Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Samhain · 03-17-2002, 10:06 PM

I may be making strong assumptions but I am curious on the opinions of others on this matter. Morality (and I use morality in a sense that there are basic values of right and wrong) for atheists, as far as I have observed of myself and of others, relies upon a basic rule of how one would like to be treated and a true justification of their actions (by true justification I mean eye for an eye and the like, not things such as spilling a drink on someone constitutes murder, for this is not true justification, even while the murderer may be able to justify this act within himself shakily). Atheists who are like myself are held to their own morality by the desire of social acceptance and the fear of social repercussions (in a very broad and general sense).

Now while this may also be said to be true for many theists, they also have another level to hold to. They not only have fear of social repercussions, and social acceptance, but they must also hold to spiritual repercussions and acceptance. There is a catch with this though with many sects of Christianity. This catch has to do with the forgiving nature of God. Many sects view that forgiveness can come from God no matter how evil a person is. The person could be the most heinous of murderers, but as long as they would ask for acceptance and forgiveness from God, all would be well in the afterlife, and there should be no worry about any kind of social repercussions, since a place in heaven would be reserved.

While this is not the view of all Christian sects, I find this view greatly disturbing. My question then is, if this is said to be true, then, turning the tables, what holds theists to lead morally good lives? And this being true, could it not be, at the very least, possible, if not, then true, that atheists can lead even more morally good lives?

echidna · 03-17-2002, 10:40 PM

Worldview and morality come from different places.

I�m automatically suspicious of anyone who claims their worldview entitles them to a so-called higher morality.

-DM- · 03-17-2002, 10:41 PM

Holding to "moral" behavior for acceptance and fear of undesirable repercussions, whether social, "spiritual" or both, represents a rather immature stage in the development of morality. A mature morality involves internalizing morals so that behavior conforms to those internalized morals simply because it is right to do so.

[Oversimplified, I know, but the point is that behavior based on acceptance and avoidance of repercussions does not represent truly moral behavior in my book.]

Self-esteem has a lot to do with living by one's internalized morality, by the way. It is difficult to truly have self-esteem if one violates his/her own standards.

--Don--

Danya · 03-17-2002, 10:46 PM

They do not even have to ask god for forgiveness. Another words it isn't even necessary for them to be sorry for what they have done. All that is necessary to get into heaven no matter what your sin is that you accept Jesus into your heart as your savior before you die.

I once asked a person who believes that every word of the bible is literally from god about this subject. I asked if a pedophile becomes saved in prison and accepts Jesus as his savior and is later released and continues to molest children will he still go to heaven? Her answer was yes.

I asked if someone accepts Jesus when they are 14 and grow up to believe that there is no Jesus are they still going to heaven because they once accepted him into their heart years ago? Her answer was yes.

Pomp · 03-17-2002, 10:57 PM

Don Morgan,

A mature morality involves internalizing morals so that behavior conforms to those internalized morals simply because it is right to do so.

Does it matter what morals are internalized? In other words, would the prospective moral "steal only when there is little risk of being caught" be as valid a candidate for internalization as the prospective moral "do not steal?" If it does matter, how would one determine which prospective morals are valid candidates for internalization?

[Oversimplified, I know, but the point is that behavior based on acceptance and avoidance of repercussions does not represent truly moral behavior in my book.]

I know it's an oversimplification, but I can't resist poking at it. Feel free to ignore me.

Self-esteem has a lot to do with living by one's internalized morality, by the way. It is difficult to truly have self-esteem if one violates his/her own standards.

I agree completely. I've been trying to find an intellectually honest way to lower my standards for years.

Samhain · 03-17-2002, 11:00 PM

Of course, this is true, no matter how one views it, morality should be based on what you feel is right in the situation with social repercussions and acceptance not even as an issue. I of course, try to live by that myself, but that is not the argument here. Internalized morality should be the basis for any decision.

What I am trying to debate here, though, is with those who do not have a true internalized morality, but are subjected to the morality of the masses, whether it be through the theistic view of religion, or whether it be through the atheistic view of social conduct, which gives less leave to commit heinous acts. If an atheist believes that his life is the only one that he has, and that he must restrict himself to the boundries set by society in order to make the best of his life, then wouldn't that be better than the theist who views their spiritual morality as the only true morality, and which is higher and not to be restricted by social norms?

Pardon me if I do not have faith that the majority of people live by internalized moralities. For some reason I just do not see so many, who seem to want everything else packaged and handed to them and who seem to despise rational thought (since I hardly see many of them practicing it), as thinking to the point of which they will set their own moral values and standards. Many, in my opinion, seem to take only what is given to them by the government or the churches (set into place so that people would not have to think about these things, but only know that it is right to abide by them) and in some cases modify it to their own standards, but rarely rationalize enough to understand why they wish to follow that kind of moral standard.

The world would be a far greater place if all rationalized just enough to come up with their own moral standards based upon what they believed was correct and good for their fellow man.

-DM- · 03-17-2002, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danya:
... I asked if a pedophile becomes saved in prison and accepts Jesus as his savior and is later released and continues to molest children will he still go to heaven? Her answer was yes.

Quote:

Martin Luther
God does not work salvation for fictitious sinners. Be a
sinner and sin vigorously.... Do not for a moment imagine that
this life is the abiding place of justice; sin must be
committed.

Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you
commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many
murders.

Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. ... To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.

See:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm" target="_blank">Martin Luther, Enders, "Briefwechsel", III, 208.</a>
or: <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_MLuther.htm?terms=martin+luther" target="_blank">Martin Luther, letter to Melanchton, Aug. 1, 1521</a>

--Don--

Samhain · 03-17-2002, 11:13 PM

One more point I'd like to make before we go on. Addressing Don Morgan's point before. It would also have to be assumed that morality was instated in order for there to be some form of social control and justice. If all men were "good" by nature, morality, internalized or not, would not be necessary, but in order to keep the common man in check, one must set up a form of standards and values for one to live by in order to protect one another and give a sense of security: morality.

03-17-2002, 10:06 PM	#1
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Which is more moral: the atheist or the theist? I may be making strong assumptions but I am curious on the opinions of others on this matter. Morality (and I use morality in a sense that there are basic values of right and wrong) for atheists, as far as I have observed of myself and of others, relies upon a basic rule of how one would like to be treated and a true justification of their actions (by true justification I mean eye for an eye and the like, not things such as spilling a drink on someone constitutes murder, for this is not true justification, even while the murderer may be able to justify this act within himself shakily). Atheists who are like myself are held to their own morality by the desire of social acceptance and the fear of social repercussions (in a very broad and general sense). Now while this may also be said to be true for many theists, they also have another level to hold to. They not only have fear of social repercussions, and social acceptance, but they must also hold to spiritual repercussions and acceptance. There is a catch with this though with many sects of Christianity. This catch has to do with the forgiving nature of God. Many sects view that forgiveness can come from God no matter how evil a person is. The person could be the most heinous of murderers, but as long as they would ask for acceptance and forgiveness from God, all would be well in the afterlife, and there should be no worry about any kind of social repercussions, since a place in heaven would be reserved. While this is not the view of all Christian sects, I find this view greatly disturbing. My question then is, if this is said to be true, then, turning the tables, what holds theists to lead morally good lives? And this being true, could it not be, at the very least, possible, if not, then true, that atheists can lead even more morally good lives?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2002, 10:40 PM	#2
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Worldview and morality come from different places. I�m automatically suspicious of anyone who claims their worldview entitles them to a so-called higher morality.

03-17-2002, 10:41 PM	#3
-DM- Honorary Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Coast Posts: 5,714	Holding to "moral" behavior for acceptance and fear of undesirable repercussions, whether social, "spiritual" or both, represents a rather immature stage in the development of morality. A mature morality involves internalizing morals so that behavior conforms to those internalized morals simply because it is right to do so. [Oversimplified, I know, but the point is that behavior based on acceptance and avoidance of repercussions does not represent truly moral behavior in my book.] Self-esteem has a lot to do with living by one's internalized morality, by the way. It is difficult to truly have self-esteem if one violates his/her own standards. --Don--

03-17-2002, 10:46 PM	#4
Danya Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: USA Posts: 638	They do not even have to ask god for forgiveness. Another words it isn't even necessary for them to be sorry for what they have done. All that is necessary to get into heaven no matter what your sin is that you accept Jesus into your heart as your savior before you die. I once asked a person who believes that every word of the bible is literally from god about this subject. I asked if a pedophile becomes saved in prison and accepts Jesus as his savior and is later released and continues to molest children will he still go to heaven? Her answer was yes. I asked if someone accepts Jesus when they are 14 and grow up to believe that there is no Jesus are they still going to heaven because they once accepted him into their heart years ago? Her answer was yes.

03-17-2002, 10:57 PM	#5
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Don Morgan, A mature morality involves internalizing morals so that behavior conforms to those internalized morals simply because it is right to do so. Does it matter what morals are internalized? In other words, would the prospective moral "steal only when there is little risk of being caught" be as valid a candidate for internalization as the prospective moral "do not steal?" If it does matter, how would one determine which prospective morals are valid candidates for internalization? [Oversimplified, I know, but the point is that behavior based on acceptance and avoidance of repercussions does not represent truly moral behavior in my book.] I know it's an oversimplification, but I can't resist poking at it. Feel free to ignore me. Self-esteem has a lot to do with living by one's internalized morality, by the way. It is difficult to truly have self-esteem if one violates his/her own standards. I agree completely. I've been trying to find an intellectually honest way to lower my standards for years.

03-17-2002, 11:00 PM	#6
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Of course, this is true, no matter how one views it, morality should be based on what you feel is right in the situation with social repercussions and acceptance not even as an issue. I of course, try to live by that myself, but that is not the argument here. Internalized morality should be the basis for any decision. What I am trying to debate here, though, is with those who do not have a true internalized morality, but are subjected to the morality of the masses, whether it be through the theistic view of religion, or whether it be through the atheistic view of social conduct, which gives less leave to commit heinous acts. If an atheist believes that his life is the only one that he has, and that he must restrict himself to the boundries set by society in order to make the best of his life, then wouldn't that be better than the theist who views their spiritual morality as the only true morality, and which is higher and not to be restricted by social norms? Pardon me if I do not have faith that the majority of people live by internalized moralities. For some reason I just do not see so many, who seem to want everything else packaged and handed to them and who seem to despise rational thought (since I hardly see many of them practicing it), as thinking to the point of which they will set their own moral values and standards. Many, in my opinion, seem to take only what is given to them by the government or the churches (set into place so that people would not have to think about these things, but only know that it is right to abide by them) and in some cases modify it to their own standards, but rarely rationalize enough to understand why they wish to follow that kind of moral standard. The world would be a far greater place if all rationalized just enough to come up with their own moral standards based upon what they believed was correct and good for their fellow man.

03-17-2002, 11:13 PM	#8
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	One more point I'd like to make before we go on. Addressing Don Morgan's point before. It would also have to be assumed that morality was instated in order for there to be some form of social control and justice. If all men were "good" by nature, morality, internalized or not, would not be necessary, but in order to keep the common man in check, one must set up a form of standards and values for one to live by in order to protect one another and give a sense of security: morality.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.