Last modified on October 27, 2022, at 14:13

Talk:Atheism and morality

Return to "Atheism and morality" page.

Inclusion of Bertrand Russell?

One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. WalksAmongUs 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. canadianredtory

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:

Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--ScottForschler 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Inappropriate Comment

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --PaulLaroque 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --PaulLaroque 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. BHarlan 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
If its verified then provide a reliable reference. But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --PaulLaroque 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Fundamentally Incapable

The first sentence in this article says "atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality". Now, this is plain wrong. I obviously have morals. I don't go around killing people and doing cocaine and raping people. Just because I figured out and thought for myself and discovered my morales, and did not have them hand fed me from a 2000 year old book that promotes hating people different from myself. This article is full of libel and should be heavily edited.

Actually, the article indicates that atheism is incapable of providing a coherent system of morality which is an absolutely true statement and the sentence contains relevant footnotes. Conservative (talk) 10:56, September 21, 2021 (EDT)
Libel, I have to laugh out loud at that. Throwing around words like that without any comprehension of their actual meaning makes you look incredibly ignorant.
As to whether or not atheists have morals, they can't. What's more, atheists really don't have a purpose in life; it's all about me for them with no real consequences for their actions. Morals are based on religion; God has a reason for our existance and defines consequences for our actions, but since atheists don't believe in God, atheists have no morals. DMorris 11:39, 5 March 2010 (EST)
I disagree. Morals are, of course, influenced and promoted by religion, and no one can deny that; but atheists are not immoral by NECESSITY. There are cynical and selfish atheists, but there are also atheists and agnostics who love their fellow human, and have a purpose in life, although not believing in the existance of God, or in an afterlife. --Maquissar 12:23, 5 March 2010 (EST)
God touches atheists whether they credit him or not, and they show it whether they like it or not. The more distant one is from Jesus and our Lord, the less morals they have. Even atheists accept God to a certain extent whether they like it or not, and to accept God, one has to believe somewhere deep inside. I personally find it hard to believe that a true atheist, that believes that we all just came out of no where, actually exists. A truely "Godless" person would be completely ruthless, or at least that's my hypothesis. DMorris 15:09, 5 March 2010 (EST)
I'm an atheist, and yet I have morals. OR DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!

Neither of you have anything backing your awfully bigoted and bold argument that because I and the original poster believe in atheism, that we have no morals. Morals do not have to be based on belief in a deity. They can be based on reasons such as mutual respect for the common man, to abide by rules and regulations to avoid trouble, and to help discover one's self.

I do not accept Jesus as my savior, and yet I have an incredible sense of morality. I, and not you or anyone else on this wiki has any authority to judge my morality based on belief in a god alone. The mere concept of judging one's morality based on belief in a deity is bigotry and stupidity at it's purest.

Your 'God' did not send you down here to talk down to people who you feel are lesser than you are. Even if there is a God, I can imagine he would be wholeheartedly disgusted with this wiki and it's managers for prejudging people based on who they are and what they politically and religiously believe.

Watch my opinion get censored for who I am and how I'm politically aligned like thousands of others have, ironic considering how the managers of this wiki appear to feel that the criticism of FNC and the Wall Street Journal editorials is based on a disregard of the 1st amendment.

Oh, and if you think that blocking this IP for half a decade is going to stop me, you're going to stop an entire airport from contributing to this wiki. With that kind of banning rationale, you guys will never leave a significant mark on the Internet.--TomRobinson 18:08, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that as a Christian, it offends ME that there are Christians who are so incredibly judgemental to believe that simply because someone doesn't believe in God, they are immoral. Religion gives people a set of morals to follow, but it is not the ONLY thing that can give people a set of morals to follow. And to believe that all who believe in God are moral is also ignorant - the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian fundamentalist organisation, which I highly doubt anyone on this website would consider to have been moral. And lastly, I'm very glad that not all Christians are as ignorant and judgemental as some of those on this website. - JamesCA 21:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
JamesCA, if you are a Christian, then why are you ignoring how the Bible describes atheists? Please tell us what the Bible says about atheists and what Bible says about the character of fools. Conservative 01:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am a Christian, and I see no reason for you to doubt that. Romans 2:10-16 "(10) But all who do right will be rewarded with glory, honour and peace, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. (11) God doesn't have any favourites! (12) Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. (13) God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it. (14) Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they haven't got the Law. (15) This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, (16) when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says." The rest of Romans 2 is also worth reading. In summary, it says that following God's laws is more important than believing he exists, and that non-believers who follow his laws are better off than believers who don't follow his laws. Therefore, non-believers are able to follow God's laws, and hence are able to be moral. - JamesCA 09:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
@TomRobinson The concept of morality by definition implies the existense of God and this has never changed because it is the simple truth, with your comment you did exactly the same mistake that everyone else like you did and this is why it has never been able to account morality on atheism, because it is logically impossible, the problem is that you are confusing ontology with epistemology, on ontological concepts it does not matter what you personally believe in and it also does not matter what particular religion you mention (you seem to hate christianity in particularwhich is the typical neckbeard atheist behavior). The issue is that without the existense of God, everything becomes relative and meaningless since there is no objective standard beyond subjective human opinions to ground anything at all, including other immaterial concepts such as truth or logic, so in return there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil since there is no standard to derive anything from. Of course there is not a single person in the world that can live for a day without a theistic framework because we all take morality for granted. Kirikagure 09:24, 27 October 2022 (EDT)

Rename to Atheism and immorality

This title is more what the article is about. Atheism and obesity is not "Atheism and diet". There's no need for euphemisms here.--Briella Rollert 17:43, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the article, surely there should be a consensus that the title should be accurate. It's almost as silly of a title as the 'Counterexamples to the Bible' the first sentence of which is "There are no Counterexamples to the Bible". - JamesCA 21:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
Atheism and morality is a good title. Morality measures atheism and atheism doesn't measure up. Conservative 01:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't see how the second sentence supports your point of view. The title is misleading, as the article is about the opposite of what the title says, and I think this requires a decent justification. - JamesCA 09:41, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia already has an article with the title: Atheist population and immorality. And the article has a heavy emphasis on the immorality of the atheist population.Conservative (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (EDT)