Are atheists morally unaccountable?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I'm getting bored... points are being emphasized over and over again. Anyway, ASNP- what I think the question, "Are atheists morally accountable?" is asking is "To whom or what are atheist morally accountable?" Or, "Why should atheists even worry about ethics/morals if there is supposedly no one to answer? Interpreting the question in that way might give you a tad of insight as to what my most recent post was pertaining to.

I understand what you were saying.

I was just countering with the fact that long before there was organized religion, humans lived in communities, and to successfully live in a community, there have to be morals/laws/codes, call them what you will.

Just because ahtiests don't believe in a supreme being, does not mean they are not morally accountable. They are, to themselves, to others, to society.

Just because they think that when they die, thats it, doesn't mean they should live their lives any way they like. Lack of belief in a higher being does not mean lack of moral clarity in your own life.

[hockeysew 0]

I'm getting bored... points are being emphasized over and over again. Anyway, ASNP- what I think the question, "Are atheists morally accountable?" is asking is "To whom or what are atheist morally accountable?" Or, "Why should atheists even worry about ethics/morals if there is supposedly no one to answer? Interpreting the question in that way might give you a tad of insight as to what my most recent post was pertaining to.

You are accountable to yourself and your community regardless of what your beliefs might be. If you do the right thing only because you are afraid of punishment in the afterlife, you're doing the right thing for the wrong reason. You should be doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

AMEN!!

You hit the nail on the head Chadd!!

;)

[usahockey22 0]

The only reason that we live in a relatively peaceful/moral society (and this is arguable), is because that peace, and those morals, are enforced upon us. It doesn't matter what you believe... we have radical christianity, radical islam, just plain nut jobs, radical lsd-eating cults like the mansons, etc. If you step out of line (meaning you break the law), you will get punished. People know this, and so they obey the rules.

I would like to think that everyone has a sense of morality, regardless of any other factor, but I don't think it's an inherent trait in humans. The word "morality" is also quite subjective, and people can have very different sets of beliefs when it comes to what is right and wrong. Someone could have a very high moral standard (according to themself or others), be religious or not religious, and yet they could still commit terrible crimes, by somehow justifying to their own self how it is OK within their morals.

In the early days of this country, we had a lot of small groups living in socialist type societies, who believed that a mutual understanding of their respective religions would keep people equal, happy, and peaceful. We know that this did not work...regardless of what you believe in, someone is always going to disagree with what you find right or wrong. Someone is always going to simply not care (religious or not religious). And someone has to be there with the threat of jail time, or essentially holding a gun at your head, in order to make you comply with what is socially acceptable.

[akhockeyplaya 0]

The only reason that we live in a relatively peaceful/moral society (and this is arguable), is because that peace, and those morals, are enforced upon us. It doesn't matter what you believe... we have radical christianity, radical islam, just plain nut jobs, radical lsd-eating cults like the mansons, etc. If you step out of line (meaning you break the law), you will get punished. People know this, and so they obey the rules.

In the early days of this country, we had a lot of small groups living in socialist type societies, who believed that a mutual understanding of their respective religions would keep people equal, happy, and peaceful. We know that this did not work...regardless of what you believe in, someone is always going to disagree with what you find right or wrong. Someone is always going to simply not care (religious or not religious). And someone has to be there with the threat of jail time, or essentially holding a gun at your head, in order to make you comply with what is socially acceptable.

So, then, the question still remains: if morality is defined by society, then weren't the Nazis a moral group? Similarly, aren't governments like the Saudi Arabian government who have Sharia law (stoning for apostasy or adultery, cutting off hands for theft) also moral?

If atheists' moral codes are based off society, then of course Western atheists share their moral code with religious peoples, as the moral code for Western society is absolutely based off of Judeo-Christian values.

Still, if their morals are based off society, then Nazis and proponents of Sharia law can't be considered immoral, as they are just doing what society dictates they should.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

So, then, the question still remains: if morality is defined by society, then weren't the Nazis a moral group? Similarly, aren't governments like the Saudi Arabian government who have Sharia law (stoning for apostasy or adultery, cutting off hands for theft) also moral?

If atheists' moral codes are based off society, then of course Western atheists share their moral code with religious peoples, as the moral code for Western society is absolutely based off of Judeo-Christian values.

Still, if their morals are based off society, then Nazis and proponents of Sharia law can't be considered immoral, as they are just doing what society dictates they should.

To the part in bold, yes, they were moral groups. The word morality is the concept of human action, which determines right from wrong, good from evil.

The nazis were an evil group, but believed they were right, history has obviously shown they were deluded, and brainwashed.

I think you are substituting ethics with morals. Morals are what we use to determine right from wrong, ethics are the application of morals.

Laws, communities, morals have been around long before religions. To look back now, modern society have based a lot of their laws on the moral guidance they seek in religion, however, that guidance was there before, it just wasn't en masse, if you will

[Guy Incognito 0]

So, then, the question still remains: if morality is defined by society, then weren't the Nazis a moral group? Similarly, aren't governments like the Saudi Arabian government who have Sharia law (stoning for apostasy or adultery, cutting off hands for theft) also moral?

If atheists' moral codes are based off society, then of course Western atheists share their moral code with religious peoples, as the moral code for Western society is absolutely based off of Judeo-Christian values.

Still, if their morals are based off society, then Nazis and proponents of Sharia law can't be considered immoral, as they are just doing what society dictates they should.

Good post.

If you do the right thing only because you are afraid of punishment in the afterlife, you're doing the right thing for the wrong reason. You should be doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.

Chadd, you should read some Nel Noddings. She's a bit of a feminist (or feminine supremist) but she emphasizes the same. She says that it's similar to when a child of yours is crying- we feel the urge to go and take away its pain. This is how we should feel when we live by these standards- we should not be doing things (volunteering, etc.) because we think its the right thing to do according to those around us. We should do them because we genuinely want to help someone else with the difficulties in their life.

I would like to think that everyone has a sense of morality, regardless of any other factor, but I don't think it's an inherent trait in humans. The word "morality" is also quite subjective, and people can have very different sets of beliefs when it comes to what is right and wrong. Someone could have a very high moral standard (according to themself or others), be religious or not religious, and yet they could still commit terrible crimes, by somehow justifying to their own self how it is OK within their morals.

Nice points.

To the part in bold, yes, they were moral groups. The word morality is the concept of human action, which determines right from wrong, good from evil.

The nazis were an evil group, but believed they were right, history has obviously shown they were deluded, and brainwashed.

Disgusting but true. They really thought the Arian race was the only race worth the gift of living.

[usahockey22 0]

If the nazis truly did believe that it was perfectly acceptable to be ridding the world of these people they considered to be evil, then, within their own sick, skewed minds, they were doing what was morally right. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter what morals someone has (or claims to have), they can always find a way to justify their actions.

[hockeydoc 0]

Which is why there is a necessity for some concrete standard of measure as to what we base right and wrong. What is the standard of measure that should be followed.

The standard that says what ever you feel in yourself is how you should proceed. In this case Jeffery Dahmer is highly moral, and ethical. Because in his own words, "I am a good person."

Do we measure ourselves by society, then it would matter when and where we live. I.E. Hitler was good. But we can't measure it by history either, because Moday morning quarterbacking is not a measure at all, and we would have to say that if Hitler succeeded at ruling the world he would have proven himself righteous.

Sooo, what standard do we measure? Athiest, have no consistant standard. All religions attempt to define a standard. In a manner of speaking the standard by which is set defines and titles said religion. I.E. If your standard of measure is the Bible, then you are a Christian.

If your standard is society, or government then that does not necessarily make you religious or Athiestic. Claiming there is no supreme bieng is a seperate issue, not a moral or ethical one, but it does come with an inherent assumption that your standard is relative and subjective.

Organized religion came after society, but faith did not, i.e. the standard for moral or ethical living comes from a faith, not a religion. However, your religion tends to define your standard for measure of moral and ethical living.

[Vapor 0]

This thread is getting crazy. I have been refered to as an athiest by more than one person. I am agnostic, like many other people in the thread. Agnostic is Greek for without knowledge. I dont see how anybody could be so arrogant to tell me that there 100% is a god or 100% is not. If you want to believe it, it is none of my business, but please do not try to guilt me (this is retorical) into believing that you are superior because you follow a 2000+ year old book. I have an open mind. I do not believe in god, but I have an open mind that one day I could.

I get my information from two street magicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hftbu34X08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnDzI-Qncdc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M497lpW5N9k

[Guy Incognito 0]

If you weren't a kid I would call you immoral names. <_<

[Vapor 0]

... do explain.

[jmiro 55]

Vapor I found the P&T piece completely humorous, however they did get a complete moron to debate the side of the bible. I believe in the bible like I believe in mother goose’s fables or any other tale that is intended to teach a lesson. I would be by definition agnostic. I really have tried to avoid this thread...I just couldn’t take it anymore. Two of my best friends debate this constantly one has an advanced degree in religious study the other in philosophy. The debate has been ongoing for over ten years with no end in sight.

As for the moral code debate. If you look to sociology for the definition of society you then can find your answer to this question. Chadd hit it right on the head. Any society throughout time has had rules Anthropologist have proven this with evidence. In return for following the rules of any society the individual gets benefits such as protection, Healthcare (Canada), and recently (last hundred years or so) paved roads.

[Guy Incognito 0]

... do explain.

Your posts explain it all, that's why I don't have to. Besides, I was being facetious.

[Jason Harris 31]

Sooo, what standard do we measure? Athiest, have no consistant standard. All religions attempt to define a standard. In a manner of speaking the standard by which is set defines and titles said religion. I.E. If your standard of measure is the Bible, then you are a Christian.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

My standards may be different from Vapor's or Chadd's or, um, Sock Monkey's, just as your standards are likely different than a Muslim's or Hindi or maybe another Christian denomination. However my standards (more appropriately, I'd call them my "value system") haven't changed much since my late teens. I'd call that a "consistent standard."

I believe you had asked earlier where would atheists learn their moral standards. That depends, but in most people's cases, I think it comes mostly from their parents. Since my family raised us as Catholics there is no doubt that, by extension, I learned my morality from the Catholic church -- certainly the guilt! -- but I'd give a far greater weighting to my parents. One generation later, we've raised our daughters with no input from the church, but we've received enough feedback to know they understand Right, Wrong and Courtesy quite well for their ages.

Guy Incognito, you were trying to determine what I meant by "Are atheists morally unaccountable?' Well, basically I'll admit to being mildy offended by the aforementioned signature, yet I was trying to find the right words to make sure this wouldn't get locked! The reason it PO'ed me is one of the nicest compliments anyone's paid me came from my best friend. He's become very religious in his adult years -- or as I like to joke, he's gone over to the Dark Side.... ;) -- but he once said to me, "You are the most Christian non-Christian I know." I may not believe in God, but I believe in the Golden Rule, so it bothered me that someone would suggest we (atheists/agnostics/etc) arre apt to live unethically.

It reminded me of a long walk I once had with my brother-in-law. He was searching for answers and was onto his third church in the past few years. When he learned I was an atheist, he said, "I don't understand that, Jason. I don't understand why you just wouldn't be hedonistic."

"Mike, you just know Right and Wrong."

[hockeydoc 0]

I think I am looking at it from common sense. Being consistant with ones self is not consistancy. Every athiest having the same value system would be consistant, but they are all different and relative.

Christians don't act consistantly moral, but their standard is as old as any recorded history. Their actions do not however detract from that standard.

Btw Christianity is the only religion that does not have eternal reward dictated by following said standard. That is what the covenant is. However don't confuse, as P&T and so many others have, eternal reward with consequences for actions and choices.

What consequences do athiest claim, the possibility of being caught by the law as stated earlier in this thread? I truly don't belive I know any immoral athiest, but I know almost no moral Christians. Sad but true. However like I stated before this in no way indicts the standard, but the person. Ironically, the Bible states that this is a given. Jesus says "there is no one good but the father."

I too would be offended at someone impying I was immoral. However I ask to what are you accountable, and why? By what do you measure your actions? It sounds, ironically, like you measure yourself by the standard you were raised, i.e. Christian/Catholic up-bringing.

Again it's ironic that you state a biblical referance when speaking of your value system, (The Golden Rule)

[usahockey22 0]

The Golden Rule, or "treat your neighbor in the way that you should have him treat you", isn't necessarily something that required biblical knowledge in order to understand. This concept has been around much longer than the bible...

Earlier I said that people are not inherently "moral". Though we might not have a set of morals which is universal, I think most of us still know what is generally right and wrong, when it comes to harming others specifically. Most people will identify with others...if you see someone who is hurt and needs help, you feel empathy because you see yourself in that situation, and you realize that you would want someone to help you. This goes back to the "golden rule". Deep down, you have to face yourself, and if you are doing bad things to other people, you know it...because you know how you would feel if they were done to you. I don't think Jesus stating this rule is necessary for people to realize it, and psychology seems to agree.

That said, there are also some people who, I think, are born without this sense (or maybe something so bad has happened in their lives, that they lose it). Either they are incapable of identifying with others, or, they hate themselves/others so they simply don't care about what they do. These are the sociopath/serial criminal/crazy types. They will always be around, lurking in any religion or organization, regardless of whatever morals the people generally seem to have.

[Jason Harris 31]

HDoc, I see bias more than I see common sense in your position. As USAhockey stated, although some semblance of the Golden Rule is in most religions, evidence of this creed has been found in historical cultures outside of and pre-dating religions. Thus, I would say this is a human philosophy as much as religious one.

Also, as I stated, it's likely your standards are different from those of other religious adherants, yet your suggestion is atheists would show a greater consistency if we all had the same standards. That's a bit of a double-standard. Beyond that, based on the friends I've made who have turned out to be non-believers -- and how similar our personalities/lifestyles were -- I'd venture that non-believers often have very similar value systems. Given the largest religion denomination in the world still numbers only 1/6 of the population, it's possibe that non-believers more often have consistent standards amongst themselves than believers. Not saying it's true, only that it's possible.

However, let's look at this from a different perspective. I'm confident you live life by the Ten Commandmants, whereas I stated that I live by the Eight Commandants.

(By the way, I don't quite consider it ironic my value system has its genesis in religion. I readily acknowledge my family made us go to Sunday school, but I tuned it out at such a young age, there's no doubt my parents are the bigger influence. Conversely, I readily ackowledge we've raised our daughters as atheists, and they are far nicer people than I was at their age.)

Anyway, if you and I live our life according to virtually the same standards except "forsaking the Lord" (or whatever it is), then shouldn't you EXPECT us to have the same level of moral accountability? If your answer is 'No,' then my question is "Why not?" About the only difference between me and religious adherants who believe in the Golden Rule is I don't believe in Hell and, therefore, don't "act nice" out of fear. Actually, I suppose I do act nice out of fear, but the consequences are more earthly: being ostracized by family and friends, at best; being punished by the law, at worst.

And that leads into something I wrote earlier. It's been my observation that non-believers will often have a very clear understanding of their value system. I think this is because it's our value system. Maybe it has its genesis in living in a world whose inhabitants are 80% religious, but it's still our value system and not something that we probably should follow because there could be some serious ramifications later. Do you see how non-believers could actually live a more accountable life than some who profess to believe but have a disconnect because deep down they're really picking and choosing?

[Guy Incognito 0]

Interesting points by both. One thng to keep in mind is that there will be bias in every post to some, and unbiased views to others. Aa we get deeper into this conversation I'm not sure accusing someone of being biased is appropriate. Two cents...

Seems invective and unproductive.

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't understand why you would say that.

I didn't make the statement with any malice. Indeed, I meant it to help the conversation, although maybe I should have been wordier and said something along the lines of "It seems there's a bias about your positioin that you might not be aware about."

Again, I wasn't accusing HD, only responding to his words. I've read enough of his posts to know he's a good guy who fervently believes in his side of this discussion.

[hattrick74 0]

a few things,

As an atheist, I can tell you that I do live according to my own moral standards - which, to be honest, aren't that far from my mother's, who is a devout Christian...the difference being I make my own calls, while my mother lives life the way she is being told.

and from my personal beliefs, i would say that everyone is created with the same moral code, i.e. inherently good but choose to do bad.

i will start this by saying that in the USA we are given the freedom of religion, yet in most cases, that is only acceptable if you are religious. those that are not, are looked down upon by those who are. go figure.

i wonder about this though, because it seems like one cant attack someone's race, sexual preference or any religious beliefs.....except Christians.

And as to the comments about the moral code and the priests of the catholic church, please understand this. the Church, catholic, protestant or any other Christian denomination is man's attempt to reach God. in no way is the church perfect and apart from sin or the consequences of sin. With the priest scandals this just further proves that man is not faultless and will always fail to be perfect.

[Jason Harris 31]

i wonder about this though, because it seems like one cant attack someone's race, sexual preference or any religious beliefs.....except Christians.

And as to the comments about the moral code and the priests of the catholic church, please understand this. the Church, catholic, protestant or any other Christian denomination is man's attempt to reach God. in no way is the church perfect and apart from sin or the consequences of sin. With the priest scandals this just further proves that man is not faultless and will always fail to be perfect.

Synagogues have been burned. Muslims have been accosted in the streets. I've read of Hindis also being bothered, because some of our more educated bretheren assumed they were Muslim. I wouldn't be surprised if other denominations have suffered their own indignities.

And why has this happened? I know this will be inflammatory to some, but there is a one word answer: religion. Do you think many atheists have been burning the synagogues? Maybe, but it's more likely someone who thought, "My religion is better than your religion."

That leads into the second part of your post, that the churches can't be blamed for the actions of their followers. You're right, they can't be. There doesn't seem to be much downside to living by the Golden Rule, and there's no doubt that (mainstream) churches teach the Golden Rule. But we can't just give free passes when people do bad things in the name of religion. Some of this is inherant in the manual. There are a lot of passages in both the Bible and Q'uran that seem to tacitly allow their followers to....convince....other people to believe.

[hattrick74 0]

And why has this happened? I know this will be inflammatory to some, but there is a one word answer: religion. Do you think many atheists have been burning the synagogues? Maybe, but it's more likely someone who thought, "My religion is better than your religion."

And the Billions upon Billions of dollars that have been donated to Katrina Relief, the Tsunami relief and other disasters count for nothing? what about the scores and scores of people who went to these disaster areas to just be there for people and help them out? i witnessed this 1st hand back in march when i was in New Orleans, the people are still in tough shape but alot of what gets them through the day is the hope that more people are coming to help, and a majority of those people are religous.

That leads into the second part of your post, that the churches can't be blamed for the actions of their followers. You're right, they can't be. There doesn't seem to be much downside to living by the Golden Rule, and there's no doubt that (mainstream) churches teach the Golden Rule. But we can't just give free passes when people do bad things in the name of religion. Some of this is inherant in the manual. There are a lot of passages in both the Bible and Q'uran that seem to tacitly allow their followers to....convince....other people to believe.

where did i say churches cant be blamed for the actions of their followers? what i am saying is that the church is no where near perfect and no one should ever expect them to be. show me where Jesus ever "convinces" others to believe (with your idea of convincing seeming to be forceful) All one can do as a follower of Christ is plant the seed and allow God to do the work, i am sorry that so many have mis-interpreted this to be convert by the sword.

[usahockey22 0]

where did i say churches cant be blamed for the actions of their followers? what i am saying is that the church is no where near perfect and no one should ever expect them to be. show me where Jesus ever "convinces" others to believe (with your idea of convincing seeming to be forceful) All one can do as a follower of Christ is plant the seed and allow God to do the work, i am sorry that so many have mis-interpreted this to be convert by the sword.

With the catholic church, many members of the clergy have been found to be abusing children...these are the people who get up and stand in front of the followers, representing the church. No one expects a church or all of its members to be perfect...but when you have a system that is practically allowing these child abusers to function without justice, where no one is held accountable for these actions, then someone at the top has to take the blame.

Planting the seed and letting God do the work sounds great and all...but that's a cop out. People have to be responsible for their own actions, and they also must reap what they sow (be brought to justice). This has not happened for the priests thus far, in most instances.

Of course in the bible or the Qur'an, or other religious texts, nowhere does it directly say to spread the religion with violence (that I am aware of). If you actually know anything about history though, converting by the sword was a very common practice, and this is why the religions spread the way that they did.

[sabre09923 0]

Of course in the bible or the Qur'an, or other religious texts, nowhere does it directly say to spread the religion with violence (that I am aware of). If you actually know anything about history though, converting by the sword was a very common practice, and this is why the religions spread the way that they did.

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition! Among our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency and almost fanatical devotion to the Pope!

The sad thing about the new type of conversion (convert or face consequences in the afterlife by our Supreme Creator) is that those who don't believe (the, shall we say, "convertees") aren't going to believe that the Supreme being is going to come out to get them anyways, so why bother trying to convert them? It's nearly the same as Daddy telling little Johnny that if he steals from his classmates, the Boogeyman is going to "get" him when he's asleep. If Johnny knows/thinks the Boogeyman doesn't exist, why go through the trouble telling him that; it will seem like an empty threat.

[akhockeyplaya 0]

With the catholic church, many members of the clergy have been found to be abusing children...these are the people who get up and stand in front of the followers, representing the church. No one expects a church or all of its members to be perfect...but when you have a system that is practically allowing these child abusers to function without justice, where no one is held accountable for these actions, then someone at the top has to take the blame.

yes.

Planting the seed and letting God do the work sounds great and all...but that's a cop out. People have to be responsible for their own actions, and they also must reap what they sow (be brought to justice). This has not happened for the priests thus far, in most instances.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The planting seeds comment referred to converting believers. The idea being that there's nothing I could do to convert someone, all I can do is talk to them about Christ and He'll do the rest. Conversion is a matter of the heart, not speech or actions.

Of course in the bible or the Qur'an, or other religious texts, nowhere does it directly say to spread the religion with violence (that I am aware of). If you actually know anything about history though, converting by the sword was a very common practice, and this is why the religions spread the way that they did.

While it's true that converting by the sword has an unfortunate place in history, I highly doubt many of those people were converted. They may have acted that way so as not to be murdered, but they were not believers in their hearts. Maybe lots of them found substance in the message after being forced to look into it, but that's not really the point, I don't think.

Surely the sword helped spread religions more quickly, but I think any religion with a message people buy into will survive regardless of swashbuckling. Christianity was a minor religion for an incredibly long amount of time, with Christians being killed left and right, so Christianity definitely had a chance off the bat to be squandered, I just think the message overcame that effort.