[Neraphym]

As an atheist, I am often criticized for not having any morals. As a believer in evolution, I often hear people saying "if you think you're a monkey, we can expect you to act like one." The religious right is often referred to as the "moral majority" and so forth. I am sick and tired of people claiming that their religion has a monopoly on morality. This is not true, and I want to put an end to this intolerance.

Morality is defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong. Where does this morality come from? For Christians, they get their morals from the Bible. As an atheist, I get to make up my own morals. Yay for me! Christianity and other religions (I don’t know too much about Judaism or Islam, so I’ll stick to what I know) obey the laws set forth by their respective holy books for one reason: they fear punishment for their actions. Notice how I did not say they fear punishment from God, which is what they probably believe. What is important is that they believe because they are afraid of punishment, the punisher is entirely irrelevant. Whether God exists or does not exist, the fear is assuredly present and accounted for.

Again, I am an Atheist. I have no holy book, and I do not fear the divine wrath of any supernatural deity. Despite this, I still have morals. Why? Because I fear the wraths of my fellow man and of my conscience! If I were to kill someone, I can expect two things. Firstly, if it ok for me to kill someone, it’s ok for someone to kill me. As I do not wish to be killed, I choose not to kill. Secondly, if I were to kill someone, I can anticipate a harsh emotional response. I’d feel guilt, shame, and sorrow. These are feelings I do not wish to have, so I choose not to get them by not killing.

Just because I choose not to kill wont stop another person from killing me. That is the harsh reality of life. To counter this, people form governments. These governments decide what its subjects may or may not do, and enforce these rules with punishments for breaking them. Again, fear of punishment is what keeps people in line.
There are three primary differences between the two sources of morality. The first is the punisher. In Christianity, the punisher is God (or perhaps the devil, a creation of an omnipotent God, and therefore I assume he chooses to delegate…). In a secular society, the punisher is the society itself. The second difference is the extent of the punishment. This is, I will admit, where Christianity shines brightest. The threat of eternal suffering in Hell is a pretty damn good deterrent. Society can only go so far. Fortunately for me, the reality of our situation shows that the extent of punishment actually has little effect on an offender’s willingness to commit a crime.

Finally, the biggest difference present is the actual moral code itself. Although they share many similarities, they also diverge on a great many issues. For instance, the Massachusetts State government has decided to allow gays to get married. As a society, they have determined for themselves that allowing gay marriage is in no way detrimental to their life, liberty or happiness. As there is no need for a law against it, none exists. Whereas in Christianity, their system of morals disparages gay marriage and they do not allow for this.

What this all boils down to is this: do onto others as you would have done onto you. Regardless of faith, anyone can adopt this principal and use it in our society to create a perfect moral system. As an Atheist, I follow this guideline as the basis for my morality. Although my morals are not the same as yours, I still have some and I can be expected to follow them because I have a healthy fear of punishment under law. Also, you morals are not ‘better’ than mine. That is a purely speculative judgment that you cannot back up with evidence, because morality is immeasurable.

So basically, just follow the golden rule and things will work out ok. As a society, pass laws to help uphold the golden rule. Of course, if you want to pass a law banning gay marriage, don’t complain if gays want to pass a law banning you from marrying the person you’re in love with. Think of how wronged you would feel and then tell me my basis for morality is shallow.

[Neraphym]

Cspace, my apostrophes all died!!!!

[Nuu™™]

I find it hard to believe that people actually don't believe in evolution in America. If you don't believe it here it is thought that something is wrong with you.

[Elvenblader]

Yes right and wrong can be the determing factor of morality, but where do you think the basis of right and wrong came from. Being a christian, I believe the ten commandments were the basis of the very laws that determined what is right and what is wrong. But at the same time, a person's perception of morality could be perverted and twisted so what they think is right is actually extremely wrong. More or less. Will post more when I can gather my thoughts.

P.S. Good topic to discuss

[Aaron]

I totally agree with you, Alpha. This is a very good argument! As a Christian, I am sure to follow the Bible's guidelines as best I can. But, also as a Libertarian, I believe that you have the freedom to do what you wish as long as it does not infringe upon someone else's rights. Basically, as stated above, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. My Libertarian views and Christian faith sometimes conflict or create a gray area, so I have to examine things one by one. I think I have found a healthy balance, however.

[Atilla]

Religion has a monopoly on morality because even non-religious people are afraid of the idea of hell. It rules through fear.

[Nuu™™]

Orthodox Abrahamic Religion has a monopoly on morality because even non-religious people are afraid of the idea of hell. It rules through fear.

Other than that little adjustment, I agree with Atilla. Particularly in the case of Islam.

[Neraphym]

A fear hell as much as I fear a 200 story man-eating hamster. If it existed, I'd fear it, but there's absolutely no reason on earth I find legitimate enough to entertain such beliefs.

[Atilla]

Yet it's the reason morality is the way it is.

[Aaron]

Yet it's the reason morality is the way it is.

It's ingrained into societies all over the world. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can really do anything about it.

[©allum]

A fear hell as much as I fear a 200 story man-eating hamster. If it existed, I'd fear it, but there's absolutely no reason on earth I find legitimate enough to entertain such beliefs.

Faith does not need a reason on this earth

[Aaron]

A fear hell as much as I fear a 200 story man-eating hamster. If it existed, I'd fear it, but there's absolutely no reason on earth I find legitimate enough to entertain such beliefs.

Faith does not need a reason on this earth

Good point, Callum. I love your sharp wit .

[Neraphym]

Regardless of what others believe or have faith in, my morality is not based upon the concept of hell. I don't care what faith or belief you have to justify your morality (well, I do, just not for the sake of this debate). What I'm trying to get others to understand is that people can maintain morality regardless of faith, provided people in society act rationally. I realize that not everyone does, but the same can be said for the Christian alternative. When people obey the rules, the system works.

[Atilla]

You have faith that there is no hell, as it can't be proven that it doesn't exist just as much as it can be proven that it can. This is why I'm an agnostic; both theists and atheists think they're right when there's no facts proving it right and no facts proving it wrong.

[Neraphym]

You have faith that there is no hell, as it can't be proven that it doesn't exist just as much as it can be proven that it can. This is why I'm an agnostic; both theists and atheists think they're right when there's no facts proving it right and no facts proving it wrong.

Can you prove to me that you're an agnostic? In actuality, agnosticism is all we can hope to amount to, because nothing is provable. Facts do not prove or disprove anything. They just lead us to believe certain things are true or untrue. In the case of adding 2 plus 2 and getting 4, you can assume that everytime you add 2 and 2, you will always get 4. You cannot truly know this unless you were adding 2 and 2 together for eternity (which by defenition doesn't end, so you wouldn't ever know).

Despite the fact that it can never be proven, it is safe to act on the assumption that 2 plus 2 will yield 4. I cannot prove this, but it hasn't failed me yet. For me, atheism is the same way. I cannot prove that no god exists, but I act as if none does, because my experiences have lead me to believe this.

My point is, agnosticism is correct, but is just utterly worthless. While I am an agnostic, I prefer the stances atheism offers. I may not be 100% sure the Christian god does not exist, but at 99.99%, I'd feel safe denying him. I don't make the mistake of saying I'm 100% sure of something, because I know that it's impossible to be sure of anything. On the other hand, my actions will reflect what I cannot believe.

On the other hand, there are people who hold beliefs without any solid evidence and will state them as fact. Although theists are more often than not guilty of this, an atheist will sometimes be guilty as well. Whats worse is when they do this when solid evidence is presented to the contrary. Blind faith is shakey enough, but defiant faith is dangerous. Which brings me to my little table saying what I believe to be acceptable:


Good faith: Belief in something with strong evidence to support it. Ex: 2+2=4

Acceptable Faith: Belief in something with some evidence to support it and little to refute. Ex: I think this post will get a response.

Blind Faith: Belief in something with little or no evidence to support it, but little or none to refute it. Ex: I believe there's a teacup in orbit around Mars.

Defiant Faith: Belief in something with little or no evidence to support it, but strong evidence against it. Ex: The earth is flat.


We have words to accurately describe these, and they are: knowledge, beliefs, hunches, and stupidity respectively. My belief that there is no hell is good at best, and acceptable at worse.