Another question for atheists: Morals...

skaught

The field its covered in blood
Valued Senior Member
What are (some of) your morals. Are they the same/similar to judeo-xtianity? What do you base your morals on? If there is no God, How can there be morality?

I'm off to a meeting, so I'll be back in a few hours to catch up.
 
What are (some of) your morals. Are they the same/similar to judeo-xtianity? What do you base your morals on? If there is no God, How can there be morality?

I'm off to a meeting, so I'll be back in a few hours to catch up.

There can only be morality in the absence of a god.

An ethical code supposedly derived from an extra-human entity would at best, have no human meaning and at worst, represent nothing but the blind adherence to a foreign prescriptive code.

Thus, we have a systematic codification of regulations within civilized societies that steer behaviour: the rule of Law.
 
And as for morals, we all have a built in set of how-to-get-along instructions honed by millions of years of social living. Simple, really.
 
And as for morals, we all have a built in set of how-to-get-along instructions honed by millions of years of social living. Simple, really.

I'm not sure about that. It sounds like you're referencing evolution, which, as a Christian, I don't doubt. When it's used as an all encompassing theory as a worldview however, there are insurmountable difficulties.

In terms of morality, I don't think evolution fits; the view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".

An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people. However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour. Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.

If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes. On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.
 
I'm not sure why Christians claim monopoly on morality. I have a strong sense of social justice, it's just what I know is right.

I help out my friends if they need it, and I'm glad I'm in a position to do so. I take in stray animals, my new cat was a feral kitten that I tamed. I am a considerate driver. I'm respectful towards old people.

My morality is spontaneous, and doesn't depend on memorized rules, but rather my natural love and compassion.
 
I find for the most that the moral of non-christians, is generally higher then that of the christians, even in the simplest of forms. Common courtesy, seems to be something that is seriously lacking among the christians i have contact with.
 
As far as my personal morals go, i am sure they are not a lot different from that of the christian faith, i just have, and live by them because i feel its right, not because i am afraid of going to hell.
 
I'm not sure why Christians claim monopoly on morality. I have a strong sense of social justice, it's just what I know is right.

I don't think Christians claim that they have morals and atheists don't. Christians just have a different belief as to where morals come from.
 
I have found the Christians I have known to be mostly very nice, I actually don't know any other atheists in real life.
 
I find for the most that the moral of non-christians, is generally higher then that of the christians, even in the simplest of forms. Common courtesy, seems to be something that is seriously lacking among the christians i have contact with.

I have the exact opposite experience. Christians always behave well with me, my best friends have been devout church going cross wearing Catholics (I am a Muslim), while I find atheists feel a constant need to be derisive, mocking, insulting and crude (with a few exceptions).
 
there is the coffee shop i go to quite often, theres a church group that goes every wednesday night, they never ever ever ask if they can take, the chairs at my table that i am not using, they just take them. They never clean up after them selves, not even as much as pushing the chairs in, they don't tip, and they are very loud. Thats not to say that non-christians don't do that, this group is just very in your face.
To be honest, i donate used clothing to churches they do the free clothing drive, i don't want someone to be charged for my used clothing i want it to go to somebody that needs it. I volunteer at a church based teen pregnancy program, i am not anti christian, i am just not one myself.
 
I'm not sure about that. It sounds like you're referencing evolution, which, as a Christian, I don't doubt. When it's used as an all encompassing theory as a worldview however, there are insurmountable difficulties.
I'm sure, as a christian, you feel that way.

In terms of morality, I don't think evolution fits; the view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".
OK.

An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people.
Generally, yes.

However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour.
In many societies, it is. Including our own. Don't confuse peace-time moral platitudes with the way people really think and behave. The reality is that we all are xenophobic to some degree, and when our "group" feels threatened, we will respond with righteous moral outrage at the aggressors and will try to kill them.

Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.
That's a good example of the peace-time moral platitude I referred to. Thanks.

If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so.
Yes. Altruism in peaceful conditions is selective for a number of reasons.

In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy.
Don't be rediculous. You watch too much TV.

How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
Read some books. It's entirly possible and, in fact, is what happened.

Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Really? Why? Those that help others generally don't find themselves in life threatening situations and the reciprocal altruism results in higher survival.

[/QUOTE]On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.[/QUOTE]
1) The kind you mentioned (saving enemies in a lake) is not common.

2) There any number of likely evolutionary mechanisms for the development of altruism in a group-living social species.
 
I have the exact opposite experience. Christians always behave well with me, my best friends have been devout church going cross wearing Catholics (I am a Muslim), while I find atheists feel a constant need to be derisive, mocking, insulting and crude (with a few exceptions).
That's a comfortable lie, sam. That's all.

It's most likely your effect on them that you're percieving.
 
The reality is that we all are xenophobic to some degree, and when our "group" feels threatened, we will respond with righteous moral outrage at the aggressors and will try to kill them.

You don't have to be a group to feel threatened; you can feel threatened within your group.
 
You already have the hide of a rhino, sam.

I have had to, apparently its a necessary part of being in a society where religion is assumed to make you impervious to science and substitute your brains for mush

Of course.

Actually, for some reason, no matter how mild mannered athiests are, at some point they feel compelled to evangelise. I have been friends with Hindus and Catholics for YEARS and they never ever questioned/mocked my beliefs or imposed theirs. And I have never had to be reticent about my religion when I was with them. With atheists I find its best to pretend that I have nothing to say.

edit: I have to qualify. These are western style atheists. Eastern atheists, or atheist like Hindu sects are like theists in their behaviour.
 
Back
Top