Do you need God to be moral?

[Abstract Debauchery]

Now, let me be clear, I'm not a "moral" person. I choose not to be. Sure, every now and then I'll throw a dollar to a homeless man, but I'm not the type to spend months on end helping people less fortunate than I am.

I was once told by a Christian that as an Atheist, I couldn't experience true morality. I was limited, and as such, I would never know what it is to be truly moral.

Already having a response, I told him that as an Atheist, I believe that I'm able to experience a better sense of morality. I have the capability to perform good, and to preform acts of kindness out of my own heart. I do not have to worry about being sent to Hell, or getting eternal rewards in the afterlife. I don't have to be scared into it, or bribed.

As an Atheist, I preform good because I want to, not because a religion requires it of me.

Therefore, I believe that one doesn't need God to be moral, and, in my opinion of course, one can experience morality to a higher degree without religion at all, because he or she is doing so without fear of judgment.

Of course, a lot of people probably won't agree with me, so I figured this may spark up some interesting conversation among the community, which is why I make this thread.

What do you think?

 

[Madaraki]

I'm actually a Christian but I pretty much agree with everything you said on some sort of deity not being necessary.

To paraphrase: I do good things for people because it gives me a nice warm fuzzy feeling, not because someone higher up in the religion totem has suggested I should. To be quite honest; it bugs me a little bit when a priest/reverend/pastor gets up and goes on about "Christian goodness" because it just feels too self-inflating.


[political]Besides, the way some people on the far right tend to define "morality" nowadays...I'm quite glad not to fit with the stereotype.[/political]

 

[Pandora]

I may be a Christian Scientist, but I'm realistic as well. I personally believe that whether people believe in a god or not, nobody can be the most moral person in the world. I believe in God, but that does that automatically mean that I am or will experience true morality? Of course not - and I very much know this. The super religious people like that should at least be grateful that I'm being good at all, say like donating at least $50 to the majority of funds that have taken place due to a natural disaster or volunteering to help special needs kids - nice things to do, but that doesn't define me as perfectly moral, whether I believe in God or not; they're not perfect either.
And I had thought just now that some (not all) Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses for a good example) need to know that sometimes they ignore their own teaching that everyone is a sinner; so whatever their definition of morality is, it would be hypocritical for them to say any one that's non-believing or is involved with "false religion" can't be truly moral when they can't be either. When certain people act as if they know they're not moral at everything, they shouldn't scold or accuse anyone of not being truly moral or not having the capability of being truly moral. Not everyone thinks like them, and they have the choice, regardless of beliefs, if they want to be moral or not .
​

 

[Jacqui]

The way I see it, it doesn't matter whether you have a religion or not. If you're nice or good to someone, it feels good, you don't need rewarding for it because you've already been rewarded. True, religion may have a part in it, but that doesn't mean it has to.

 

[sephiroth24300]

aggreement...

i agree with you darquewillow. i believe in god, but only do something good if I WANT TO, or if there is an oppurtunity to do so, not because by doing so that i will gain entry into heaven. but to truly answer your question, i believe, that it depends on what your definition of "MORAL" is and how far you are willing to take it. anyone agree?

 

[Valvalis]

Honestly, I think any time an atheist performs a kind action, that's proof right there that belief in a god is not necessary for morality. I have heard the argument from some people that when people are kind, that's a sign of God working through them, but I would think that this conflicts with the idea of free will, which I think is also a basic concept in at least some religions: we're separated from other animals by our ability to make choices, and that's supposedly how we're sorted out between heaven or hell etc. after we die. We obviously can't know any of these things for sure at this point, but as a (non-denominational) Christian, I am more inclined to believe the latter; it just makes more sense to me, because if religious people had no free will and were automatically moral, then I don't think Jesus's role as a savior would have been necessary.

As far as whether choosing to believe in a religion makes one more moral, I don't think that's true either. I think there is a common stereotype in place connecting religion and morality because of the basic codes of conduct (i.e., the Commandments); however, one doesn't have to go through any special rituals or anything to behave according to their guidelines. A lot of it is just common sense, like not killing your neighbors, stealing, or committing adultery. I think the reactions we have to things like that, whether good or bad, are quite fundamental, and aversion to them doesn't need to be learned through any religion; if as a kid, you steal a piece of candy from your friend, they're likely to have some sort of negative reaction that will teach you not to do it again (unless, of course, you want that sort of reaction). Whether they cry, kick you, or nuke your house, the result of the crime is going to be unpleasant for you somehow, and you have the potential to learn morals from the experience as a result.

It's hard to say at what point children are mature enough to genuinely want other people to be happy without expecting anything in return, but eventually as adults anyway, we end up wanting to be genuinely kind to others either to get the good feeling from it, or out of empathy, because we know we would appreciate the same kind of treatment if the tables were turned. And though I don't think it's impossible to be inspired to do good by watching religious people commit generous acts (volunteering to help homeless or sick people, etc.), with all the bigotry and domineering that's done in the name of religions, and some of those people honestly believing they're doing the right thing, IMO I don't see how religion can be seen as automatically implanting "ultimate" morality into people. Because, even if the religion's precepts are moral, there are plenty of people who claim to be religious who don't adhere to them entirely, or at all, and may also interpret the teachings as being exclusive to only one or a few particular cultures/groups of people.

 

[Harlequin]

The problem with this discussion is that absolutely nothing determines what makes an Athiest moral. You could call yourself a humanist, but again all that tells the next person is that you play at thinking for yourself, even if that person is also a humanist. No one does, no one ever will.

Whether religious or not, we've all been influenced by society and occurances in our lives. We'll naturally hold on to ideas we can identify with, we'll naturally believe exactly what we want to believe.

The bottom line is every action we wilfully carry out we do so because there is some form of recompense. If I donate to the poor, I'm getting a sense of satisfaction from helping someone, it's not synonymous with 'morality'.

 

[Channizard]

Is this do you need GOD God, or do you need A God? Not much of a difference but there is some... If you need Christian GOD God then morality is indeed limited because people tend to do more nice things, or not do immoral 'bad' things because of the whole Heaven vs Hell thing.

Versus if you need A God to do moral things, well a lot of other religions don't push judgement upon death and where you go, as severely as Christianity does. Christianity is very black and white on "do or don't do these things, and go here"... whereas with most other religions, neither Hell nor Heaven exists, you just go into the afterlife and be, or get reincarnated, or go to Limbo which is neither good nor bad.

 

[Shu]

The problem with this discussion is that absolutely nothing determines what makes an Athiest moral. You could call yourself a humanist, but again all that tells the next person is that you play at thinking for yourself, even if that person is also a humanist. No one does, no one ever will.

Does what? Not following this paragraph much at at all. Are you saying no one can be a humanist?

Whether religious or not, we've all been influenced by society and occurances in our lives. We'll naturally hold on to ideas we can identify with, we'll naturally believe exactly what we want to believe.

I agree, though we tend to over identify sometimes as well. We also try futility to stand behind failing beliefs. This is why we have half of the government failures as is. We try to learn from our mistakes, and become more wise with each blunder, but sometimes people don't know how to just "mesh". What do I mean by meshing? Well we can't just "be" we always have to be involved and always have to make ourselves feel important. I am no exception to the rule. We live off of controversy, drama, and we make a mistake in thinking this is just part of life.

When talking about atheists and people who call themselves, there is a subtle difference, wisdom and experience. If you get brought down to the lowest of lows in your life, meaning rock bottom, and you do not pray or cry out, then I will call you an atheist.

I've seen a handful, but these people are pretty wise beyond my years. Though then again some of these atheists are in fact anarchists, where they seek to deconstruct every view that you ever had for their own personal pleasure.

Though morality to me is different than it is to you. Atheists often times live by their own morality. They might have taken things from religion or books that were inspired by a religious person, but they they think religion is evil often times. I can half agree with calling religion evil, only because I've seen what it can lead to, but I can see the good in it as well.

I can say corporal punishment is ethical, because I know I learned from it. While people who call corporal punishment non ethical, probably just are over sheltered and haven't taken time to observe the variables from afar.

I also say some medication is evil, while others are like "IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT THEY WOULD KILL THEMSELVES @#UJSIDJAS!" It's just I think we over medicate in today's society and feel less in which means we live less. I will never take a pill to escape or conform.

The bottom line is every action we wilfully carry out we do so because there is some form of recompense. If I donate to the poor, I'm getting a sense of satisfaction from helping someone, it's not synonymous with 'morality'.

For every action there is a reaction. I believe in karma. I'm not saying donating to the poor does shiznit for me, but helping someone who can't express how to ask for help, is virtue to me. I don't believe in Jesus Christ as a savior. I don't believe in the New Testament as much, but I can take things from the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/many books of bhuddism/..etc.

It's a gift, there for some, but not for everyone.

 

[Harlequin]

Does what? Not following this paragraph much at at all. Are you saying no one can be a humanist?

No I meant Athiest morality is completely undetermined. Humanism isn't so much a moral code as it is a malleable construct, and explanation as to how an individual bases their beliefs in action rather than a reference.

We live off of controversy, drama, and we make a mistake in thinking this is just part of life.

I agree in principle, but I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Society is rife with one-upmanship, there will never be a utopia as long as there is individual ambition. Drama and controversy are just part of the package.

When talking about atheists and people who call themselves atheists is experience. If you get brought down to the lowest of lows in your life, meaning rock bottom, and you do not pray or cry out, then I will call you an atheist.

Well I'll call someone who believes there is no such thing as spirituality an Athiest. If you've hit rock bottom chances are you're going to believe there is no Deity helping you along, so to me that is a clear example of identification in an ideal.

Though morality to me is different than it is to you. Atheists often times live by their own morality. They might have taken things from religion or books that were inspired by a religious person, but they they think religion is evil often times. I can half agree with calling religion evil, only because I've seen what it can lead to, but I can see the good in it as well.

But you do realise it's the people who take an ideal on and use it, rather than the religion grabbing a hold of them? I know exactly what you mean by what you've said, (Crusades, Jihad, etc) but we can look back now and ask did these people interpret correctly? Maybe, maybe not, but no one is in a position to give an irrefutable answer to that question.

 

[Shu]

But you do realise it's the people who take an ideal on and use it, rather than the religion grabbing a hold of them? I know exactly what you mean by what you've said, (Crusades, Jihad, etc) but we can look back now and ask did these people interpret correctly? Maybe, maybe not, but no one is in a position to give an irrefutable answer to that question.

I do know this, but I also know that "people" wrote these books. Not a god, not an angel, just a man who has his own ideals. If you think about it, every religious figure had some type of "spiritual" walk, in which often times is always questioned. There are some things in the book even an atheists follows passively without knowledge. It's just they tried to fill these books up with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, they could think of that "they" determined immoral and wrong.

The only thing that has ever really made a little sense to me was bhuddism because of self discovery. Everything else is.. always based around "what others think" per se. I agree many times in the bible there were hints of integrity, but how can one learn live and grow, when someone follows someone else's ideals so strictly.

I don't think religion was ever supposed to be forced upon, and I think it is always natural to want to have some foundation and try to let your child grow up in a spiritual background, but only he or she will choose in the end what they believe.

God to me, is you. You are your own self perceived god. I'm not meaning that in an "all knowing, all seeing, always there" sort of way. I'm saying, you are the only one who knows you. You are the only one who in the end, can take care of you. You will identify with many people in your life and be guided/misguided but make sure you always keep "you". Only then can you really experience life with other people. Never be led by the hand, and never lead others by the hand.. just push them in the direction in which you feel is best. Otherwise you may cripple them to be independent.

These ill perceived Ideals as you say Harley, to me are actually the evils in which causes folks to take up a banner and march on their brother. They take a few things out of context and boom, they start a damn war.

I won't reflect on competition, because I believe we actually said the same thing. It is needed, I acknowledge this, but that's about it. The drama though that ensues to me though, is not needed.

It doesn't take a God to be ethical.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Well we can't just "be" we always have to be involved and always have to make ourselves feel important. I am no exception to the rule. We live off of controversy, drama, and we make a mistake in thinking this is just part of life.

Which is why I simply stopped caring, for the most part. I tend to not put much thought at all on something unless it directly concerns myself. I can deal without the controversy and drama.

When talking about atheists and people who call themselves, there is a subtle difference, wisdom and experience. If you get brought down to the lowest of lows in your life, meaning rock bottom, and you do not pray or cry out, then I will call you an atheist.

While I don't necessarily like this argument, I can see the logic in why you would use it. I've hit rock bottom. I was homeless while in my Senior year of high school. I fought for my food, I went to school, I did my work, and I graduated. Not once did I beg for help from some deity, not once did I even consider it.

I don't have to thank any kind of God to be where I am today. I worked my ass off, I did what I had to do, and I was the one the suffered until I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and got back on my feet.

Everyday I hear people thanking God that they got where they are, and it makes me sick. They got themselves to that point, not some God.

I've seen a handful, but these people are pretty wise beyond my years. Though then again some of these atheists are in fact anarchists, where they seek to deconstruct every view that you ever had for their own personal pleasure.

I agree. I've met Atheists who essentially called themselves such because they thought it was cool. I tend to avoid those people as much as possible. One day, I'm pretty sure I'll see them one day, calling themselves "born again Christians".

I guess a certain amount of drama comes from that. A Christian that introduces themselves as just a Christian will never get as much attention as some ass hat that calls themselves "born again". People flock to hear his half-assed backstory.

Though morality to me is different than it is to you. Atheists often times live by their own morality. They might have taken things from religion or books that were inspired by a religious person, but they they think religion is evil often times. I can half agree with calling religion evil, only because I've seen what it can lead to, but I can see the good in it as well.

I don't see why someone would need to look for an idea on how to be moral. You don't need to get an idea from religion, or any book. It's not that hard. Just take some cash, give it to someone less fortunate than yourself. Sure, one could say "[insert religious figure here] did this", whoop de fucking do, that doesn't mean that they gave money to a homeless man because some religious figure did.

Religion, to me, isn't evil. However, organized religion is something I'm not to fond of.

I can say corporal punishment is ethical, because I know I learned from it. While people who call corporal punishment non ethical, probably just are over sheltered and haven't taken time to observe the variables from afar.

I agree, 100%.

I also say some medication is evil, while others are like "IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT THEY WOULD KILL THEMSELVES @#UJSIDJAS!" It's just I think we over medicate in today's society and feel less in which means we live less. I will never take a pill to escape or conform.

It's much easier to take a pill to get happy than it is to sort your problems out. People have gotten lazy. Why work through things when you can make them go away with a simple pill?

The less medication, as far as I'm concerned, the better.

For every action there is a reaction. I believe in karma. I'm not saying donating to the poor does shiznit for me, but helping someone who can't express how to ask for help, is virtue to me. I don't believe in Jesus Christ as a savior. I don't believe in the New Testament as much, but I can take things from the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/many books of bhuddism/..etc.

It's a gift, there for some, but not for everyone.

While I don't believe in Karma, I do like the idea. It's a great code to live by, just like "The Golden Rule" ect. ect.

I agree in principle, but I think you're giving humanity too much credit. Society is rife with one-upmanship, there will never be a utopia as long as there is individual ambition. Drama and controversy are just part of the package.

I couldn't have ever said this better myself.

but how can one learn live and grow, when someone follows someone else's ideals so strictly.

Going back to why I have a problem with organized religion, I feel that it not only teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world, but it also restricts their growth. You do what the book says, and nothing else. Even if one believes in a God, I believe that they should be allowed to be a free thinker.

It doesn't take a God to be ethical.

Word.

 

[Unsung]

True morality? No person is truly moral whether they are religious or not. Everybody is flawed in their own way which prevents them from being truly moral. That's how we were made.

 

[10th Doctor]

Anyone can be moral if they have a strong enough conscience. I mean... I think people want to be good, god or not. I myself am agnostic, and I won't throw myself into any public service, but I do try to help when I'm needed.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

True morality? No person is truly moral whether they are religious or not. Everybody is flawed in their own way which prevents them from being truly moral. That's how we were made.

True morality is impossible. We all have carnal influences. If anyone was 100% moral, they would be God.
And in lieu of that, take into consideration the idea of 'true morality'. Sometimes it can be mistaken for immorality, as we do not see the complexities of everything as a whole.

However, I do believe that people have a responsibility to be moral. The rationale shouldn't have to be explained.

 

[Sir Fratley]

Religions set guidelines within which they view what is moral and what is not. If you compare all of the laws from every accepted religion (Scientology is not one of them as it's been proven an intentional scam), you'll find there are several laws that, while worded differently, overlap one another. These are laws I consider to be universal laws, a common thread that links to my theory that all different Gods and Goddesses are Aspects of one Divine Entity (many paths, one goal). Of course, we must always remember that regardless of whether these laws were spoken down to man or not, they were written by humans, some of which have been altered through the ages, sometimes in dark ways (ie., King James and his addition of 'Thou shalt not permit a witch to live.' due to his fear and hate of the pagans, which clearly contradicts 'Thou shall not kill').

However, I believe these universal laws are not so much written as they are ingrained in our very beings. There are certain actions that, by instinct, we know are right or wrong. It's all about what we chose to do or not chose to do. If your actions bring intentional harm to others in some way, be it physically hurting them, taking their possessions or committing murder, chances are good it's wrong.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

A governing thought came to mind with my thoughts on morality, so I figured I'd put up another post to this thread.

You do not need a god to be moral.
The basic principle of morality is to help secure the integrity of fellow men. It is a fundamental asset of any thriving species. You don't need to believe in a god to know the pitfalls of your kind, do you?

 

[Jquestionmark]

I was waffling about joining these boards or simply lurking, until I saw this section. This thread really grabbed my attention, so I'll start out in here. Apologies in advance if I offend, but I'd be surprised if anyone hopped in this topic without steeling themselves, so I'm not too stressed.

I find that morality is defined as "1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." on Dictionary.com (not sure which is the original source dictionary, but it's similar enough to other definitions on the interwebs to work just fine). This definition leaves a huge amount open to interpretation, and it's hard to discuss any idea (especially a very deep and conceptual one) without having an equal ground on what the idea means. So, I'll talk a bit about how I see morality being defined as well as how it interacts with religion.


It's actually kind of funny, if you look up definitions for Moral, Righteous, Virtuous, you wind up chasing your own tail, as each one references the other in most of the definitions. So, lets approach morality as striving to do good, both for the greater good, and specific good for individuals. Also, lets assume that actions that benefit yourself aren't necessarily bad or good in the broad sense (without knowing more about the situation), but aren't morally good; they are just neutral. Even defining it this way is still painfully broad, we can't be sure what will genuinely be beneficial for others in a purely theoretical sense. How we imagine actions being moral or not is largely defined by the society that we are in. Obviously, some actions can be considered universally bad, even if a society accepts it (for example, causing pain to another is certainly bad, as you would know from your own experiences with pain). Some things considered acceptable and proper a hundred years ago are thought to be barbaric and immoral now, and odds are that things we consider okay will be viewed in the same light in a hundred years. Morality is an everchanging condition, so we can only assess it in the present and the past.

As a warning, when I talk about religion, I'm going to generalize so that I don't have to write "in most religions" a thousand times. I realize the comments I'll be making don't apply to all religions, so sorry for lumping them together.

Religion, unlike morality, strives to be static and immutable. Religion makes claims of "eternal Truths(tm)" and works hard to keep the times relevant to it, instead of transforming itself to be relevant to the times. Most religions construct a morality, much of it relevant to its time, much of if arbitrary. Religion does not teach you how to be a good and moral person, only how to follow an arbitrary set of rules outlined be other people and created for a society that may not exist as long as the religion does (the internet has changed society in ways that religions more than 50 years old were certainly not prepared for). Your parents/friends/family/society teaches you morality as you mature, and when you become old enough to question your world, you can reassess your morality and ideas of what is moral. Religion discourages that. It tells you what is moral and what is not, and questioning is not part part of the equation (from what I've seen/experienced, it's often looked down upon).

Morality is, and should be, a personal construct. Getting it wholesale out of a book does a disservice to everyone trying to do right in the modern world instead of in an outdated half-fictional world.

I've got more to say on the topic, particularly regarding the afterlife and accountability, but that's already a lot more than I meant to write initially... Sorry for the large post.

 

[SangueLuna]

I believe one can be moral without religion. Religion was created by man, not by some high powerful God. We forget that we have evolved to think and work together or try too. It was in our best interest to find morality and to create structure. Religion is just a way for primitive man to find structure in a world of chaos. No way, shape or form does morality (in my opinion) have anything to do with a God. We just discovered it on our own but believed it was from a higher power. Humans cannot fathom the idea of doing things on our own. We always think we need a reward to do moral deeds. In my opinion, that is not moral. Doing things on our own without a sense of reward, just doing it to be a good person is more moral then someone doing it because they fear God's wrath.

Everyone has a different sense of morals. We cannot truly determine who is right or who is wrong because everyone has different opinions.

I do agree with the OP on this subject.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

No, there is such a thing as absolute morality. It's just that nobody can get it right because pure morality is highly complex in relevance to the general idea of right and wrong.
We are too imperfect as people to have the logic, as we practice immorality everyday. Simply by flushing the toilet or taking a 20 minute shower, you are contributing to the immorality of millions of people around the world without water.
Self-importance makes the world go around, not morals.