Where atheists get their morality.

[eldeeder]

I guess just watch the video. If you actually understand this perspective, its tough to believe you would EVER want to do ANYTHING to hurt, or harm ANY fellow human being.

Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist, and I am proud to be united with theists all over the country for Ron Paul. I don't want to touch your religon, I just want it out of my government.

I do, however, enjoy a friendly debate every now and then, so do feel free

 

[Brennon]

The morality of theists is arbitrary. Is something commanded by god because its moral or is something moral because it's commanded by god?

If something is moral simply because its commanded by god then that's totally arbitrary. If god commanded you to kill your child, then is this a moral act simply because God commanded it? Actually, under certain scenarios, the bible (god) commands you to do just that, kill your children.

So would disobeying god be immoral? I guess every theist parent in this country is immoral for not killing their disobedient children as commanded by the bible/god.

Keep in mind, I'm not a Christian.

With that said, philosophically speaking, if a being existed that is greater and more intelligent than we are, his/her/its word and will would define what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. In that sense, if this entity were to command one to kill his or her child, to not do so would be immoral, yes. As christian philosophers often say, god can't do evil simply because whatever god were to do is inherently good, regardless of what it is.

 

[Malakai0]

Logically speaking, an atheist has no reason to be moral, aside from possible consequences of defying the accepted but none-the-less arbitrary morality of the society. It's sort of an inevitable consequence of atheism.

Do I think atheists are immoral? No, but it's an inconsistency in their belief set as there truly is no reason aside from the above.

I'm not particularly a fan of sagan, btw.

You don't think 'treat others the way you like to be treated' is a pretty self evident concept?

Poor morals come from underdeveloped minds and collectivism. An undeveloped intellect cannot imagine things from the perspective of another (ie walking a mile in their shoes), and even with a developed mind one can rationalize the pain or lives of others away because 'they' aren't one of 'us'.


Unfortunately collectivism is taught everywhere in America, from school to parents to television and radio and every other form of media.

The internet is our chance to come together.


I find it amusing that the religious often argue you cannot have morality without religion, yet religion is a key issue that divides us into groups which provides a very easy way to rationalize 'immoral' acts. Very questionable logic backs up these arguments.

 

[Brennon]

You don't think 'treat others the way you like to be treated' is a pretty self evident concept?

Poor morals come from underdeveloped minds and collectivism. An undeveloped intellect cannot imagine things from the perspective of another (ie walking a mile in their shoes), and even with a developed mind one can rationalize the pain or lives of others away because 'they' aren't one of 'us'.


Unfortunately collectivism is taught everywhere in America, from school to parents to television and radio and every other form of media.

The internet is our chance to come together.


I find it amusing that the religious often argue you cannot have morality without religion, yet religion is a key issue that divides us into groups which provides a very easy way to rationalize 'immoral' acts. Very questionable logic backs up these arguments.

Read what I wrote...

Again, I'm not religious in any way, shape, or form.

Regardless...you speak of underdeveloped intellect as if intellect had anything to do with morality. As an atheist, why would it matter if others hurt? Because you can 'sympathize'? Does that really matter ultimately? Where did this sympathy (or shall we say conscience) even come from? Is it a learned thing or is it coded into us? If so, how would evolution account for this creation of a conscience?

 

[WilliamC]

Keep in mind, I'm not a Christian.

With that said, philosophically speaking, if a being existed that is greater and more intelligent than we are, his/her/its word and will would define what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. In that sense, if this entity were to command one to kill his or her child, to not do so would be immoral, yes. As christian philosophers often say, god can't do evil simply because whatever god were to do is inherently good, regardless of what it is.

If god or GOD came down from space or heaven and told me to kill my children I'd give him a big F_U!

Freewill don't 'cha know. I define my own morality thank you very much. Do unto others as I would have them do unto me. It's not just for religious folks, it's good game theory too, especially when you engage in multiple turns with the same players.

 

[Ginobili]

awt

 

[Electric Church]

Actually, under certain scenarios, the bible (god) commands you to do just that, kill your children.

that command was not for anyone here. That was for the 12 tribes of Israel some 1,400 years BC

 

[OptionsTrader]

Sagan was a pothead. With a hot wife.

True and true.

 

[Bowie]

A better question I feel is ... where do religious people get their immorality? Greed, intolerance, war?

As far as I'm concerned, "God's Will" is simply the collection of physical, chemical and biological laws that govern the universe, and it is impossible to disobey these laws, as you would expect for such an amazing universe. (It seems silly that God would make so many mistakes and accidentally allow "disobedience" to be introduced into His creation.)

One of the most important biological laws is that of animal survival instinct (or egotism), and we are all subservient to it. Everything we do is an attempt to survive (although because of the complexities of the human mind, and chemical imbalances and regressive upbringings and whatnot, sometimes those attempts are riddled with stupidity.)

The trait of altruism -- helping others -- is subsidiary to egotism. Just like a mother helps her young, and pack animals help their leaders, humans help each other and get that warm "I've just helped someone" feeling, which is actually chemically rigged up.

Likewise, the opposite is also true, in that if we don't obey altruism, we feel guilt, a chemically rigged up trait that warns us that we are doing a disservice to human survival.

However, if we kill someone who is much weaker than us (speaking in more ancient tribal terms), this is a "moral grey area" because survival of the fittest and altruism clash. Does the guilt of killing someone outweigh the understood benefit of eradicating their impediment? Different chemical balances in different people will decide.

Another is the belief in a higher power (or need to explain unknown things), which results from the survival instinct and fear of the unknown, i.e. of death, and is a trait characteristic to human civilisations all across the world and throughout history.

However, the most controversial I would say is the third biological trait -- evolution -- which in my mind will probably eventually phase out the "spiritual" trait because of the ridiculous amounts of death and destruction religiousness causes for human society, and few if any major benefits. Atheist societies will probably survive in the long run.

The notion that morality is something peculiar to humans and its equivalence with the belief in a higher power are, in my mind, flawed. But as a fellow human being, I understand why people feel they aren't

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I got a little more time than I thought before I leave tonight, so I'll try to give you a nutshell of it. Probably a very poor one, but here goes.

Most of us here (or anywhere) have been stolen from at some point in our lives. Most of us have been physically hit at some point for no real reason. Most of us have suffered some type of emotional pain through no fault of our own.

Empathy, the ability of humans to know what others are going through, makes us not want to put others through pain we understand. I personally can't even watch videos of people racking themselves, because it know how it feels.

Because I know how it feels to be stolen from, hurt, cheated, ect, I have no desire to do that to others.

So, does that mean we need to be wronged in order to understand it? Kinda, maybe, not really, I'm not sure. Children go through stages where they lack empathy, so empathy is typically developed without large amounts of real pain or blame. That kid stole my pencil in 1st grade, and it really sucked from my point of view, but there's no real consequence of that later in life. As that kid ethically developed, he probably felt guilt for that same action.

Empathy also works in other ways. I know what it's like to be hungry, and therefore don't like to see others go hungry. Even as a child when I'd never gone hungry, I was taught by family members how to behave toward others who were hungry. Parents understand these things when children don't, and try to teach them accordingly.

It's those in society who lack empathy that are true sociopaths. Serial killers pretty much know that they're headed for the punishment. I think it was Gary Ridgeway who, when asked what made him differen't from other people, said something like "It's that whole caring about people thing. I don't have it."

So, I say there's plenty of room for "morality" to develop without a fear of punishment. In fact, I think this same empathy morality develops in people who also believe in God. But, they were taught about god when they were little. The average athiest was probably told "because it's right" when they were little. The end result winds up being much the same.

That's no substitute for Hume, and I was making most of it up on the spot, but it hopefully makes sense.

Do atheists ever ponder WHY people are so driven to be empathetic? WHY we even empathize with plants and animals when this serves no purpose for our own survival?

A better question I feel is ... where do religious people get their immorality? Greed, intolerance, war?

Why, from the same exact place atheists and others of different creeds do. Ignorance, fear, ego, unconsciousness, whatever you wish to call it.

Just because they claim to be religious/spiritual while committing such horrors, does not make it so.

I don't understand how atheists point to things like the crusades and use it as an excuse to bash spiritual principles.

The trait of altruism -- helping others -- is subsidiary to egotism. Just like a mother helps her young, and pack animals help their leaders, humans help each other and get that warm "I've just helped someone" feeling, which is actually chemically rigged up.

The drive to help others does not always have to arive out of some egoic need.

Whether you are aware of it or not, it is entirely possible for someone to transcend ego, this is the essence of true spirituality.

 

[Cigaboo]

Ethics and civility are logical and beneficial to prosperity and personal happiness. There is no need to believe in an all-powerful being to have such ideals.

 

[jondisx]

yea i wonder, and then i turn on the tv

 

[Andrew-Austin]

"Where atheists get their morality" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeSv2Fmx4Pk

You do realize, theists ultimately get their morality from the same source right?

Theist or atheist, we're all still human beings. We just have different philosophies/perspectives of how the Universe works.

Some atheists are more conscious then other atheists

Some theists are more conscious then other theists.

 

[Brennon]

The trait of altruism -- helping others -- is subsidiary to egotism. Just like a mother helps her young, and pack animals help their leaders, humans help each other and get that warm "I've just helped someone" feeling, which is actually chemically rigged up.

An animal mother will only help her young so long as there is a hormonal stimulus. E.g. precocial birds will help their young as long as there is a prolactin stimulus. In altricial birds, the young are pretty much left on their own from birth as there is no such stimulus.

Humans are different. There's something 'else'. It's not a conscious decision in animals as animals really have no choice at all in the matter. They're simply driven to do so. You can mess with human neurotransmitters and hormones all you want and you will not be able to undo a conscience.

 

[eldeeder]

You do realize, theists ultimately get their morality from the same source right?

Theist or atheist, we're all still human beings. We just have different philosophies/perspectives of how the Universe works.

Some atheists are more conscious then other atheists

Some theists are more conscious then other theists.

I do agree 100% Im not saying this is doctrine, just one example of how you can realize the need for kindness without a supernatural force.

 

[Bowie]

The drive to help others does not always have to arive out of some egoic need.

Whether you are aware of it or not, it is entirely possible for someone to transcend ego, this is the essence of true spirituality.

Can you provide an example? Meanwhile, I agree that it's possible I'm wrong, and that it's possible someone can transcend personal or tribal ego, but I'd like to hear an example to encourage me to change my mind.

 

[haaaylee]

i'm sure you've all seen this link before but, watch http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

[devil21]

Do atheists ever ponder WHY people are so driven to be empathetic? WHY we even empathize with plants and animals when this serves no purpose for our own survival?

Because plants and animals are our survival? How much oxygen would you breathe without plants? How many steaks would you enjoy without cows? Without either of those there is no atheists or Christians or Mormons because we are all non-existent. Survival means learning what it takes to survive. Having empathy to animals and plants means that we recognize that without them, there is no "us".

 

[wildflower]

I define my own morality thank you very much. .

So did Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.

And if moral relativism is true, they were just as "right" as you or me.

 

[garyallen59]

..