Secular morality - Wikipedia
Regarding atheism and ethics, under an atheist worldview, there is no logical basis for . as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; Atheism and morality are not compatible. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most. Perhaps not. With respect to relativism, the atheist might say that false beliefs in moral absolutes are a recipe for trouble. Perhaps relativism could increase.
Peter Robinsona political author and commentator with Stanford 's Hoover Institutionhas commented that, if an inner moral conscience is just another adaptive or evolved feeling in the human mind like simple emotional urges, then no inherent reason exists to consider morality as over and above other urges. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that, "it is not hard to imagine a society of people that has no religion but has a morality, as well as a legal system, just because it says that people cannot live together without rules against killing, etc.
There have also certainly been people who have had a morality but no religious beliefs. If they are, then one is already equipped with moral motivations, and the introduction of God adds nothing extra.
But if they are not moral motives, then they will be motives of such a kind that they cannot appropriately motivate morality at all This line of reasoning is described by Peter Singer: Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods' approval that makes them good.
Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International
The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: Some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God? It may even be discrimination.
Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides.
Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist
Singer states that morality "is not something intelligible only in the context of religion". Atheism is only intrinsically negative when it comes to belief about God. It is as capable of a positive view of other aspects of life as any other belief.
That means atheists are not only more than capable of leading moral lives, they may even be able to lead more moral lives than religious believers who confuse divine law and punishment with right and wrong. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone Why don't we just assume that we do have some internal compass?
However, he offers that secular and humanist groups are still learning how to organize effectively. This is partly because Dennett says that the idea that people need God to be morally good is an extremely harmful, yet popular myth. He believes it is a falsehood that persists because churches are currently much better at organizing people to do morally good work.
They want to lead good lives So then along come religions that say 'Well you can't be good without God' to convince people that they have to do this. That may be the main motivation for people to take religions seriously—to try to take religions seriously, to try and establish an allegiance to the church—because they want to lead good lives. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history.
How then, should you choose a god and a religion from which to source your morality? You could try to find a god that exists and a religion that is true, but there is no known way to determine these things, so whatever you decide will be necessarily arbitrary. In fact, most people resign themselves to making an arbitrary decision by simply following the god and religion their families follow.
Theists who say their morality comes from God face an unpalatable conclusion. They must either accept that they follow an arbitrary morality from an arbitrary god and an arbitrary religion, or they must accept that their god is not necessary for humans to understand morality.
There is worse to come. Followers of large, world religions might console themselves that a billion or more people share their morality, and that must account for something. But it does not.
Atheism and morality - Conservapedia
For a start, truth is not a democracy. The fact that many people accept an idea does not make it true. It is not even true that followers of any particular religion share the same morality.
For example, there are some 2. Just three issues will make the point: There is only one fair conclusion here; if you truly attempt to take your morality from a god, you have no idea whether your actions are moral or not. You are swimming in a sea of confusion and moral uncertainty. Quite honestly, you are lost. Can we be moral without God?
If relying on a god, makes morality impossibly difficult, what happens when we take gods out of the picture entirely? We must begin by asking what it means to be moral. The first point is, behavior can only be moral or immoral if it affects other humans. No matter how you treat a rock, your actions are neither morally right or wrong. Actions have a moral dimension only when they affect other humans or other sentient beings. Nor is a moral dimension attached to actions that are the result of chance or the natural world.ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS!
For example, if lightning or a tsunami kills people, we do not say these events are morally wrong. So morality must be about how humans are affected by human actions. But what is right and what is wrong?
Atheism and morality are not compatible Thread - The Debating Society
Some actions seem to be clear-cut. It would be perverse to argue that bathing your baby daughter in battery acid is morally right. No doubt, we could think of a long list of actions that are equally wrong. It would also be easy to make a list of actions that are unequivocally good. Comparing the two lists allows us to generalize things that are morally wrong and to distinguish them from things that are morally right. Actions that unnecessarily cause suffering or harm to humans are morally wrong, and actions that contribute to human wellbeing are morally right.
Once we have criteria for right and wrong, we can say that some actions, such as randomly hitting a person with a hammer, are objectively morally wrong and other actions are objectively morally right. This logic has two important implications: Many people will find this conclusion puzzling.
We know that moral standards change over time and we know that different societies have different moral standards. Surely this means that morality is relative and not objective? No, it does not. That objective moral standards exist does not mean it is always easy to determine what they should be. For example, when an action affects many people and results in harm to some and benefits to others, it is difficult to determine its moral value.
In other cases, the moral value of an action is difficult to determine because its long-term consequences are hard to predict. Governments often confront such such dilemmas. Sometimes moral standards are set in the self-interest of rulers, or of a subset of the people affected.
Sometimes standards change because people become aware of the harm an old standard was causing.