Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[nameless]

[Replying to nameless in post #148]

"A religion is the congregation of those infected with the same or similar beliefs."

Your particular definition of religion certainly supports the assertion that the majority of human beings are religious, but how is that therefore, relevant to any position in particular (including either theism or atheism). Does that somehow make atheism and theism the same?

It is easy to find 'distinctions' between this and that in this duality of mortality in which we live.
It is not so 'instinctual' to find the commonalities.
Your average warrior would never know that Atheism is a religion. He might be confused at the symptoms displayed. If he did know, he might better understand the symptomology of Atheists and how it exactly matches the symptomology of any other 'believer'.
Symptomologically, Atheism and Xtianity is the same.
The only differences are 'local politics'.
It is a step to living our Oneness with the Universe, which is One, rather than tearing everything into bite-sized shreds.
"Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!"
Unconditional Love (touchstone of all health) assimilates into One.

Besides, in a logical discussion juxtaposing/comparing two religions, they both have to be defined as religions, otherwise we are comparing, falsely, apples and oranges. If they both fall into the same general category, they can now be rationally compared.

[help3434]

Atheism is a religion according to the definition that I brought forward, as is Xtianity...
[/quote]
The definition you brought forward was ""A religion is the congregation of those infected with the same or similar beliefs." Atheism is not a congregation and it is a singular lack of belief, so it doesn't meet that definition in any way

I never offered that 'theism' is a religion

You did in post 145

Yes, there are many 'strains' of religion and, like it or not, Atheism is one. Of course Atheists would deny this

Your own definition of "religion" contradicts it.

We focus from the overall reality down to all the dualities, all the subsets. You can argue the subsets all day (not rationally, of course), but not the overarching complete 'set' that is religion, and it is all based on belief infections!
Unless, until the 'religious' graduates to Mystic.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

[help3434]

It is easy to find 'distinctions' between this and that in this duality of mortality in which we live.
It is not so 'instinctual' to find the commonalities.
Your average warrior would never know that Atheism is a religion. He might be confused at the symptoms displayed. If he did know, he might better understand the symptomology of Atheists and how it exactly matches the symptomology of any other 'believer'.
Symptomologically, Atheism and Xtianity is the same.
The only differences are 'local politics'.
It is a step to living our Oneness with the Universe, which is One, rather than tearing everything into bite-sized shreds.
"Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!"
Unconditional Love (touchstone of all health) assimilates into One.

What does all this mean? It looks like word salad to me.

Besides, in a logical discussion juxtaposing/comparing two religions, they both have to be defined as religions, otherwise we are comparing, falsely, apples and oranges. If they both fall into the same general category, they can now be rationally compared.

Theism and atheism are the ones in the same category, not atheism and Christianity.

[William]

[Replying to nameless in post #151]

I think the less confusing definition of both positions would be "Culturalism" and that definition wouldn't reject any of the similarities of the opposing positions re theism and atheism.

A Culture is the congregation of those infected with the same or similar beliefs.

[nameless]

Atheism is a religion according to the definition that I brought forward, as is Xtianity...

The definition you brought forward was ""A religion is the congregation of those infected with the same or similar beliefs." Atheism is not a congregation and it is a singular lack of belief, so it doesn't meet that definition in any way

Like any Atheist, you are being disingenuous. There are even names for various strains of Atheism; American Atheists, etc... Named, like all good religions.
As there is no way to evidence the claim that "there is no God", it must be coming from a belief.
Any honest person, any 'non-believer' would simply call himself an Agnostic; "I have no opinion due to lack of evidence that I can accept. Give me evidence and I'll accept God." That is honest. They can provide no evidence in support so take no position.
The notion that you and "them" are one and the same really seems to irk Atheists! I've never seen a Xtian get as upset at the comparison as Atheists (in general, of course).
It clearly meets the definition.

Yes, there are many 'strains' of religion and, like it or not, Atheism is one. Of course Atheists would deny this

Your own definition of "religion" contradicts it.

I would appreciate it if, rather than simply naysaying, at least include what you are naysaying and at least a reason to support your naysaying.
My definition, lest ye forget, is simply;
A religion is the congregation of those with similar beliefs.
There is no contradiction, other than your unsupported claim.
Atheism certainly is a religion according to my definition.
Why is that so difficult for you to admit?
Perhaps because defending is a symptom of a belief infection. A simple thought doesn't need defense as it is willing to change in light of new evidence. Not beliefs.
More evidence of a religion!
As I am about to be banned by the forum Gods, I think that I have said everything that I need to say on the subject.
Peace

[help3434]

Like any Atheist, you are being disingenuous.

Rude and untrue.

There are even names for various strains of Atheism; American Atheists, etc... Named, like all good religions.

That's not a "strain" that simply an organization. Not that I have ever had any use for organized atheism.

As there is no way to evidence the claim that "there is no God", it must be coming from a belief.

Have you ever seen me claim that I know that "there is no God"? Its an unfalsifiable premise

The notion that you and "them" are one and the same really seems to irk Atheists! I've never seen a Xtian get as upset at the comparison as Atheists (in general, of course).
It clearly meets the definition.

I am just correcting the category error. I would imagine some Christians would get upset about taking the word "Christ" out of the name of their religion.

Yes, there are many 'strains' of religion and, like it or not, Atheism is one. Of course Atheists would deny this

Why is that?

I would appreciate it if, rather than simply naysaying, at least include what you are naysaying and at least a reason to support your naysaying.
My definition, lest ye forget, is simply;
A religion is the congregation of those with similar beliefs.

I already went over that. Atheism is not a congregation nor a belief system. Neither is general theism for that matter.

Atheism certainly is a religion according to my definition.
Why is that so difficult for you to admit?

Why is it so a hard to admit that your own definition clearly excludes broad categories such as atheism and theism being considered religions in of themselves? Its puzzling.

Perhaps because defending is a symptom of a belief infection. A simple thought doesn't need defense as it is willing to change in light of new evidence. Not beliefs.
More evidence of a religion!

What are you going on about now?

[CANTHELPMYSELF]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #2]
as an athiest, the golden rule is treat others how you wanna be treated. i dont see how just since we dont belive iin god means we are sociopaths or psycopaths? just because rationally it seems to not be good or evil, humans dont nessisary run on rational, its off of feelings. typically people feel bad when hurting others. or are raised to not hurt others, we live in a society where we are taught all lives are valued, we are nurtured to grow with empathy, whether if its backed with religion or with out athority figures or our comofort or discomfort

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

The entire debate hinges on an unstated, contested definition of "moral."

The forum participants talk past each other because they mean different things:

If morality means acting from pure, selfless, non-contingent goodwill — then almost no one qualifies. Both atheist and religious motives fail (biology/reward/obedience taint everything).

If morality means following a consistent rule-set that promotes human flourishing — then both can qualify, regardless of ultimate grounding. Actions matter more than motives.

If morality means obeying objective divine commands — then only theists can qualify (but only if they obey for the right reasons, not reward).

If morality means acting against immediate self-interest for another's benefit — then both can qualify, and the evolutionary or theological explanation for why that capacity exists becomes irrelevant.

The OP never defines the term. Without that, "can X be moral?" is unanswerable — like asking "can X be blargy?" The disagreement isn't really about atheists or the religious. It's about what counts as morality in the first place.

"If morality means obeying objective divine commands — then only theists can qualify (but only if they obey for the right reasons, not reward)." couples with "If morality means acting from pure, selfless, non-contingent goodwill — then almost no one qualifies. "

Combining those two definitions creates a paradox:

Morality requires obeying divine commands (so atheists automatically fail).

But obeying for reward or fear of punishment doesn't count (so most theists also fail).

And acting from pure, selfless goodwill with no taint (so virtually everyone fails).

The result: almost nobody is moral, regardless of belief. Only a hypothetical saint who obeys God purely out of disinterested love, with zero concern for heaven or hell, and with no evolutionary or psychological self-interest — that person qualifies.

That's vanishingly rare, if it exists at all.

The forum's OP senses this trap. Both critiques ("atheists are selfish apes" and "religious act for reward") push toward the same conclusion: the bar for "truly moral" might be set so high that no human clears it. Which raises the question: is that definition even useful? Or does it turn morality into an impossible ideal that no actual person can achieve, making the debate moot?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to CANTHELPMYSELF in post #157]

Hey canthelpmyself! Thanks for joining us here. I hope you get to share your thoughts and get to hear those that challenge yours as well.

I agree with you. I don’t think atheists are sociopaths, psychopaths, can’t be moral, etc. My point was something else. My point was that if atheism is true, then moral differences (treat others how you wanna be treated vs. use others for your own benefit) are really just like taste differences (I like chocolate but hate coffee ice cream flavors).

So, while we have been conditioned to think moral preferences should be treated differently than taste differences (we tolerate the person who likes coffee ice cream but not the rapist), there is no rational reason to treat them differently.

[help3434]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #159]

So, while we have been conditioned to think moral preferences should be treated differently than taste differences (we tolerate the person who likes coffee ice cream but not the rapist), there is no rational reason to treat them differently.

Its irrational to treat consequential differences in views differently than inconsequential differences in taste? It seems to me that it would be the epitome of irrationality to not treat these clearly different things... differently.