhorrent acts of behavior with which no sane person can argue the definition....murder, rape, stealing etc... but the sticky part of defining allowable behavior manifests itself in the areas of less easily agreed upon meanings of damage and harm and these issues are usually the soap box fodder for the self anointed morally superior. "Homosexuals harm our society because they erode our moral values" for example. The problem is that those "moral values" in this case have been defined by those and for those who wish to exert their personal opinion about homosexuality as the most valid and who do so with the expressed intent to interfere with the activities of others. The issue of harm to our society becomes a not valid consideration because this "harm" is only perceived to exist. The intent ...by the meddlers, is to have things the way the meddlers want them...the way they, the meddlers, think they should be and screw everyone else.
The best man can do I think, is to tend to his own affairs. Like the quote of Eric Hoffer that I am so fond of says..."A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other peoples business."
Just one more thought to leave you with. I kept answering your questions and comments so my point above where I said WHAT you think is inaccurate was obscured. I think you got it, but just in case...
Once again, the idea of purity of intent in good deed doing, just like morality, is not indicative of a particular category of people. As you said, however, "If you did something for me, I don't think I could honestly be grateful to you because you're just doing it for the reward of some God, not for me."
Once again, I'm not disagreeing that such intent to which you refer wouldn't have been as pure as if I did whatever without such motive, but as i said, "I also understand that if an atheist did something for you, you might be grateful, because in your mind, it is purer and without an ulterior motive, at least not one that can be equated to God.
So what would be your preference in this hypothetical case? Your atheist friend gives you an airline ticket to go play golf for the week-end. Such a nice gesture! You're so grateful. You later find out that he gave you the ticket to get rid of you so he could screw your wife while you were gone. In this case, might you have preferred that it was a Christian who made you the recipient of that gesture that did it out of some allegiance to the second commandment?
Point: Purity of intent is always preferable, but to say that ulterior motivation is characteristic of a particular group, or that the motivation that might be characteristic of some people in a particular group in some cases is going to be less acceptable to you because that motivation might have had something to do with God is not so.
I might not be around to see your answer because it is the week-end now, and most of my time spent on Gather is at my office during the week for diversion and entertainment.
The case you described was horrible, and I will now kill anyone who hands me a plane ticket. But seriously, is it not equally plausible that the Christian friend would do the same? Is that option not "available" to Christians? (Note: please don't open up a 'No-True-Scotsman' here, okay?)
I tried to dispel the No-True Scotsman as best I could by again pointing out that ulterior motivation is not characteristic of a particular group. I merely used the Christian in this instance, as the 'good guy' to make my point.
Certainly, if a 'Christian' like Jimmy Swaggert were to offer you a plane ticket to go golfing, I'd definitely already have the motivation discerned, if I were you.
I am glad to see that you do ask the whys of motivation for all though.
Have a good week-end! (wait a minute...I want to make sure God is giving triple points for that statement) Aw hell, have a good week-end anyway.
I'd like to read an discussion about God. If the discussion involved the ancient writings, it might be interseting to discuss what these ancient people were really talking about.
What many or most believe these ancient peoples were writing about, and talking about, through oral traditions, may have been something else entirely.
It seems the knowledge of God, has been reduced to magical thinking, superstition.
What do you think these ancient peoples were really talking about?
Many people of every religion are moral, but do not really care for others-they would love to commit every "sin" imaginable.
So, of course atheists can be moral. If you're a caring person, you will have morals-and not because of religion.