Questions on atheist morality
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You are welcome. But that is just ME, OK? So based on that 1 answer don't generalize about ALL atheist. You just have to ask all of them if you want a complete answer.
I might write a thread about atheist and stampcollectors, so you would understand... oh, scrap that!
By the way morality also comes from CONCENSUS! Let's say 100 people survive a planecrash on an uninhabited island and they have to live there for years, without outside interference. What do they do? They are going to make up RULES (laws if you wish), and that is going to establish a moral code. Property rights, who is the boss, who fucks whom, etc. Just like in any other society.
See? No god needed...
Sure, but that's besides the point.
You are welcome. But that is just ME, OK? So based on that 1 answer don't generalize about ALL atheist. You just have to ask all of them if you want a complete answer.
I might write a thread about atheist and stampcollectors, so you would understand... oh, scrap that!
Clearly
Why don't you tell me? What moral compass would you apply to that? Is it right? wrong? good? bad? How do you decide that?
What is your criteria for determining whether its moral or not?
If one could determine that there was a statistical difference between conditions with sacrifice and without it, there might be a legitimate reason to continue the practice, assuming one has virgins to spare. This would be the same moral grounds as isolating a disease carrier like Typhoid Mary.
Now, if I may ask- what is the difference between morality derived from tradition and morality derived from religion? Isn't religion just some arbitrary moral code passed down by tradition? What if knowledge of religious-based moral codes disappeared tomorrow, how would they be reconstructed?
Now, if I may ask- what is the difference between morality derived from tradition and morality derived from religion? Isn't religion just some arbitrary moral code passed down by tradition? What if knowledge of religious-based moral codes disappeared tomorrow, how would they be reconstructed?
Clearly, going by the statements in this thread, they wouldn't.
That is correct. They are tradition. It doesn't matter where they came from. Their claim to superiority is they cannot be re-articulated. That is also their great weakness. A moral code derived by any other method and propagated solely by tradition is just as weak.
Last edited:
Awesome. Nothing to do with the thread though. Still trying to figure out what an atheist considers moral besides what has been presented to him by "indoctrination" as some resident atheists here call it.
Trying to determine a code where none exists?
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Lao Tzu
and people will do the right thing.
Lao Tzu
In a Deity-inhabited universe, there is only human judgment, opinion and personal values among humans - with different language used to justify them.SAM said:
The question makes more sense the other way around: how does a theist justify establishing human morality as some kind of universal "good" or "bad" - isn't good and bad whatever the God wants ? And who are you to say what a God wants ?
Actually, SAM, there has been some research into exactly this question. So far, the results seem to indicate a basic human morality common to us all - as one would expect from observing other social beings. Dawkins discusses a little of it in his book "The God Delusion" - check it out.
As always, the nearest God takes the credit - for the good stuff, of course.
SAM,
You keep referring to atheists as if they have a defined outlook beyond a disbelief in theism. Your question is unanswerable with that miss-perception you insist on retaining.
Morality is simply an issue of good versus bad. The issue then becomes defining what is good and what is bad. Theist religions define it in terms of absolutes dictated by an imaginary god. The end purpose is unclear, presumably to satisfy the ego of the alleged god. For the non-religious good versus bad can only be defined in rational terms that benefit survival.
Which type of atheist did you have in mind? The murderous rapist or the Buddhist, or something else? Please be specific about which sub-group you want to analyze.
Which type of atheist did you have in mind? The murderous rapist or the Buddhist, or something else? Please be specific about which sub-group you want to analyze.
Here is the reference to the Brights action item concerning the source of human morality.
http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/arenas/1/project.html
And here is a brief summary of some starting points.
Draft Assertions
A: Morality is an evolved repertoire of cognitive and emotional mechanisms with distinct biological underpinnings, as modified by experience. (23 studies)
B: Morality is not the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens—there is significant cross-species evidence in the scientific literature that animals exhibit "pre-morality" or basic moral behaviors. (9 studies)
C: Morality is a "human universal" across all cultures worldwide, a part of human nature acquired during the evolutionary development of the human species. (20 studies)
D: Statement D: Young children and infants demonstrate some aspects of moral cognition and behavior which precede specific learning experiences and worldview development. (6 studies)
2007/04/30
Huh?
You keep referring to atheists as if they have a defined outlook beyond a disbelief in theism. Your question is unanswerable with that miss-perception you insist on retaining.
Morality is simply an issue of good versus bad. The issue then becomes defining what is good and what is bad. Theist religions define it in terms of absolutes dictated by an imaginary god. The end purpose is unclear, presumably to satisfy the ego of the alleged god. For the non-religious good versus bad can only be defined in rational terms that benefit survival.
Huh?
Which type of atheist did you have in mind? The murderous rapist or the Buddhist, or something else? Please be specific about which sub-group you want to analyze.
Huh?
Which type of atheist did you have in mind? The murderous rapist or the Buddhist, or something else? Please be specific about which sub-group you want to analyze.
Your bet appears to reflect a significant distorted view and miss-comprehension of the non-religious.
Here is the reference to the Brights action item concerning the source of human morality.
http://www.the-brights.net/action/activities/organized/arenas/1/project.html
And here is a brief summary of some starting points.
Draft Assertions
A: Morality is an evolved repertoire of cognitive and emotional mechanisms with distinct biological underpinnings, as modified by experience. (23 studies)
B: Morality is not the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens—there is significant cross-species evidence in the scientific literature that animals exhibit "pre-morality" or basic moral behaviors. (9 studies)
C: Morality is a "human universal" across all cultures worldwide, a part of human nature acquired during the evolutionary development of the human species. (20 studies)
D: Statement D: Young children and infants demonstrate some aspects of moral cognition and behavior which precede specific learning experiences and worldview development. (6 studies)
2007/04/30
Its not my disbelief. I insist that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with morality.
Whose survival? IMO, atheist "morality" if one may call it that, is purely utilatarian, ie derived from its usefulness to their personal values.
Not analyze, I am asking the questions.
Not at all, in my opinion, atheists are more likely to be self oriented if not indoctrinated otherwise.
Thats an a posteriori menu. :yawn:
Sounds like a lot of fancy tap dancing going on here. More apes and hyenas?
So how many atheists are getting their moral values from science?
More apes and hyenas I suppose; do we also include the infanticidal dolphins and the gang warring of chimps or are they now, like communists, another "religion"?
Their morality is obviously different than a human's would be.
You mean they'd overlook rape, incest and child abuse, not to mention infanticide and murder, but have judgment calls on altruism?
They might.
And we'd know what we were looking for, because altruism is such a quantitative measure of morality.
Right?
It certainly is.
Hey Sam, here is a ponderable, before you go to sleep, so it might give you nightmares:
Since through the known (recorded) history of humankind most people have been religious (with religious morality) AND there were always wars and crimes, it is safe to say, that religion didn't give such a morality to humans that would have stopped them from killing each other or commiting crimes.
So what is such a fucking big deal about religious morality, if the only thing what it does is to make you feel guilty, but it doesn't work and doesn't save society??? Remember, most maffia members are Catholic!
Since through the known (recorded) history of humankind most people have been religious (with religious morality) AND there were always wars and crimes, it is safe to say, that religion didn't give such a morality to humans that would have stopped them from killing each other or commiting crimes.
So what is such a fucking big deal about religious morality, if the only thing what it does is to make you feel guilty, but it doesn't work and doesn't save society??? Remember, most maffia members are Catholic!
Are you saying wars are baaad? Why?Hey Sam, here is a ponderable, before you go to sleep, so it might give you nightmares:
Since through the known (recorded) history of humankind most people have been religious (with religious morality) AND there were always wars and crimes, it is safe to say, that religion didn't give such a morality to humans that would have stopped them from killing each other or commiting crimes.
So what is such a fucking big deal about religious morality, if the only thing what it does is to make you feel guilty, but it doesn't work and doesn't save society??? Remember, most maffia members are Catholic!