Morals are discussed in many various forums, but at least half of the results appeared in the ''Atheism'' thread. This thread isn't too bash any religious members, I just want to have a broader look at morality. Where do you think you get yours from, tell us about your background? What do you consider immoral?

The most common misconception is that those who don't answer to a ''higher power'' have no reason to behave (to be put simply). There was one quote in ''The God Delusion'' that I found rather fitting, but I've unfortunately forgotten the author. Someone said ''without God, life means nothing'' and the writer responded ''anyone who thinks that is like a child who has never looked at his fellow man with compassion''.

Do morals really stem from religion?

I personally, do not think so. If anything, I was more immoral as a Christian growing up. It seemed as if I was being given a set of instructions and those who didn't abide by these instructions are wrong. When I did something good (charities for example), I didn't do it because of any gods, it was just for the good of humanity.

What about taking other's lives? Where are the boundaries? Would it have been better to shoot down the planes before they crashed into the Twin Towers? What about the attempts made on Hitlers life? Or how do you react when someone takes the life of someone you love?

These aren't the questions you need to directly answer, but what do you Dudes make of morality and the idea morals of our society today?

Written by TheBigRossowski on 18.10.2009 at 15:26



The most common misconception is that those who don't answer to a ''higher power'' have no reason to behave (to be put simply). There was one quote in ''The God Delusion'' that I found rather fitting, but I've unfortunately forgotten the author. Someone said ''without God, life means nothing'' and the writer responded ''anyone who thinks that is like a child who has never looked at his fellow man with compassion''.

You forgot who wrote "The God Delusion"? how dare you forget it is the biologist Richard Dawkins?

My family has never really been religious. We've never gone to church, said grace at the table, or cared much about the bible. My family has quite a history in various Swedish left-wing political movements, all from my grandparents who first met through the socialdemocratic party in the 40s, to my father who has a history with the communist party, to me being aligned with the communist party today. My mother has never really been aligned with any specific party, but she is very left-wing oriented, sometimes calls herself a communist, and absolutely despises the conservative and liberal parties. As such, I have been raised with a lot of left-wing ideals surrounding me throughout my youth. My little brother and I always shared all our toys when we were kids, if our parents bought candy, they always bought equal amounts of candy for both of us and so on. As such we were always taught to share with those less fortunate, never to use other people or discriminate against other people, to place the needs of other people before your own selfish desires, and to always fight injustice.

I have developed a quite strong sense of morality. Basically, it governs the very way I think. Yet this does not at all come from religion or spirituality. As a communist, I strongly dislike organized religion, and yet, I would always choose to fight for what is right rather than fight for what is "logical" or for what benefits my own selfish desires the most. Personally, I think morality is whatever we choose to make of it. It is inhereted from our instincts that remain from the time when we were pack animals. At that time, we needed some kind of moral code to survive and to keep the pack together. It was so that one member of the pack would take steps to ensure the survival of the other members of the pack and not just think about himself/herself. It still serves the same purpose. It's just that we today call our pack by the name of society. Morals are needed to keep society together, and they have to be somewhat enforced in order for this to work (for instance, people who think it's okay to kill or beat up other people for fun have to be locked up).

As for where the boundaries go. I'd say that quite a large number of times, the ends do justify the means. The exceptions are for me when the means destroy the ends, such as the scenarios "The terrorists are threatening to destroy our freedom, so we must destroy our own freedom in order to beat them!" or "These people live under terrible conditions under a dictator, therefore we have to bomb their country to bits in order to give them freedom and prosperity!". As such, I would fully have supported shooting down the planes before they crashed into the Twin Towers, since it would have saved lives, and all it would have taken was killing some innocents that would have died anyway and some terrorists that would have died anyway. It would still have been a tragedy, but the extent of said tragedy could have been minimized and people could have been saved. The ends would have justified the means.

All in all, I think some kind of morality is a necessity if society is to function. A society that is not built upon some kind of moral code telling you how to view and treat your fellow men and women will never work. But then again, the morals can vary. I do not agree with a lot of the moral foundations upon which today's society is built (mostly things regarding the ownership of property and the ways some of the other moral codes are interpreted), but I also know that they can be changed. New morals can be forged to replace the old ones. What worked 200 years ago don't work now, and what works now might not work in another 200 years.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 19.10.2009 at 15:42

Written by TheBigRossowski on 18.10.2009 at 15:26



The most common misconception is that those who don't answer to a ''higher power'' have no reason to behave (to be put simply). There was one quote in ''The God Delusion'' that I found rather fitting, but I've unfortunately forgotten the author. Someone said ''without God, life means nothing'' and the writer responded ''anyone who thinks that is like a child who has never looked at his fellow man with compassion''.

You forgot who wrote "The God Delusion"? how dare you forget it is the biologist Richard Dawkins?

Haha, absurd! No, I forgot the author of that one quote! At the beginning of each chapter is a nice little quote from other authors or extraordinary people. That's where I think it was anyways.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 18.10.2009 at 15:26

Morals are discussed in many various forums, but at least half of the results appeared in the ''Atheism'' thread. This thread isn't too bash any religious members, I just want to have a broader look at morality. Where do you think you get yours from, tell us about your background? What do you consider immoral?

What about taking other's lives? Where are the boundaries? Would it have been better to shoot down the planes before they crashed into the Twin Towers? What about the attempts made on Hitlers life? Or how do you react when someone takes the life of someone you love?

I think this is a great thread idea, it's a shame there have been such a few amount of responses.

I'm not entirely sure where I get my sense of morality from, I kind of go from one extreme to another as I do with most things in my life. I'm not too certain where to even begin... I suppose I can start with some basics and hopefully they're relative. I think there should be equal rights for women, all ethnic types and same sex couples. People are people when it comes down to it. I seem to be really judgemental towards people with an extensive sexual background, which I suppose boils down to the idea that if you "share" yourself too openly then you don't respect yourself very much, it just seems immoral to me... I think things such as sex should be an exclusive and sacred exchange and bond between dedicated partners; in regards to both men and women.
I can be a little judgemental towards people with a history of drug use too, less if it's a short period of experimenting as opposed to a heavy addiction but, I've had my fair share of issues with alcohol abuse and bits of drug use. I think a persons history helps define their character, intentions, values and how they could potential act in the future.

For the majority I believe in the old first law written by the Greeks, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.", so I'm for capital punishment if a life was taken by a murderer without just cause because, I'm also compassionate about "crimes of passion". The hardest aspect of cases like ones such as these are, proof without reasonable doubt and proper evidence, mental stability and motivation, to kill another person without a reasonable cause should be punishable by death but, to kill another for an appropriate reason makes sense to me - however, what may seem rational to one, isn't so to another.

Another screwed up moral/value. I'm against rapists and sex offenders but, I enjoy BDSM and "rape play" yet, I wouldn't go to a bar and slip some ghb into some broads drink to rape her.
In regards to my mention earlier of self-respect and all that, such a thing is another fine line I suppose. I'm fairly comfortable with who I am but, I've a tendancey to harm myself under extreme circumstances (good & bad) and honestly, as stupid and immature as it sounds, it helps confirm that the past is real and it helps as a reminder of past times, be them good or bad. Ah it's a crazy life!!

Thanks, man. Morals play such a big role in...well, fucking everything! Modern culture, what we define as acceptable or unacceptable, politics. From this we base our ideas of freedom. I think it's morals are very important, but it's also unfair to stereotype (even in general) atheists as immoral.

This question came up on one of the Richard Dawkins videos with CNN I believe. This reporter asked another woman where she gets her morals from because she doesn't have to answer to god.

I even ask myself if the world will one day go so far as to accept incest! I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong, but for the most part, people are more willing to accept it these days. Whereas it was earlier viewed as socially taboo. When will kissing cousins fight for their rights? Maybe some weirdos in Arkansas want to marry inside the family one day. You Dudes catch my drift...

Morals don't depend on religion, that's totally stupid, if you ask me. Morals depend on your education, which in some cases religion takes part, but it's not the only active moral "educator". I'm not a religious person, but I have morals, and I'm sure a lot of people follow tis as well.

It's kind of weird and aggravating to see that question always resurfacing, ''Where do Atheists get their morals from?''. In my opinion, morality is self-evident.

Just watching some of Hitchens videos on youtube and it got me thinking about it again.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 22.11.2009 at 16:48

It's kind of weird and aggravating to see that question always resurfacing, ''Where do Atheists get their morals from?''. In my opinion, morality is self-evident.

That annoys me too. I think it's because religious people think they have the monopoly on morality, and if you're not religious, then you can't have any morals. I actually think non-religious people are capable of stronger morals, because they are not bound by a set of rules that must be obeyed in order to be "moral" and "good". In fact, a lot of religious people I see as being deeply immoral, and what's worse, they use their religion as a justification for it. When I do something good, it's because I want to do it. Religious people are made to think if they don't do certain things, then they'll end up in hell, or whatever. So that takes a lot of the person's free will away.

As for morality itself...I think a lot of it is purely subjective, and individualistic. For me, only things which are done deliberately to cause harm to others can be called immoral. There's certain behaviours, that some people find unsavoury, and to them, those behaviours might be seen as "immoral". But for me, only something which directly causes harm to others can be called immoral. Everything else is purely subjective.

Written by Angelic Storm on 22.11.2009 at 17:19

Written by TheBigRossowski on 22.11.2009 at 16:48

It's kind of weird and aggravating to see that question always resurfacing, ''Where do Atheists get their morals from?''. In my opinion, morality is self-evident.

That annoys me too. I think it's because religious people think they have the monopoly on morality, and if you're not religious, then you can't have any morals. I actually think non-religious people are capable of stronger morals, because they are not bound by a set of rules that must be obeyed in order to be "moral" and "good". In fact, a lot of religious people I see as being deeply immoral, and what's worse, they use their religion as a justification for it. When I do something good, it's because I want to do it. Religious people are made to think if they don't do certain things, then they'll end up in hell, or whatever. So that takes a lot of the person's free will away.

As for morality itself...I think a lot of it is purely subjective, and individualistic. For me, only things which are done deliberately to cause harm to others can be called immoral. There's certain behaviours, that some people find unsavoury, and to them, those behaviours might be seen as "immoral". But for me, only something which directly causes harm to others can be called immoral. Everything else is purely subjective.

Thank you!

Written by TheBigRossowski on 22.11.2009 at 16:48

In my opinion, morality is self-evident.

I totally agree with this. There has been some stuff that I got from some religions but most of the morality I have is thanks to the education I got from my parents and from my own personal experiencie abotu what's good and what's wrong.

Like Angelic Storm said: Religions thinks that they have the monopoly... But nah, they have just the same amount of morals that you can get on your own.

Society alone has a big role in morality, in the things we consider to be ''immoral'' today. Angelic Storm hit that right on the head with her second paragraph. Drugs, for example and how they're illegal. For the most part, that's done for societies benefit because of the harmful effects. Marijuana is losing it's taboo status slowly, but that's just because of the change in tempo from society. If cocaine didn't have such harsher effects, it might be just as ''acceptable''.

What drugs have to REALLY do with morality... I'm not too sure... lost my train of thought...

Written by TheBigRossowski on 24.11.2009 at 14:16

What drugs have to REALLY do with morality... I'm not too sure... lost my train of thought...

Drugs are dangerous. You can get amnesia... And other things I can't remember right now.

Have you read Michael Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil" ? http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805075208

It's an interesting read, and talks about a lot of moral issues across cultures and even across species.

I won't go overly in depth, but I think morals are tools to help large groups of people function together and live together with minimal damage. A lot of what an individual believes will come from the culture in which they live, their families, their communities (churches, schools, clubs etc). Personally, I'm finding that as an American expatriot living in Mexico, a good deal of my moments of "culture shock" have to do with the differences in simple moral behaviors. Sometimes I can't even explain why I think something is "the right thing to do" , it's just a feeling, and when my emotional expectation for a particular reaction isn't being met, I "feel" like that's wrong. Even though somewhere in my brain I am capable of stepping back, and thinking that logically these little rituals and behaviors are not really necessary, they seem "right" and "morally correct" behaviors to my "gut."

I don't know if that made sense, but unlike me, the book makes sense and is good (my thoughts have little to do with the book btw).

I will try to sum up my moral beliefs and their origins.

First, I do come from a religious (Christian) backround. All the morals that have been tought to me therein, I have personally scrutinized, and either rejected or expounded upon, but to say religion is the only source or regulation of my morals would be far from correct. The primary origin of my morality is personal experience, then an examination of human history, and finally religion.

As for the morals themselves, it would be easier to just provide a few scenarios.

-If I see money on the ground greater than maybe 25 cents, I leave it. I don't pick it up, I don't ask who it belongs to, I simply leave it.

-I will only fight someone if they swing first.

-If my girlfriend cheats on me, the first time I forgive her. The second time I leave her.

-I support gay marriage. No one is being harmed, so why let the Government interfere?

-I believe marijuana should be treated similarly to alcohol considering their disabilitating effects, and addictive nature.

-I believe sex is a sacred bond, and should not just be given away, or worse, sold.

-The ends justify the means, as long as the means do not obscure the ends.

Ultimately as long as someone is not being harmed against their will by an activity, I don't think the activity should be governed by law.