Morality in the eyes of the Atheist

Azzie

Azzie

New Member
How does an atheist go about determining what is "right" and "wrong" with reason and logic?

Effectiveness? Efficiency? Feeling? :confused:
 
This was a topic that has been covered before...I say that only because I'm short of time at the moment.

You have to realize that theists believe that morality is objective, while atheists believe it is subjective.

Morality isn't something that is a solid set of laws, but rather a fluid thing, that bends, changes and adapts to society, geography, etc.

When you dig down to the core of atheist morality you find a simple, solitary gem: the golden rule.
 
I guess an Atheist wouldnt believe in absolutes rights and wrongs because if there are absolutes then there had to be a God out there that laid those rights and wrongs out there
 
Aha....interesting. Thanks everyone!

Second part of the question...What does morality achieve in atheism?
 
Levite said:
I guess an Atheist wouldnt believe in absolutes rights and wrongs because if there are absolutes then there had to be a God out there that laid those rights and wrongs out there
Click to expand...

Give that man a ceegar!
 
Azzie said:
Aha....interesting. Thanks everyone!

Second part of the question...What does morality achieve in atheism?
Click to expand...

The same thing it does everywhere else.

Morality is defined as, "conformity to ideals of right human conduct".

How is that any different to an atheist as it is to a theist?

Maybe your question had a different meaning that I'm missing.
 
Hm...maybe it would help if I asked the question like this:

If the first human was an atheist and alone with no other humans around, what would he decide to be right or wrong?
 
Hmm, that's part of it, but not the essence of it.

It all comes down to the golden rule, every society has it, every religion has it.
 
So that's the emphasized method, in a sense...but what's the ideal?

maybe if i rephrased it like this: If everyone follows the golden rule in every single decision they make, what would happen?

(Forgive me if these questions seem elementary, but I'm trying to make sure I don't miss some of the central details of this issue. As a result, I'm inching my way through these questions rather slowly)
 
Azzie said:
So that's the emphasized method, in a sense...but what's the ideal?
Click to expand...

There is no idea. Atheistic morality isn't objective, it's subjective.

maybe if i rephrased it like this: If everyone follows the golden rule in every single decision they make, what would happen?
Click to expand...

We'd live in a utopian society?

(Forgive me if these questions seem elementary, but I'm trying to make sure I don't miss some of the central details of this issue. As a result, I'm inching my way through these questions rather slowly)
Click to expand...

No problem!
 
so the utopian society, then, is what atheism strives for?

As for what good a utopian society is for other than for being content among all individuals, the questions of life after death or whatever is actually left open for each person to decide upon for themselves?
I mean, even in utopian society, people would still die. Some people, even if everyone follows the golden rule, might not be content knowing that they're going to die and nothing they did or learned could solve that (on the assumption that for those individuals, death is actually a problem.)
 
Azzie said:
so the utopian society, then, is what atheism strives for?

As for what good a utopian society is for other than for being content among all individuals, the questions of life after death or whatever is actually left open for each person to decide upon for themselves?
I mean, even in utopian society, people would still die. Some people, even if everyone follows the golden rule, might not be content knowing that they're going to die and nothing they did or learned could solve that (on the assumption that for those individuals, death is actually a problem.)
Click to expand...

I don't believe that atheists have a long range goal like Heaven. What is wrong with being CONTENT? That sounds like a reasonable goal to me. Let's work on hitting it, then we can go from there.

Some questions, such as life after death can't be answered. I am quite content believing that this life is all we have. I don't believe in life after death because there is no evidence for it. I'd prefer not to blindly guess. If I wanted to do that, I'd be a theist.

Death isn't a problem, it's a part of life, a NECESSARY part of life.
 
I never said that being content wasn't reasonable...if it seems like i did, i'll have to apologize for poor wording again. :(

I was just trying to get at the idea that some people, however utopia their environment is, are not content with being unable to answer death.

Like I said, I was indicating the lack of being content on the assumption that death is a problem. If it really isn't, I'm in total agreement with your post.
 
Stop apologizing :)

When I said utopia, I didn't mean it as a tangible goal. I don't believe that we, as humans, can reach a utopian state or some form of nirvana.

Why? Because we're human.

That doesn't mean we can't strive for it though. And it's in the doing that Man acheives his success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top