Can atheists tell right from wrong?

[Norsefire]

However IF THEY WANTED TO rape and pillage, can we say they are "wrong"?

 

[Nasor]

However IF THEY WANTED TO rape and pillage, can we say they are "wrong"?

Sure. Most atheist would agree with you.

 

[Norsefire]

Sure. Most atheist would agree with you.

How can we say they are wrong?

 

[Ophiolite]

How can we say they are wrong?

As I said earlier, morality is a Darwinian adaptation to social environments. That is all that needs to be said. The rest is hot air.

 

[Norsefire]

As I said earlier, morality is a Darwinian adaptation to social environments. That is all that needs to be said. The rest is hot air.

Prove it

 

[S.A.M.]

The fact that atheists aren't out running around raping and pillaging is proof that many atheists can tell right from wrong. You might be confused about how they are able to do it, but you can't argue with the fact that they apparently can.

Hmm, have you seen the states where atheism is the state religion?

 

[Nasor]

Hmm, have you seen the states where atheism is the state religion?

Look at any state that has an official state religion.

 

[Randwolf]

I'm only pointing out a simple fact; atheists base their morality off of religious texts. However, the problem is that, for them, it becomes subjective, and therefore there is no true, concrete morality.

You are so wrong...

Here is one explanation for how an atheist can maintain objective morality:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=452&h=42 viewed 08/31/08 at 4:39 pm EST

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=452&h=42 viewed 08/31/08 at 4:39 pm EST

Norsefire, for real, click on the link and read it - you might broaden your horizons...

 

[SnakeLord]

It's entirely correct; it's still subjective. As unlikely as it may be, someone can still say "murder is righteous and Ok, and therefore I will kill people", and you can't exactly call them wrong

Yes you can, was covered on the last page.

Of course that does not and will not prevent 'bad' actions and people considering themselves justified in doing them but the minute such actions cause detriment to the community that you are a part of you can say they are objectively wrong, (given the earlier objective facts).

 

[Norsefire]

How can you say they are wrong if they think they are right? It's like telling someone they are "wrong" if they think a certain color is the prettiest

 

[iceaura]

But these patterns are constrained by the inherent (literally) character of the humans, primates, parrots or cetaceans.

Of course. But these constraints operate at a level underneath what people mean by "morality". People vary in their moralities - whether "eye for an eye" is a fundamental moral principle, for example, and what exactly that means in practice.

Those are probably not Darwinian adaptations. Other evolutionary patterns - such as Lamarck's - are likely to operate in the social milieu of the higher animals, for starters.

Hmm, have you seen the states where atheism is the state religion?

No such thing.

How can you say they are wrong if they think they are right?

They violate my moral principles. How else ?

 

[Norsefire]

And violating your moral principles is wrong to YOU.

 

[S.A.M.]

Look at any state that has an official state religion.

I have, any comparison to the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam? In the raping and pillaging?

 

[Ophiolite]

As I said earlier, morality is a Darwinian adaptation to social environments. That is all that needs to be said. The rest is hot air.

Morality has a control function over behaviour. Behaviour is a Darwinian adaptation.

 

[Randwolf]

And violating your moral principles is wrong to YOU.

How do you explain most atheists adopting a "moral" position similar to "good" theists? No murder, rape, theft, etc.? Purely on the assumption that they (atheists) are "borrowing" this stance from theists? What about when you were agnostic? You know, last week? Did you have no morals then?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Who decides morals for atheists?

Genetics, just as I stated before. It's the same for you and everyone else. There is of course wiggle room, and thats where "people"-influence comes into play.

 

[Norsefire]

How do you explain most atheists adopting a "moral" position similar to "good" theists? No murder, rape, theft, etc.? Purely on the assumption that they (atheists) are "borrowing" this stance from theists? What about when you were agnostic? You know, last week? Did you have no morals then?

Of course I, and atheists, had morals; my point is, they aren't set-in-stone. Although they probably won't go raping and stealing and murdering, they still CAN without any un-hypocritical action taken against them.

 

[Randwolf]

Of course I, and atheists, had morals; my point is, they aren't set-in-stone.

I suppose theists' morals are "set-in-stone"? What's your position on contraception? Punishment? Do your views reflect those of theists of both past and present ages? How do you account for the discrepancies in what is considered "moral" by various theist factions?

 

[audible]

it would be correct to say that they are born with the ability to create morals......

but they are born with none. i don't need to read some goop arguing against it. all ya have to do is have kids and watch them. they are animals. we are to help them become humans.

and that is the difference. just about everything that would be considered immoral in modern societies. would be moral/survival in the animal world.

I have children, you are so wrong. We are social animals, without an innate sense of morality we would not survive, we need each others, therefore we must be empowered with an innate ethic of reciprocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Yes we learn the morals of the group, as we grow. But we all start with an innate morality.

 

[Randwolf]

I have children, you are so wrong. We are social animals, without an innate sense of morality we would not survive, we need each others, therefore we must be empowered with an innate ethic of reciprocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Yes we learn the morals of the group, as we grow. But we all start with an innate morality.

For what it's worth, here is another link on "innate morality":

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C= viewed 08/31/08 6:15 pm EST

Discover Interview Is Morality Innate and Universal?

Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C= viewed 08/31/08 6:15 pm EST

Maybe there is another explanation besides some mysterious "deity" to explain morals, eh, Norsefire? Perhaps the atheists and theists simply spin the origin of their respective morality differently?