Rubbish.
There are good indications that a morality is genetic.
I was referring to religious people having fear as motivation for adhering to morals, which I thought you'd agree with? Maybe it is genetic, but genetics aren't always a good reinforcer.
So you deny that atheists have morals?
No, but I deny that they have as much justification for their morals as religious people do.
Really?
Atheists don't live in society with other humans?
I'm impressed with your reasoning.
I'm aware of the rational from which atheists garner their morals; that our animalistic, primal inclinations, and our need to get along with each other propel us to good(and sometimes bad) behavior. But given the point I made, quite a few times, about how when faced with a situation where it is a person's instinct and might even be in their best interest from a survival or betterment standpoint to act immorally, and they can get away with it, they have no checks on their behavior other than the laws of man.
Ever read up on morality and its basis?
Not much, I admit, but from what I've heard from sciforums it doesn't sound incredibly complicated. We're moral so that we can get along with each other to better spread our species around. From that statement we can derive all sorts of explanations for our behavior.
And theists always make a logical choice?
"Greater love hath no man... etc"
When someone is in danger you don't always stop to make the logical choice, you act...
Let's say the person had a little time to consider beforehand. Who would be more willing to be altruistic, giving, "moral," the atheist who lives for the ultimate goal of his survival or the religious person who lives for other people just as much as for himself, as this is what he believes his Creator commands of him and imbues him with? The theist is more justified in saving the woman, and not just acting on an emotional impulse. This can be applied to a variety of situations, not just those requiring an immediate response.
And arguing it very badly I might add.
Atheists have morals because they're genetically-based (a moral sense is built in), they live in society and they have to get along with other people.
By that reasoning atheists are more moral since they don't it because of some nebulous "ultimate consequences" (which in theists is still fear of doing the wrong thing 'cos they'll have to answer for it...)
And atheists don't do the wrong thing, why? Because they have genetic basis for not doing so? That's not morality, that's programming. Like a robot.
Morality must be justified, and using being programmed by a blind process that will eventually wipe out any remembrance of your existence and renders life on earth purposeless to clarify the differences between right and wrong, when there quite obviously are no clear cut right and wrong actions in this worldview, is rather silly.
So, in an objective sense, things that are commonly accepted to be wrong, such as murder, adultery, rape, stealing, etc, cannot be seen as objectively wrong from an atheistic viewpoint and despite the fact that they may feel some instinctive inclinations not do these things, they may at other times feel oppositely, as it is human nature - so in this sense atheists are not as justified in doing "right" things in all scenerios and more justified in doing "wrong" things in some scenerios - whatever makes their survival and proliforation a more likely outcome.
Yes,
And for every quote against I could find one in favour (including private conversation).
But since you changed it I'll leave it alone.
For the record, I'd be interested in hearing these quotes(in private conversation).
Also, for the record, I'm female.
