Athiests. A question about morals.?

Question

Given that there is no Creator; therefore no such thing as spirituality; therefore no such thing as an external 'self'; therefore no 'I' or 'you'; the whole universe is one completely closed system of cause and effect. The human brain which gives the illusion of 'being' is itself just a very highly complex system of cause and effect. Therefore without a Creator, the very highest order of governance is cause and effect.

Surely then, if something happens; it was merely an effect brought on by a prior cause - then it follows that if one locality call it a 'he'; say that 'he' murdered your family; can it be claimed that such a happening was 'immoral' given that it happened - it was merely an element within the cause-effect paradigm; and things could not have happened any other way. Indeed, without a higher governance than cause-effect how could the concept of 'could have happened another way' even exist?

So, my main question - without a Creator, can morals exist? And, how can they be defined?

Answer 1

"Given that there is no Creator; therefore no such thing as spirituality; therefore no such thing as an external 'self'; therefore no 'I' or 'you';"



Ummmm...who says so, cupcake? Not me. Leap about much?



Your string of "givens" is nothing more than a ridiculous series of basically unconnected assumptions. It's like saying "given that there are no unicorns; therefore no such thing as burritos; therefore no such thing as swimming pools; therefore no college education..."





Morals come from our evolution as a social organism - our need to cooperate for survival is what led to the development of our social and moral senses. Every cooperative mammal species displays a moral sense with regard to its family/social group.

Answer 2

There is a self, but not external. It is internal and it is the biochemical reaction processor in our head, called the brain, therefore I and You is very real. Being is not an illusion. What we experience is a manifestation of signals that our brain puts together in a comprehensive form. There is no governance. There are laws of the universe. Gravity, electromagnetic forces, chemical reactions need a God to control them? They are not controlled. If they were, why would stars blow up?



Not, could have happened another way is something that went on in a paralel universe. Surely it could have, but if it already did, there is nothing to do.



Morals are something that developed and evolved over time, due to our time spent in groups which later formed society. We can see this in animals. In lower form, but the more intelligence, the more sense of fairness, reciprocity, bonding. They do not believe, why would they have them? God created them for man, why would they share our qualities?



All your views are based on the existance of a God. You also know not what morals actually are and nothing about evolution. You should learn before you talk about this. I did the same with your ridiculous religions.

Answer 3

It's just complete nonsense to say that without a supernatural creator there's no "you". Do we even have to address such ridiculousness?



Edit: You may want to read Sam Harris' book "The moral landscape" about how morality does exist without a creator. And my personal favourite scientist the Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker argues for objective morality from an atheist point of view in the chapter on morality of his 2008 book "The Blank Slate". Get cracking on those books if you're interested about that genuine thought-through stuff, which I doubt you are.

Answer 4

How would a creator change anything? Are you saying good is good and bad is bad only because a creator says so? So the creator could say rape is good and sharing is bad, and that would make sense to you? How so?



And causality isn't really affected by whether or not we were created through natural means or by some intelligent being. I don't see how that makes any difference.



EDIT: What exactly is your problem with my answer? I explained how the existence of a god does not make the explanation of morals any easier, unless you want to accept that rape could be good and sharing could be bad. I can't fully explain where morals come from, but I do like Kant's take. I could spend ten thousand words giving my thoughts on the origins or morality, but that's too much to type up. If you want a basic idea of morality without god, there are many theories out there.



But it is sufficient to show that adding god to the equation doesn't solve these problems, so it's silly to insist on a godless explanation. It would be like saying "Explain how to cure cancer, without using a picture of a goat. If you can't do it, you must admit that pictures of goats help cure cancer." Just because I can't cure cancer without one doesn't mean that a picture of a goat is necessary to the process. The thing is, I can't definitively explain morality without god, but it can't be definitively explained with god either, so god is no more important to the explanation of morality than a picture of a goat is to curing cancer.

Answer 5

Well, your first paragraph is completely wrong. There are plenty of people who are spiritual, but don't believe in gods. And to say, if there are not gods, there is no "I or you", is absurd. There rest is just gibberish.



To answer the question - yes, we can define morals without any gods. We are a social species. We rely on each other for survival. Bonding, protecting, working together. We developed these things to thrive. "Morals" evolved from that. If you kill someone, you hurt the group's chances of survival. If you hurt someone or take their things, you create animosity - you hurt the group. I don't like being hurt, so I will not hurt others. Empathy.



No gods needed.



If there were a "god" responsible for morality, wouldn't all people have the same morals? So why is it that morality has changed over the years? Why is it that people have different morals from country to country, state to state, city to city, person to person? My sense of morality now is not the same as it was 10, 20 years ago. It has changed and grown as I have changed and grown. If there were a "godly" influence, why would that happen?

Answer 6

Morals can exist without a Creator, and I do not see your logic behind how it does not. Morals are defined by the individual, and includes the strength of their personal conscious. Some people like murderers and rapists have been known to abandon these good morals, but that is their problem. And, one man's morals may be different than the man right next to him, and that is perfectly fine. We all assume our role in society, and based on these individual morals do we either build up or ruin ourselves. A "Creator" has nothing to do with it, for it is purely psychological.

Answer 7

Morals certainly exist without a creator. They are based off the three human taboos (cannibalism, murder, incest-funny abrahamic religions break all three). After this, sociobiological morals stem from not wanting repercussion and punishment. One a culture develops from this stem certain social norms and "morals" though these developed mostly through social behavior. In the age of antiquity, philosophy became a common practice and developed the notion of self action away from social norms but with personal accountability. Morals in the actions of good and evil are determined by personal honor and accountability, which is a large reason of why morals can vary largely. With cultural relativity taking place, we cannot expect morals to reflect the same content of "right and wrong".

Have you ever read The Moral Landscape? I really recommend it if you are interested in this topic.

Answer 8

I don't see why the two things seem to be tightly bound together all the time. There are many moral atheists just like there are many moral theists, and just as many that are immoral on either side. Society dictates morality, not religion. We would have figured out it was immoral to kill people and rape kids with or without religion. Of course, religion dictates killing and raping isn't bad if you're doing it in the name of god anyway, just look at the old testiment. But whether god exists or doesn't, it's always going to be society that tells you "this is good" and "This is bad". We call it immoral to have sex with family, but if the christian believes that adam and eve started the whole human race... well, you figure that one out.

Answer 9

therefore no such thing as an external 'self'; therefore no 'I' or 'you'



Your conclusion/opinion, nothing more.



The human brain which gives the illusion of 'being' is itself just a very highly complex system of cause and effect.



Again you have a pre-conclusion - cause and effect - as if it were specific.



Therefore without a Creator, the very highest order of governance is cause and effect.



Illogic promotes illogic.

Answer 10

yes morals can exist without the need for absolute morals



they can be define numerous ways like for example utilitarian morals which seeks the highest happiness for the largest number of people, usually when you do an action that people perceive good it gives the feeling that you are good which is what we thrive to achieve perceive ourselves as good person even though difference in education and culture may change these from person to person



''therefore no such thing as spirituality; therefore no such thing as an external 'self'; therefore no 'I' or 'you';''





I dont understand your point no god= no spirituality? spirituality is the works of the mind, the relation your consciousness have with the world outside of it, you do not need supernatural beings to make it exists

Answer 11

You seem to have had your nose spanked for linking a number of your own conclusions with the word "therefore" and the term "it follows" - when there is NO logical-flow to your argue-state-ment.



May I ask, does your Gods' morality extend to the animal kingdom? Some years back, I had a lovely pet cat - he was VERY self-aggrandising, egotistical and proud - everything was all about HIM. In the course of his development, I had him fixed, as he was something of a swaggering-thug about the neighbourhood - he was a shade under 20 pounds in weight! - and it seemed the responsible way to try to calm him down.

It was my usual habit to feed him in the evening outside. He took to eating all his food, but hassling me for more. I would open more, and put it out for him, but then he would approach a stray cat, a neutered female who he never spent any time with - she is very timid in nature. He would make a noise in her direction, and step away from the food - inviting her to come and eat his food, from his bowl. If a swaggering, "Me-Me-Me" cat can show compassion to another, and presumably isn't acting under the influence of your Gods' teaching, then can't you see that kindness and compassion may actually be choices of free-will, even by creatures rather below us in the intelligence scale?

After my beloved male cat was killed on the road, his stray friend adopted my house as hers, she lives and eats and sleeps here now, and now enjoys being petted and fussed-over. My cat COULD have easily bullied her away, but he chose to help her. I remember his kindness every day. RIP, Mr Boo, if you're up there. Well, is he?

Answer 12

A moral is a persons judgement of right and wrong. And the concern with its effects if any.



Morals are not taught through your Bible. Morals are passed on from parent to child. End of. argue that point all you want its fact you can understand your mother way before you can read. Now our morals are obtained the same way from our parents passed on. This passing on of information has been seen in all animals from mere ants to humans if you can't understand that there is something wrong with you. Everything we learn is information whether that be morals or how to eat it is all information that we apply to the real world. There is no need for us to believe in a God or for there to be a God we simply need a parent to learn from not necessarily a parent a friend another member of Earths circle of life.



I would personally say morals of right and wrong are 90% parent influenced 10% law abiding

and then that is subject to change as we grow up and study the world for ourselves.



-----------------------------

Reading your questions you are not clever you are nothing more than a common guy repeating the questions that have been asked over and over again in order to try and pivot yourself at the top of the tree to lord it over other people on the front of intellect.



1)

Atheism is the proposal of no God not a strong belief in science? Google it before asking questions.

An Atheists doesn't have to know anything about science and or life if they so choose.



2)

Repeating the same question over and over proves no intellectual ability.



3)

You can tell by your very questions you are trying to prove yourself as a clever person. By the simple fact you trash talk your way through several subjects that bear no relevance to your question in order to prove yourself as better in doing so you miss the point and fail.



People who are clever are proven so through their accomplishments not their talk.



4)

And finally how are you proving yourself any better than the Atheists you are trying to insult. You've simply lowered yourself to the 5% of Atheists you were trying to insult does that sound like the work of a genius? Considering you've asked an obvious repeated question.

Answer 13

Morals are subjective of course.





In our society it is immoral to have sex with children, however, it hasn't always been so.



So, morals exist obviously as a human concept, and invention. What is morally permissible and not, has also changed. At one point even in the bible slavery was okay, however now it is commonly seen as not.



So, morals are not absolute, there is no law giver, and yes they exist as a human invention.



--not superstitious

Answer 14

A mentally mature and healthy person will always be able to discern right from wrong. Morals exist one way or another and if you want to be 'moral less' good luck to you.

Answer 15

Your initial train of "then there's" things derails at "therefore no I or you."



And "morals" aren't "things" about which there is even a question of existence. They're subjective human concepts, not things that exist or not.

Stuff we like, we call "good" and "moral." Stuff we don't, we call "bad" and "immoral."

Those change from time to time, place to place, and by who is deciding what they like or don't like.

It's pretty obvious.



Peace.

Answer 16

Without a Creator, morals can and do exist. It's innate human solidarity, but that does not mean there are no psychopaths or sociopaths.

Answer 17

Morals evolved along with us. Behaviors that helped the tribe were encouraged/rewarded. Behaviors that harmed the tribe were discouraged/punished.

Answer 18

Your own brain gives you the illusion that it is working

sorry it does not major malfunction .

John

Answer 19

morals are not real either- just actions and reactions