Questions on atheist morality

[iceaura]

In my opinion, notions of good and bad arise from religion.

Already we see "theism" put to the rear, and "religion" advanced.

In a minute, the claim that people without religions have the same fundamental notions of good and bad as everyone else, will be countered with the opinion that any system of notions of good and bad is a religion.

Then we will be back to the theism, in the process of extrapolating that opinion to atheists.

- - -

Anyone can have an opinion. Some are better than others, on the criterion that predictions generated from them have been checked and found accurate or not.

The opinion that people get their basic notions of good and bad from an inbuilt morality of fundamental human nature established in normal human development, and not their particular religion, exists. Some predictions made from it have been checked (that humans of all, and no, religions will respond indistinguishably in basic situations of moral decision, for example). These predictions have been found accurate, and that opinion is therefore better by that criterion, than the opinion that human notions of good and bad derive from their various religions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Already we see "theism" put to the rear, and "religion" advanced.

In a minute, the claim that people without religions have the same fundamental notions of good and bad as everyone else, will be countered with the opinion that any system of notions of good and bad is a religion.

Then we will be back to the theism, in the process of extrapolating that opinion to atheists.

- - -

Anyone can have an opinion. Some are better than others, on the criterion that predictions generated from them have been checked and found accurate or not.

The opinion that people get their basic notions of good and bad from an inbuilt morality of fundamental human nature established in normal human development, and not their particular religion, exists. Some predictions made from it have been checked (that humans of all, and no, religions will respond indistinguishably in basic situations of moral decision, for example). These predictions have been found accurate, and that opinion is therefore better by that criterion, than the opinion that human notions of good and bad derive from their various religions.

Would you like to comment on my data instead?

 

[James R]

SAM:

Since atheists have never built a successful society on their own, I assume, they merely adopted the mores of the religious as a means of survival in their societies.

That's an unwarranted assumption.

It could just as well be the case that the religious people adopted the same mores as the atheists for deeply ingrained biological reasons, but just developed a different rationalisation for their mores.

The available data I see is that all societies are predominantly religious and have laws based on or evolved from the predominant religion in their society, either present or past.

That is certainly not true of present first-world societies. In first-world countries, the laws are based predominantly on secular ideas developed since the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Religious laws have largely been supplanted, except where they happen to overlap with secular values.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

That's an unwarranted assumption.

It could just as well be the case that the religious people adopted the same mores as the atheists for deeply ingrained biological reasons, but just developed a different rationalisation for their mores.

That is certainly not true of present first-world societies. In first-world countries, the laws are based predominantly on secular ideas developed since the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Religious laws have largely been supplanted, except where they happen to overlap with secular values.

Are these secular values any different from those promoted by Jesus or Mohammed, for instance?

The earliest instance of an atheist movement I can locate is the Carvakas from 600 BC.

This was their philosophy:

"No heaven exists, no final liberation,
No soul, no other world, no rites of caste…
The triple veda, triple self command,
And all the dust and ashes of repentence -
These yield a means of livelihood for men
Devoid of intellect and manliness...
How can this body when reduced to dust
Revisit earth? And if a ghost can pass
To other worlds, why does not strong affection
For those he leaves behind attract him back?
The costly rites enjoined for those who die
Are but a means of livelihood devised
By sacerdotal cunning - nothing more...
While life endures, let life be spent in ease
And merriment; Let a man borrow money
From all his friends, and feast on melted butter."

Not surprisingly, they faded away into history.

 

[James R]

Are these secular values any different from those promoted by Jesus or Mohammed, for instance?

Yes.

For example, apparently Mohammed advocated cutting off the hands of thieves to punish them. Also, he advocated the stoning of adulterers. He advocated war against a number of different peoples. He thought that all "infidels" would and should be consigned to a fiery hell, so he wasn't a great advocate of freedom of speech, for example.

As for Jesus, he made a lot of sensible enough statements that mesh with modern ideas morality in many respects. It is at least in part because he was a man ahead of his time that he became so popular with the oppressed, the poor and the powerless. Neverthless, he did not have the benefit of enlightenment thinking on morality in general. His preachings were folksy although in many ways admirable.

While life endures, let life be spent in ease
And merriment; Let a man borrow money
From all his friends, and feast on melted butter."

Not surprisingly, they faded away into history.

This is not far from Epicureanism, and that is still alive and kicking along.

 

[iceaura]

Would you like to comment on my data instead?

You don't have any relevant to theistic vs atheistic morality.

And you haven't looked at anyone else's, which are.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes.
For example, apparently Mohammed advocated cutting off the hands of thieves to punish them. Also, he advocated the stoning of adulterers. He advocated war against a number of different peoples. He thought that all "infidels" would and should be consigned to a fiery hell, so he wasn't a great advocate of freedom of speech, for example.

You should read up on the Islamic positions on all of the above, not the popular versions on the internet,

As for Jesus, he made a lot of sensible enough statements that mesh with modern ideas morality in many respects. It is at least in part because he was a man ahead of his time that he became so popular with the oppressed, the poor and the powerless. Neverthless, he did not have the benefit of enlightenment thinking on morality in general. His preachings were folksy although in many ways admirable.

He was an original thinker for his time, unlike all the atheists so far, who appear to have no original notions of morality whatsoever that extend beyond material benefit to themselves.

This is not far from Epicureanism, and that is still alive and kicking along.

How many successful stable societies have they established? The Carvakas were a prominent movement and they did not survive in a culture where atheism was permitted as a separate movement in philosophy. A society where all other philosophical movements have survived since the last 5000 years, in some shape or form.

Its why atheists are generally not considered a threat to religion in India. Though the advent of westernisation may finally give it the power the Carvakas never had.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So dolphins lack these mirror neurons?

No idea.

What about gorillas who kill infants to make their mothers sexually available?

He's got 'em and might be defective if the behavior to kill his offspring persists.

What is the mechanism of action of these mirror neurons?

This is what is known:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Do-Mirror-Neurons-Work-39171.shtml

 

[S.A.M.]

No idea.

He's got 'em and might be defective if the behavior to kill his offspring persists.

I believe this is normal behaviour in sexual competition.

This is what is known:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Do-Mirror-Neurons-Work-39171.shtml

Is this important?

It is not normally possible to study single neurons in the human brain, so scientists can not be certain that humans have mirror neurons. However, the results of brain imaging experiments using fMRI have shown that the human inferior frontal cortex and superior parietal lobe is active when the person performs an action and also when the person sees another individual performing an action. Therefore, these brain regions are likely to contain mirror neurons and have been defined as the human mirror neuron system

 

[iceaura]

He was an original thinker for his time, unlike all the atheists so far, who appear to have no original notions of morality whatsoever that extend beyond material benefit to themselves.

Jesus had strong objections to the official morality of the institutionalized theism of his culture (and yours, and mine) - from where do you suppose he derived them ?

But never mind: you have confused justifications of morality with morality itself. Profound treatments of morality from atheist philosophers are fairly common in history, especially Chinese,

but elaborate and original justifications of human morality are indeed mostly derived from or in reaction to elaborate and institutionalized religions. Other humans in smaller societies, especially the non-agricultural and atheistic cultures, don't seem to need them.

 

[S.A.M.]

Jesus had strong objections to the official morality of the institutionalized theism of his culture (and yours, and mine) - from where do you suppose he derived them ?

Are you certain of this?

But never mind: you have confused justifications of morality with morality itself. Profound treatments of morality from atheist philosophers are fairly common in history, especially Chinese,

Link?

but elaborate and original justifications of human morality are indeed mostly derived from or in reaction to elaborate and institutionalized religions. Other humans in smaller societies, especially the non-agricultural and atheistic cultures, don't seem to need them.

Tribals? Primitives? Savages? There are plenty of nonagricultural small societies in India and they have definite notions of morality based on their religion.

 

[Michael]

Before I dig in too deeply. Have you guys determined if a difference exists for atheists morality and theists morality?

Oh, and what about Buddhist Philosophers? Are they leaning more atheist or theist? Hmmm?

 

[S.A.M.]

Apparently, atheists are happy to share their morality with theists while declaiming the poverty of their ethics.

 

[(Q)]

No one has answered the question.

The question was based on a fallacious assumption, so the answer you're expecting is obviously an answer YOU personally want to hear based on your own delusional assumptions.

Morals and ethics are derived from reason, Sam.

 

[(Q)]

He was an original thinker for his time, unlike all the atheists so far, who appear to have no original notions of morality whatsoever that extend beyond material benefit to themselves.

Muhammad was not an original thinker at all, he was a Dictaphone, if the story of Gabriel is true, and a bold-faced liar if it was not.

Its why atheists are generally not considered a threat to religion in India. Though the advent of westernisation may finally give it the power the Carvakas never had.

No, India is entrenched in poverty and ignorance, that is why there is no threat to reason and rationale.

 

[S.A.M.]

The question was based on a fallacious assumption, so the answer you're expecting is obviously an answer YOU personally want to hear based on your own delusional assumptions.

Morals and ethics are derived from reason, Sam.

Atheism is about the individual, religion is about building a society and a community. The reason for morals and ethics has no place in atheism except as a function of living in society. Hence the responses in this thread.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I believe this is normal behaviour in sexual competition.

It's normal to kill the competition's offspring... not your own. That defeats the biological process of persistence.

Is this important?

Only in that the author of the article is a little behind the times.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheism is about the individual, religion is about building a society and a community. The reason for morals and ethics has no place in atheism except as a function of living in society. Hence the responses in this thread.

Correction. Atheism is about not accepting a particular assertion as true. Technically, it is only incompatible with religions that issue 'God' assertions. Of course most atheists tend to not accept anything as true concerning paranormal claims, so there are very few religions that could fit the bill.

Also, I don't agree that religion is about building society and community. While it is a set of methods for human relationship, it often makes untrue assertions (lies), promotes destructive behavior, and is difficult to adapt.

Fix those issues and it might actually become a good thing.

 

[audible]

Carvakas from 600 BC.......Not surprisingly, they faded away into history.

it's more likely they were exterminated by all the religious nutjobs living on there borders, it is easy for these religious nutjobs to conquer a peace loving people,(bow to our gods or die) dont you think. If that civilisation was allowed to continue, what a wonderful place it would be, the Eutopia of myth. But sadly the religious dont want that now. they would rather die first and spend it with the imaginary god. What a place this planet could be, if it wasn't for all these religious nutjobs.

 

[(Q)]

Atheism is about the individual, religion is about building a society and a community. The reason for morals and ethics has no place in atheism except as a function of living in society. Hence the responses in this thread.

Hence, your fallacious assertions, which is what the responses are referring.