Not exactly. All three can be evaluated subjectively (relatively), which one might conjecture was Big Al’s point. In absolute moralities, obligation and propriety are generally dictated and unyielding. Expediency is generally frowned upon as a determining factor.
Well now…[Shakes head groggily]
I can now see that it was my own blinkered religious upbringing that led me to believe that it was only the divine spark within each human being - an innate awareness of the divine creator of our souls - that gave rise to the desire to act moraly. NOW I can see that people CAN be good for no reason but for the act it self, that they CAN choose to subvert thier selfish desires and act in the intrest of the common good and that the religious teachings that I once held so dear have only been a stumbling block in the way of this outpouring of love and goodwill…
No, I don’t think it took… sorry Lib - I guess that I will be condemned to stagger around in my despair. As one who believes that God created humankind in his image, I cannot help but believe that it is that link with Him (whether or not it is felt by us) that enables us to act in a moral manner. If you look at it from this perspective, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in Him, his existance is cruicial to our “morality”. Thinking about it again, that’s not really what the OP was asking - if we all ceased to be aware of Him, then from my point of view, that wouldn’t matter, since He would carry on existing…
Guess that miracle worked after all…
Gp
P.S. Wonder if God would do the “Jesus” thing differently second time around?
Grimpixie
To be perfectly moral is to love perfectly. Yes, even atheists have God within them. Here is what God told me:
"I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing rightly, as I do. There are those who love, and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples."
You will not encounter in your lifetime a more loving person than Gaudere. Though she has a peerless intellect, she does not yet comprehend spiritually exactly what it is inside her. I wait for her, my sister, to return to our Father’s house. I have the robe ready, and am fattening the calf to a fare-the-well. I’ve already told our Father that when she returns home, I’m inviting over all my friends, and I intend to get drunk as hell and listen lovingly to all her stories about her travels and travails.
Such is the language of deontology. Hard to talk about morals or ethics without those concepts, and a very compelling argument can be made that all “morals” arise from simple expediency. (Why that’s frowned upon I don’t know, though I agree that it is.) Some things are so expedient that they have come to be seen as moral imperatives, but as Nietzsche said, there aren’t any moral phenomena, there are only moral interpretations of phenomena. And interpretations are, well, subjective.
All the arguments I’ve heard and read supporting the possibility of true objectivity were themselves so thoroughly subjective that they proved themselves wrong before their opponents even spoke. Religious people may think that their scriptures offer objective truth, but that belief is held by a religious subject; ergo. . . !
Mr O
Stellar analysis! Every moral journey is unique. In His brilliant design, God gave us each a consciousness whose reference frame is closed to everyone else. Thus, a one-to-one correspondence is established between morality and accountability.
I think that there will be a rather large number of surprised athiests in heaven, and an equally large number of confused fundies in hell…
Gp
On this matter, we see eye-to-eye, my brother. 
I would change only “will be” to “are”.
To claim that morality is dependent on religion is a false statement. I have heard this many times from many people but as the evidence shows, athiests possess morals. Every human being does.
Morality is relative, so what is moral for me may not be moral for you. Groups will form their own common code of morality based on the beliefs of the individuals of that group.
The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Were they immoral or did they just disagree with your own beliefs?
In regard to the OP it is actually hard to imagine a world without religion and I don’t think that is possible. There is no revelation that would suddenly make every believer discard their belief in whatever god they follow.
But we’re pretending here aren’t we?
Wars would continue although those of a religious nature would then be fought over more substantial things like land or property. There wouldn’t be anyone saying “My god told me so” but rather, “My friends and I want what you’ve got”.
Injustice would still be happening and groups would still persecute other groups for their differences.
People would still get married in some form and people would still get divorced.
There might be a lot less guilt, especially for those Catholics. 
Some guy or girl somewhere would start to wonder how all of this came together and form a theory that science could not be possible for all this diversity and interconnectedness. They would propose that perhaps there was such a thing as magic, or aliens, or maybe an all powerful being that caused creation with a snap of her fingers.
I give the no religion world only a few minutes at best before it becomes a world with religion before as someone will invent a god or a likeness thereof.
I would tend to say that an atheist would have a hard time, but how would we be able to know? Our society has been so influenced by Christianity for most of the last two thousand years that there is no way of telling. Even in the Soviet Union that said it was atheist, who could swear that what morals that existed weren’t because of what religion lingered among the people? The reason I say that I’m a Christian has a lot to do with the fact that I know that I am a product of its influence, no matter how hard I rebel against it.
But this might be a product of my innocence!
Perhaps by getting to know him. Perhpas by observing his behavior and his character. Perhaps by seeking understanding instead of embracing preconception.
I think you are confusing personal morality with cultural values. The question was whether an atheist could be moral, not whether a religious vaccuum existed from which an atheist morality could spring without taint.
Well, I would imagine that any moral atheist who lived in the former Soviet Union could. I’m afraid that I don’t have one in my back pocket.
I am sorry that your personal struggles with Christianity have left you in such a state. I fail to see how it has any relevance to the question at hand, though.
It may be innocence now. It will be ignorance if you pull it around your head and pretend it represents the world.
-
Both sides seem to think morality has to be either taught or reasoned into being. I don’t think so - I think it’s part of human nature.
-
I posted briefly in a parallel thread about Stephen Pinker’s explanation of the evolution of morality.
-
My impression is that religion may “teach” morality, but it generally has a paradoxically aggravating effect on aggression.
-
Most other strong transcendent ideologies seems to have that effect - communism, fascism, patriotism etc. I’d argue that that’s beause they behave like religions.
-
The danger comes from believing you’re “on the side of the angels.” Which seems to override your natural conscience.
-
Ironically, Jesus noticed that danger and made it his first principle (“judge not lest ye be judged,” “take the log out of your own eye…”, “cast the first stone…”, “turn the other cheek,” “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive…”, etc.)
-
That has not prevented Christianity or Christians from being as exaggeratedly aggressive, intolerant and punitive as any other religion. It’s the nature of the beast (so to speak).
-
Religion is the beast.
It seems that this thread is exactly about a religious vaccuum. Imagine no religion. I am saying that the question that Lib brought up is not possible because there is no place that you can find that is even close to a religious vaccuum. My comments were not at all about personal morality and so I didn’t have them confused with cultural values, which was what I was referring to all along.
If you had a moral atheist from Russia in your back pocket would he be able to say that his culture was not influenced in any way by religion?
My own experience was added more or less to show that I don’t exclude myself from such influences. And to suggest that atheists might look around and realize the same thing.
As to innocence Lib used that word in another thread.
I had said that I didn’t understand why when face to face with God anyone would choose evil.
Any resemblance of my last post with any other post may or may not be a coincidence.
So what? I bet you can’t find a single place on this earth where there are no atheists or agnostics and their ideas haven’t influenced the culture at all, but I’m not running around claiming that there cannot be a moral society without atheism or agnosticism, either. (Or at least if I did, I’d argue it based on its own merits, not declare “well, Y has always been around, so X clearly cannot exist without it.”)
Off to play kickball with my buds…
It seems that this thread is exactly about a religious vaccuum. Imagine no religion. I am saying that the question that Lib brought up is not possible because there is no place that you can find that is even close to a religious vaccuum
Well, let’s review the relevant conversational thread.
Now, I think it is clear that every other person who addressed this particular aspect of the thread was concerned with the question of whether it is possible for an individual to be moral in the absence of a “higher power/purpose”. You, on the other hand, quoted Libertarian and then made a response that clearly indicated you were talking about cultural inheritance, shared values, etc.
I pointed out that you were confusing two separate issues. You denied it. I will now point to the passages quoted above.
On to the issue you seem to want to talk about.
The question Lib brought up is not impossible. Atheists actually do exist, despite your personal inability to define yourself in a manner independent of Christianity. Thus, the question oif whether an atheist can be moral is straightforward and relevant. In particular, it is relevant to the hypothetical question raised in the OP, since one can surmise that a society of atheists might take a form which corresponds in some manner to the morality of it’s individual members.
You seem hung up on the fact that there does not presently exist a place in which “there is no religion”. Well, that’s why it’s a hypothetical question. If such a place existed, Malice could simply have asked, “what’s it like in atheitopia?”
Your comments were in direct response to a line of inquiry about personal morality. Extrapolating cultural mores from personal morality seems a reasonable course. Youappear more interested in investigating personal morality based upon cultural mores. That can also be inteesting.
I think your procedure is less interesting as a response to the OP, though. Since, as you have noted, we have no model for “atheitopia” from which to draw conclusions, your method leads quickly to a dead end. Now, if we were searching for a “Truth[sup]Tm[/sup]”, that might be a fine thing. A clear negative result is valuable in such cases. It ain’t much fun in a hypothetical chase, though.
Then, of course, there are the questions of whether your thesis is valid.
Yes. I don’t think any atheist would deny that they have been infuenced in their lives by the presence of religion in their culture. That is not the same thing as saying that said influence has a causal relationship to an aheist’s morality. In your own case, it seems that you have had difficulty even defining your self independently of Christianity, even as you rebel (or rebelled) against it. I found that sad. Failed rebellions are often sad for the rebels. That is not in any way a judgment about the person you are now.
Perhaps they see a different face than you.
It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but here’s a link to a summary of the book “The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation” by Matthew Ridley… just in case a theist wants to see how morality could be an evolved trait.
By their actions shall ye know them.
So the hypothetical is that we have empty churches and the same laws and social customs, but just no religion. And the only mention of God is someone shouting His name during orgasm.
Now I really don’t understand. Say this did happen and you and I were sitting next to each other. Would I be confused and depressed because I didn’t know how to react and you would say “It is O.K. kniz, we atheists have been waiting for this day”? Or would we both be without religion and not even notice the difference?
Hypothetically speaking what “higher power” caused this change in the first place. Sounds to me like some of Zues’ doings.
Just like Christians anticipating the “second coming” is this what atheists imagine the kingdom of non-god will be like? Everyone is converted to atheism, atheism has justified itself as being the true way and atheism now has all these churches in which to congregate (tax free according to law). Has any one heard the term atheist fundie?
You know, some things can be done without the aid of higher powers. Unless you think the conversion of physics from Newtonian to Einsteinian was the result of a higher power. Sometimes, one option just has more evidence.
Quite frankly, I have no starry-eyed dreams about the eradication of religion from all earth. Let’s take care of peace on earth and good will towards all (hu)m(a/e)n(s), then I’ll bother worrying about what philosophical position regarding a Divine Creator that people happen to have (assuming the religion itself does not impede this, and assuming they don’t try to force their beliefs on me, I don’t know that I’d particuarly worry much even then). I don’t think all the store-bought religion crammed down people’s throats will do half as good a job accomplishing the PoEGWtAM as a goodly handful of honest, free, intelligent, loving and moral hearts and minds; and I don’t want any blasted tax-free churches to promulgate my lack of belief (aside from the way cool stained glass, which I’d dearly love). I don’t want atheism to be the one true way…I think atheism is one small piece of truth, but I’ll cheerfully listen to dissenting opinion–and have done, here, for quite some time, and will do so yet. Would that everyone could also do so without automatically thinking the “other side” deceived or blind or moronic!