Are atheists equally moral?

[_Yong Xi]

I see no evidence to suggest that atheists are any less "moral" than others. Unless, of course, morality is defined as sexual purity. Accordingly, atheists may be labeled as "immoral".

I would think that morality/ethics to some degree has become innate as a tool for self preservation.

[_Scottie]

Sorry I was just trying to spark something beforehand.

The article spoke of empathy as the basis for morality. It said monkeys have been known to have empathy and that morality is pretty much an innate characteristic in humans. But it also said that a sense of right and wrong is useless until someone teaches you how to apply it.

To me that opened the door for the meaning of religion. Religion does in fact teach people this. The point is it doesn't all come naturally, even though the basic recipe is already there.

Religion is one way, but there are many others.

The article said that humans have a conflicted sense of when to help someone and when not to. It said the general rule was to help someone close to you, but humans are less likely to naturally want to help people on the other side of the planet. This is because they do not relate to them. One generally has empathy only towards those close to them.

So, what is behind most charities that raise money to feed the starving in Africa? Religions generally speaking.

Did the article say this? I'm not sure I believe it. The red cross does and peace corp does a hell of a lot to help people and they have no religious ties.

I'm trying to point out that religion can and does, help humans apply their innate sense of morality. Would there even be food sent to Africa, without theism? Even this scientific piece seemed to unwittingly admit the need for some outside guidance, although it doesn't come right out and say "Good thing we have religion." It did refer to the "Good Samaritan" principle however.

As I said, religion can be an institution for providing morals, but it does it in the wrong way. The morals are completely fear based. Religion teaches that you MUST be moral, otherwise a vengeful God will send you to eternal torment. So, although it may teach morals, I don't think it teaches altruism.

[_Gadianton]

I think a point is being missed here.

If humans need some kind of guidance in order to properly apply the innate morality that comes already in their henetic makeup, then what guidance do atheists rely upon?

I gave one example of an influential atheist, Comte. To drive the point home, Comte's enlightenment on the issue, as an atheist, was so influential that the word he himself made up, "altruism" is tossed around by Christians as if it were their own. If you haven't done so, you ought to read a book on ethics. It might surprise you the kind of insights and "guidence" that godless thinkers have come up with.

Theists already have the required guidance system to properly apply morality to where it extends beyond the immediate area. They are taught to give to anyone and everyone who needs it, no matter who they are or where they live.

Which is why there is a big sign inside the gates of the Salt Lake City temple instructing visitors not to give to the beggers outside. Western governments with socialist leanings practice the "give to anyone and everyone" almost to a fault.

Without this religious mechanism how can atheists match a Christian's morality?

Look at Europe.

Without some kind of guidance mechanism, according to social science, the natural human isn't going to give food and money to complete strangers on the other side of the planet. At best, they will give a dollar to a guy on the side of the road, only if they happen to feel empathy.

Enter utilitarianism or secular deontology...

The article made it seem like the natural morality in humans was very limited, just as it is in apes. Only when it is guided by a system of rules and regilations does his obtain any sense of meaning. My question is simply this. What guidance system does the atheist rely upon?

You've read one article. Have you ever read a book on ethics? Just curious. As I clearly stated, there are a number of nontheistic ethical frameworks. Comte is a good place to start.

How many atheists here are involved in charities abroad? Be honest.

Why is charity abroad better than seeing to the needs of immigrants and poor in your own nation?

[_MishMagnet]

International Aid Programs Active in Sub-Saharan Africa


Action Against Hunger/USA
Action Against Hunger/USA is one of five Action Against Hunger organizations. Founded in France in 1979 to help eliminate hunger, especially during events such as conflicts, wars, and natural disasters, Action Against Hunger administers programs that focus on nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, and health issues in conjunction with local and national programs. Action Against Hunger/USA began operations in 1985. Spain, Canada, and the United Kingdom make up the remaining Action Against Hunger organizations.


CARE
Founded in 1945 to provide help to World War II survivors, CARE has since become one of the world's largest private relief organizations. Its mission is to fight global poverty by focusing efforts on the world's poor, with a special emphasis on women. Efforts are focused on basic education, health concerns such as HIV, clean water and sanitation, economic development, and protection of natural resources. CARE also provides emergency aid to survivors of natural disasters and human conflicts.


Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
The CDC, founded in 1946, is a U.S. government organization under the Department of Health and Human Services. CDC's goals are to achieve and protect health through preventing and controlling disease, providing reliable health information, conducting research, and detecting and investigating health issues worldwide.


Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)
Founded in 1971, MSF doctors, nurses, and other medical and non-medical staff are frequently the first to arrive after disaster strikes. MSF personnel, working with locally hired staff, provides emergency and essential health care, including surgery and mental health care; rehabilitates and manages hospitals and clinics; and provides vaccinations, food, and clean water. The nonprofit, private organization also runs various infectious disease programs and monitors, diagnoses, and controls disease outbreaks. Additionally MSF acts as an advocate for victims by speaking out about their plight and working for change. In 2007 MSF staff was involved in more than 4,700 aid assignments.


International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

New York Delegation to the UN
International Federation
The world's largest humanitarian organization, typically known as the Red Cross in the U.S., seeks to assist all residents of the world by providing emergency preparedness and assistance in situations such as war or natural disasters, and health care in every community of the world. The first Red Cross organization was founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland with the purpose of providing medical aid and other assistance to wounded soldiers. Other Red Cross organizations followed. In 1919, just after World War II, the international organization uniting all Red Cross societies was born. Since its early days the mission of the Red Cross has expanded from providing aid to military wounded to providing aid to victims of natural disasters, health emergencies, and other events and circumstances.


International Medical Corps
Established in 1984 by volunteer medical personnel, International Medical Corps (IMC) is a nonpolitical, nonsectarian, nonprofit organization dedicated to heath issues through education and training, medical assistance, and relief programs. One of the first international aid organizations created to train local personnel to administer aid, IMC is active in more than 40 areas on four continents, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.


International Rescue Committee (IRC)
Founded in 1933 to provide refugee assistance to victims of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco on the eve of World War II, the International Rescue Committee now provides medical and health relief to victims of conflict and war and natural and other disasters. Active in 25 countries, the IRC's emphasis is on primary, reproductive, environmental, and child health. IRC personnel works in refugee camps, disaster areas, and host countries where refugees are gathered.


Merlin
A United Kingdom charity, Merlin specializes in providing health care and medical aid worldwide for victims of natural disasters, conflicts and wars, and epidemics. Since its founding in 1993, Merlin has provided medical and other health assistance in Afghanistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Russia, Honduras, Tajikistan, India, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Sudan, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.


Peace Corps
Begun in 1961, the Peace Corps government organization that uses volunteers to provide assistance worldwide. Since its creation, more than 187,000 volunteers have worked in 139 countries, providing assistance related to education, community development, and conservation. Nearly 8,000 volunteers are currently active in 73 countries.


Save the Children
Save the Children is an international organization working in 110 countries to support the health of children. Begun in 1932, this international relief and development organization focuses on developing strategies so that the community programs can become self-sustaining. Save the Children is active in 50 countries, including sub-Saharan Africa.


United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
Working in 191 countries, UNICEF promotes the care of the world's children through programs focusing on child survival and development, HIV/AIDS education and treatment, child protection, gender equality, education, immunizations, preventive health care, sanitation, and policy advocacy.


The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID is an independent governmental agency that provides assistance around the world in matters of economic development, global health, and humanitarian assistance. Begun in the period just after World War II, and the reconstruction of Europe, USAID is active worldwide. Activities in Africa are focused on education; health services, including AIDS/HIV prevention; agricultural development; conflict resolution; conservation; and promoting trade and investment.


World Heath Organization (WHO)
The World Health Organization, founded in 1948, is the coordinating authority for global health within the United Nations, employing more than 8,000 people from over 150 countries. All global health matters, including strengthening health systems; monitoring health trends, including disease outbreaks; and providing technical support to countries fall under the parameters of this organization.

Source: WiseTo Social Issues Digest. Copyright © 2007 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

These are the powerhouses making a difference in Africa. None of them are religiously based. Most certainly there are church organizations helping. There are also governments helping (ours is one of them.) Why can't it just be that good people are helping? In my city we had a community school supplies drive and the atheist group was there right next to the Presbyterians. I do not understand why it's hard to imagine people being altruistic just for altruisms sake. Do you believe that without religion you'd be a thief and murderer right now? Certainly your religious indoctrination is not all that is keeping you from a life of crime.

Are you a nevermo, dartagnan? I grew up in an environment where we did a lot of service. Really a lot. Yes, this very well could be the reason I've continued the same thing after I lost my faith in the Mormon church and on to being an agnostic. The Mormon religion could very well be the reason I'm altruistic and have a strong sense of family. That is the only environment I was raised in so I don't know anything else. I've been told by other Mormons - well, even if it's not true there's so much good in it I wouldn't leave. Is this what you are getting at with this post? Should one be required to stick with a religion for the good even if it is no longer 'true' to the individual?

[_Gadianton]

The Mormon ethic has long been, basically, "teach a man to fish". Feed him forever, and he could become a parasite on society. Taxes will be usurped on bludgers. This is not the same as helping the genuine poor, whether in America, or Africa. Remember Joseph Smith's revelation: Wo unto the rich who take advantage of ther poor, but wo unto the poor who refuse to work and siphon the rich. There has to be a balance. This is not a competition to see who's the most charitable, but the most practical in solving problems

.

I don't think there are any easy answers, not sure if there are any hard ones either. But, for the moment, let's bracket the overal effectiveness of welfare, and look at the point of Kevin's article. If the claim is that man needs some kind of a system to essentially promet giving to foreigners, then secular western government has succeeded to a fault, as I mentioned in my post to Kevin.

What the best way is to go about fixing the problem of poverty? Honestly, I have no idea. There's something to be said for giving a man a fishing pole, but it's not easy. He might not want to fish, he might no take to the pole, or it might be more trouble than it's worth. And then do you let him starve? No easy answer that I can see.

[_Some Schmo]

I think a point is being missed here.

If humans need some kind of guidance in order to properly apply the innate morality that comes already in their henetic makeup, then what guidance do atheists rely upon?

Ideally, for both atheists and theists, it should come from parents, and from a person's own common sense.

Saying you believe atheists are more moral than theists is just nonsense based on a need to believe.

They may not be more moral, but they certainly aren't any less moral either. Religion has nothing to do with making people moral. Usually, a person chooses their religion because it's in harmony with their own sense of morality, not the other way around. Saying you believe theists are more moral than atheists is just nonsense based on a need to believe (if one were to say that).

One thing is for certain: atheists generally take more personal responsibility than theists (and, as a consequense, are naturally more mature adults). They do the right thing because they answer to themselves, not because they have to do the right thing in order to satisfy some imaginary boogie man in the sky.

If there's any good that religion does at all, it's to keep my unintelligent in line who say that without religion, they'd rape, cheat, lie, steal, and kill with abandon. That's about it. Again, religion is for people who refuse, for whatever reason, to simply take responsibility for themselves (or have been so indoctrinated, they don't know they can). It has no redeeming value other than as a pretentious social club for the not so bright.

[_EAllusion]

Kevin G. asks how atheists can be moral if they lack religion to teach them morality - a code of conduct to harness their empathetic impulses. I think the answer to this is fairly obvious. They are taught it from other non-religious cultural sources, such as their parents, teachers, peers, and literature. This, I would add, is not too different from how children raised in religious environments pick up on right and wrong. It just doesn't include specific things like "Their Sunday School Teacher" or "Scriptures." Notions of proper and improper conduct exist regardless of religion.

Saying you believe atheists are more moral than theists is just nonsense based on a need to believe.

Why? In the US, atheists are better educated and wealthier than their nontheist counterparts. Those traits happen to correlate reasonably well with what we think of as moral behavior. So atheists are measured as having lower incarceration rates, etc. which may serve as an indirect means to measure moral behavior. So I wouldn't go so far as to call such an assertion "nonsense." Comparing the level of morality of atheists and theists might be too complex to be within our grasp, but to assert that atheism coming out on top (presumably because one needs religion to be moral) is nonsensical betrays some serious misunderstanding of human behavior.

[_Zoidberg]

Read Marc Hauser

For those interested in the answer to dart's question, you can contribute to finding it by participating in the Moral Sense Test.

He has already done some similar studies that help answer this question, but you should take the test first so as not to bring bias into it.

[_Calculus Crusader]

[Religion] has no redeeming value other than as a pretentious social club for the not so bright.

If that were true, then I would expect you to be a religious zealot.

[_Some Schmo]

[Religion] has no redeeming value other than as a pretentious social club for the not so bright.

If that were true, then I would expect you to be a religious zealot.

Yeah, but you're an idiot. So what?