ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Good grief!
Curious: Where do atheists get their moral code?
- Thread starter coolsoldier
- Start date
dam hippies!
Most ppl get their morals from their parents, friends, and society. Some atheists keep those morals (usually ones who dont think it out too much) and others change certain ones.
For most ppl who try to find their morals on their own, instead of going to religion, society, or their family for them, they most likely will come up with the golden rule (dont do things to other ppl which you wouldnt want done to you). Then they base any other morals off of that. Some ppl try to think up what is right and wrong the best they can, and others may get ideas from books to see if they are right for them.
Most "deep" athesits have their individual morals and have reasoned them out over time. Maybe sometime you should look over your morals to see if they are right for you.
For most ppl who try to find their morals on their own, instead of going to religion, society, or their family for them, they most likely will come up with the golden rule (dont do things to other ppl which you wouldnt want done to you). Then they base any other morals off of that. Some ppl try to think up what is right and wrong the best they can, and others may get ideas from books to see if they are right for them.
Most "deep" athesits have their individual morals and have reasoned them out over time. Maybe sometime you should look over your morals to see if they are right for you.
Atheists who live moral lives are more likely to remain moral, than people who hold on to an imposed moral system - whether by their religion, legal system, society or peers. That doesn't mean the moral standards of these institutions are necessarily suspect, but that they expose the hypocrisy or artificial motives of those who say they follow them.
If on both sides - atheist or religious - they don't internalize the value system or believe in its worth, no amount of pressure would convince them otherwise.
The question is: where do you "find" those morals, or discover their worth? Reason alone could take you either way - towards a moral or an amoral life - depending on your personality. But once a moral law has been determined as universally valid, even those who haven't yet discovered it are in the "wrong", and the importance of moral leaders and role-models become apparent.
If on both sides - atheist or religious - they don't internalize the value system or believe in its worth, no amount of pressure would convince them otherwise.
The question is: where do you "find" those morals, or discover their worth? Reason alone could take you either way - towards a moral or an amoral life - depending on your personality. But once a moral law has been determined as universally valid, even those who haven't yet discovered it are in the "wrong", and the importance of moral leaders and role-models become apparent.
I don't think that moral has something to do with religion. Just look, atheists can help the poor and the religious kill everyone they hate. Contradictory? No. Look at you papers and you'll understand.
Isn't that right?
Isn't that right?
That's right, because morailty is a human institution. It only has something to do with "religion" if you believe God created us. The other side of the problem is that if you don't believe that, then the highest forms of morality basically go against evolution - which means evolution is working against itself in humans (or something similar)
Correct.
I'm impressed that you can see that jenyar.
Most atheists can't, so I wouldn't have expected a theist to realise the contradictory nature of religion based morality.
I'm impressed that you can see that jenyar.
Most atheists can't, so I wouldn't have expected a theist to realise the contradictory nature of religion based morality.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my thinking remains "theistic". God created man with the ability to make moral decisions - that's why they can exercise morality without Him interfering. But that also meant He had a moral standard in mind when He did this, and His laws establish those principles.
If those principles were contradictory to our highest standards, I would agree with you. But people only affirm their validity if they recognize that "not killing", "not stealing", "not committing adultery" are consistent with our own moral codes by adhering to them. If you agree that the Ten Commandments are not amoral, then you recognize their authority - which is God. The Law is where God and man comes to an agreement: it's a treaty - like state laws are an agreement between the citizens and the state authority. The purpose is not to enforce authority, but to enable freedom and justice.
But the state can't enforce something such as "honour God" or "honour your parents", they are impractical and non-essential (as far as the state is concerned) for the establishement of a moral (law-abiding) society. But at their heart, all laws are concerned with the relationships between people. Only religion brings this in the perspective of an equally peaceful and prosperous relationship with our creator. Which is why the Bible equates loving God with loving your neigbour.
lol
I was pretty sure you were still a theist
What I meant to say is I'm impressed that you can see the other side. You can see what morals would be if there was no god.
You can step outside of your own perspective, as simple as it seems not many people can do it, thats what I was impressed with, you at least acknowledge both sides.
And I agree, the morals society is based on are only valid if god created us, if not they are pointless and actually a direct contradiction of the natural laws that created us.
I was pretty sure you were still a theist
What I meant to say is I'm impressed that you can see the other side. You can see what morals would be if there was no god.
You can step outside of your own perspective, as simple as it seems not many people can do it, thats what I was impressed with, you at least acknowledge both sides.
And I agree, the morals society is based on are only valid if god created us, if not they are pointless and actually a direct contradiction of the natural laws that created us.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Homo Sapiens is not a very impressive animal, except for our powerful brains. Even with that brain, on our own we would just be lionfeed. It is when we use our intellectual capacity to work together we become the dominant species of this planet (some might refute that we are, but thats another thread, hehe).
Therefore, the ability to function in a social group is an evolutionary trait. More so, once such groups were established, since individuals exibiting antisocial behaviour were likely to be oucast, with very slim chances for survival and even slimmer for reproduction.
There are other social animals than us, and they show similar traits: Subordination to dominant members, taking care of offspring of others, individuals endangering themselves to protect the group, etc.
Hans
Of course there are natural instincts and defenses. But they have nowhere near the power you attribute to them. If evolution was powerful enough to create one reasoning species, the same pressures would mold the rest of the animal kingdom - especially if they are as useful as they are to us (reason practically defines what makes us human and "dominant").
But nature itself does not police. Otherwise their would be no chimpansee mothers having to protect their offspring from aggressive males affirming their dominance. Nothing stops them from wanting to kill the weak or the strong. You can explain it away by saying that kind of "amoral/antisocial" behaviour has a place in the "great scheme of things", but that is no less than attributing nature to the work of some kind of natural deity - a "god with an overview". Nature has no "grande scheme", because it is built from an indivual level upwards.
All very virtuous, by our standards, but by no means a moral system. As I said, there is definitely a biological impulse driving some of these "instincts", but not one that translates into motive. Our moral system is based almost exclusively on our ability to reason beyond our natural impulses. It is ruled by decision, and breaks down under lack of judgement. And as Lou Natic observed: they are often in direct opposition to the "natural" laws.
Last edited:
100% correct mrc.
Pointless was the wrong word.
In fact, as I have said many times, I believe the only reason humans have dominated the world is because of these religion based morals.
So they certainly were not pointless, I don't know what word I'm looking for here, fake maybe? Decieving?
Thou shalt not kill's purpose was not to be 'kind' or 'good', but to make people cooperate and conquer earth.
It is not "right" to act according to the 10 commandments, its actually as "wrong" as you can get, it is the opposite of how all animals act and have acted since the dawn of life, how all animals act is surely the best indication we have of what is actually right and wrong.
So religion based morality is not "right" as far as I can tell, but it is the best possible instructions we can have in order to advance and subdue our environment.
My beef is; why wasn't it just billed as such? Whats all this "right" and "wrong" talk?
Don't tell me killing is wrong or evil when I can clearly see animals doing it who by definition only know how to act right.
They should have said "killing is not practical if your goal as a species is world domination". That I agree with, "killing is wrong because god said so" I do not. Nor do I agree with the modern atheist twist of "killing is wrong because it would suck to get killed".
I think humans are the only animals acting "wrongly", whether its better or nicer or more comfortable or whatever is beside the point, its wrong because its the opposite of how organisms traditionally behave, therefore the opposite of right.
This seems so straight forward but I'm yet to meet someone here who agrees or sees my point. Its like I'm involved in some cruel prank where I'm made to feel like I'm the only sane person on earth.
EDIT: 100% correct mrc except for your acknowledgement of other social animals, you'll find humans differ substantially from all other social animals in that they don't compete within their own species in life or death struggles for survival. They cooperate and compete with other species instead.
This sounds minor but natural laws are not flexible and tiny alterrations have extreme rammifications.
Pointless was the wrong word.
In fact, as I have said many times, I believe the only reason humans have dominated the world is because of these religion based morals.
So they certainly were not pointless, I don't know what word I'm looking for here, fake maybe? Decieving?
Thou shalt not kill's purpose was not to be 'kind' or 'good', but to make people cooperate and conquer earth.
It is not "right" to act according to the 10 commandments, its actually as "wrong" as you can get, it is the opposite of how all animals act and have acted since the dawn of life, how all animals act is surely the best indication we have of what is actually right and wrong.
So religion based morality is not "right" as far as I can tell, but it is the best possible instructions we can have in order to advance and subdue our environment.
My beef is; why wasn't it just billed as such? Whats all this "right" and "wrong" talk?
Don't tell me killing is wrong or evil when I can clearly see animals doing it who by definition only know how to act right.
They should have said "killing is not practical if your goal as a species is world domination". That I agree with, "killing is wrong because god said so" I do not. Nor do I agree with the modern atheist twist of "killing is wrong because it would suck to get killed".
I think humans are the only animals acting "wrongly", whether its better or nicer or more comfortable or whatever is beside the point, its wrong because its the opposite of how organisms traditionally behave, therefore the opposite of right.
This seems so straight forward but I'm yet to meet someone here who agrees or sees my point. Its like I'm involved in some cruel prank where I'm made to feel like I'm the only sane person on earth.
EDIT: 100% correct mrc except for your acknowledgement of other social animals, you'll find humans differ substantially from all other social animals in that they don't compete within their own species in life or death struggles for survival. They cooperate and compete with other species instead.
This sounds minor but natural laws are not flexible and tiny alterrations have extreme rammifications.
Last edited:
"sometimes individual agendas overshadow flock behaviour, like when a new male lion in a flock of lions kills all cubs in order to raise his own"
What do you mean by that?
I would say it is not an individual agenda at all, the lion might feel like it is, but in fact it is in the species best interest that the new male does this.
The only way he became the "new male" was by brutally assualting the old male, according to lion politics, if the old males cubs deserved to live he would have successfully defended his title as king of the pride. The lion gene pool has no place for a male that can be beaten.
This rather genius system tests potential fathers to the absolute limit, to successfully pass on ones genes one must not only have the physical prowess required to take over a pride(killing or fatally wounding a well tested male) but he must also be able to beat off enough males long enough for his cubs to grow up.
Any adult lion you will ever see in the wild had a father that was the absolute pinnacle of physical and mental perfection, strictly tested for these traits over and over again.
There is alot more order to this "madness" than meets the eye, this "personal agenda" is what made the lion. A male lion that didn't kill the cubs of his fallen rival would be very irresponsible indeed. In fact, I would class him as "immoral" by lion standards.
"the fact that we have gone beyond mere instincts..."
I'd call it 'degenerated away from'
"... and have rationally formulated our set of social rules does not contradict their evolutionary origin. That is just another sophistication made possible by our intellectual capacity"
I'd agree our intellectual capacity made it possible to act against our instincts, but rationally formulated? You think so? They don't seem very rational to me, well they do now, but thats only because we live in a society based on those social rules. Keep in mind these rules were made before the society was structured around them(well, obviously), they were anything but rational at the time. It is for this reason the means by which they were enforced needed to be so elaborate(religion).
Frankly they don't make sense, but people will abide by them if they fear disobeying will sentence them to an eternity of pain and mysery.
Now we abide by them because it is the only way to fit into the society they created(again, quite understandable) and acting in any other way would stick out like a sore thumb and seem nutty.
What do you mean by that?
I would say it is not an individual agenda at all, the lion might feel like it is, but in fact it is in the species best interest that the new male does this.
The only way he became the "new male" was by brutally assualting the old male, according to lion politics, if the old males cubs deserved to live he would have successfully defended his title as king of the pride. The lion gene pool has no place for a male that can be beaten.
This rather genius system tests potential fathers to the absolute limit, to successfully pass on ones genes one must not only have the physical prowess required to take over a pride(killing or fatally wounding a well tested male) but he must also be able to beat off enough males long enough for his cubs to grow up.
Any adult lion you will ever see in the wild had a father that was the absolute pinnacle of physical and mental perfection, strictly tested for these traits over and over again.
There is alot more order to this "madness" than meets the eye, this "personal agenda" is what made the lion. A male lion that didn't kill the cubs of his fallen rival would be very irresponsible indeed. In fact, I would class him as "immoral" by lion standards.
"the fact that we have gone beyond mere instincts..."
I'd call it 'degenerated away from'
"... and have rationally formulated our set of social rules does not contradict their evolutionary origin. That is just another sophistication made possible by our intellectual capacity"
I'd agree our intellectual capacity made it possible to act against our instincts, but rationally formulated? You think so? They don't seem very rational to me, well they do now, but thats only because we live in a society based on those social rules. Keep in mind these rules were made before the society was structured around them(well, obviously), they were anything but rational at the time. It is for this reason the means by which they were enforced needed to be so elaborate(religion).
Frankly they don't make sense, but people will abide by them if they fear disobeying will sentence them to an eternity of pain and mysery.
Now we abide by them because it is the only way to fit into the society they created(again, quite understandable) and acting in any other way would stick out like a sore thumb and seem nutty.
You've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. By the way - the book of Romans describes it similarly. Any morality is "wrong" by the standards of the world. Of course, he goes on to say that it is "right" in God's eyes. The goal of the ten commandments was to "put us in the wrong", so that our human nature might be exposed and judged (and of course so that we could judge our own behaviour by them). I think it's Romans 7-8, if you're ever interested. (Keep in mind "sin" means acting against God's nature).
This rift created by the controversy over evolution helps to make this point even clearer.
Since this is obviously an artificially imposed code of behavour, I don't see how it oculd be the result of purely evolutionary pressures.
But society would have existed quite "naturally" without them! We would have clans each fighting for territory and resources, and "peace" will just be the inevitable result of having conquered those who opposed us. I don't see it that way. Our very make-up: opposable thumbs, the ability of speech, culture and reasoning, almost necessitates and enables moral reasoning. Definitely not our natural circumstances. Morality is an outflow from the concept of justice - and justice could not have evolved - it had to be established.
There is no indication that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have anything to do with our unique mental capacity. You can even teach a dog the difference (although only by conditioning, but it can sure comprehend it afterwards).
Between which stages of evolution did become sentient? What made us become sentient? These are questions evolution can't answer, because is cannot be repeated; there is no scientific precedent for even assuming it can happen naturally. Can we outgrow the very process which enables us to "outgrow". In the face of nature, morality seems like fluke of progress, flying straight against the very mechanisms of evolution. As such, it should have become redundant under much stronger forces very quickly, but it didn't - it made us instantanious "kings of the hill".
Knowledge of good or bad is knowledge - a manifestation of comprehension, and obviously not of genetics. Reason is what nature would call "supernatural"...
Last edited:
A point worth pondering
Is the "criminal" behaviour among humans the result of our unnaturally enforced "morality" (i.e. only visible because we have laws condemning certain activities), or part of our natural human character, which devloped as we have evolved?
Is the "criminal" behaviour among humans the result of our unnaturally enforced "morality" (i.e. only visible because we have laws condemning certain activities), or part of our natural human character, which devloped as we have evolved?
Thats something we agree on.
I don't see how or why something would naturally evolve to the point where it was outside the grasp of natural evolution. Where's the precedent for starters, and the very concept is bizarre when you understand organisms and the roles within eco-systems they traditionally evolve into.
I'm sure we differ on what exactly artificially imposed this code of behaviour, but I have often felt as though religious litterature is more than just something people made up.
But where you think it was inspired by the intervention from the creator of the universe I'm not sure how or why the intervention occured. My best guess at this stage is intervention from a conspiring and deceitful alien species.
Purely because I assume the only thing in the universe that would be capable of interfering/interacting with animals is another animal. I don't believe in magical spiritual entities, but I do believe in animals and since no animal on earth seems capable of decieving the entire human species I assume it must be an animal from another planet. I also see evidence of ant like behaviour in these imposed morals so I speculate the alien species must have shared similar behavioural traits to ants.
Then there is the fact that this behaviour made humans start having the effect of an introduced species on their environments.
Naturally evolved behaviour that negatively affects the environment in which it evolved?
I don't think so, again, give me a precedent, but behaviour meant for an animal that evolved in an environment on another planet would certainly have catastrophic affects on this one, and well, it has.
These are but some of the reasons I am so confident in my wacked out theory