How does an atheist define morality? (worship, attend, services, catholics)

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by JViello

So you do think their posts are wrong too then?



Correct, I was lumping you in with all atheists (You know how they lump all of us "Christians" into one bucket)...my apologies.



We disagree. I hope you can respect that too.

Regards,

christians sure don't mind lumping themselves together when it comes to ignoring evolution or proclaiming that the US is 86% christian, therefore "Bill X" shouldn't be passed because it goes against some simply christian ideal.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by cleatis

I think that perhaps we are complicating things more than needed.

My basic statement was that any society requires a system of laws and rules in order to function. they all need more or less the same basic laws or rules (murder, theft, all the goodies...)

Plus, having a good deed or two on my conscience doesn't hurt.

Perhaps you are missing my point of all this. Taking to a deeper level...

Without "God" we have to be a product of evolution. Right?

BUT, "morality" as we know it, is contrary to the "evolution" and "nature" around us. Why would we as humans "evolve" contrary to our surroundings?

It just doesn't make sense.

Unless someone can tell me why something like parents and children having intimate sexual contact is wrong besides saying "because it is" or why we would have "compassion" when it's found nowhere in nature or why forced coputlation is wrong when it happens in nature all the time, to me, proves we are unique creatures created as we are and NOT a product of evolution as many say.

[cleatis]

Originally Posted by JViello

Perhaps you are missing my point of all this. Taking to a deeper level...

Without "God" we have to be a product of evolution. Right?

BUT, "morality" as we know it, is contrary to the "evolution" and "nature" around us. Why would we as humans "evolve" contrary to our surroundings?

It just doesn't make sense.

Unless someone can tell me why something like parents and children having intimate sexual contact is wrong besides saying "because it is" or why we would have "compassion" when it's found nowhere in nature or why forced coputlation is wrong when it happens in nature all the time, to me, proves we are unique creatures created as we are and NOT a product of evolution as many say.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Compassion may not be a part of the animal world, at least not to the degree that we experience it. but, we aren't exactly like the animals (i think we can both agree with that).

societies NEED things like these to function, without them there would be no society. I think we have established that.

an agreement is made that one will not harm another. We have established that.

We are taught this, from a young age (now Johnny, stealing is bad. Now Johnny, beating your sister is bad...)

but how are we taught these things? We are shown how and why these things are bad. For instance, if you shoplift, they usually make you take some class where they point out the negative parts of shoplifting. (it drives the price of the product up, so that less people can afford it.)

These things are wrong because they cause harm to others. We have all been taught just how these things effect others. For example: rape causes great harm to people, we are taught how exactly this hurts others. Murder causes harm to others, we are shown that it causes harm. We are educated to the facts that certain actions cause harm to others.

This is part of the job of any society.

This may not fit in with evolution per se, but as I have said before TOE does say that we evolved from animals, meaning that we changed. So yes, monkeys may act feral. Humans do still act feral towards one another, but at least they know or are taught, that things animals do are wrong. they are wrong because they violate the security that is promised by a society, and violate the society itself.

yes, animals don't have the same system of morals that we do, but they also don't have the system of society that we do either.

to assert that these rules and morals come from god isn't much better of an alternative. It was known that one shouldn't kill before monotheism came about. It is known that one should not kill in places where monotheism isn't the main religion.

[earthwar]

huh, Well I know a guy that once told me he would kill a thousand people if he didn't believe in God. So does a belief in God actually keep some crazy people at bay? EW

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by earthwar

huh, Well I know a guy that once told me he would kill a thousand people if he didn't believe in God. So does a belief in God actually keep some crazy people at bay? EW

Absolutely!

And it unleashes others!

[pocono-jane]

I am an athiest and I consider myself to be a moral person. For example, I DON'T believe it's right to have sex with multiple partners whether you are married, single, gay, or straight! My "moral" belief is having a loving committed relationship with ONE partner, period! Anyway, I don't need god or gods or any religion to know right from wrong. This is IMHO a no-brainer!

[earthwar]

"have sex with multiple partners"

Well my friend you have no idea what your missing. lmao, I'm kidding. EW

[Tesaje]

This is becoming a tiresome argument since the OP already has his/her mid made up, but...

The argument is based on a false premise. Compassion is found in nature and in other animals. Social animals especially will exhibit behavior that puts themselves at risk to protect other members of their pack or herd. This is because the odds of survival and passing on genes to the next generation are increased if the animals band together for the greater good.

It has been shown that aboriginal tribes have a greater offspring survival if the child has a grandmother. That too is evidence that compassion and longevity directly enhances passing ones genes on.

As for the incest question, there are some very religious sects that regularly practice incest. I don't consider that moral at all, especially since the child is not really at liberty to refuse. Evolution punishes those people with hereditary diseases that get magnified from the inbreeding. It is easy to demonstrate the weakness in small animal populations from inbreeding and the vigor from large gene pools.

All animals, including us, must weigh and balance the cost/benefit ratio for every choice. Even the act of having children and sacrificing so much personal things and energy to raise and protect the offspring is an act of compassion. Almost all mammals do this. A belief in a god is not necessary.

Evolution most certainly does work on social constraints. Social constraints can greatly influence whether individuals will have the chance to pass on their genes.

I get why the fundamentalists refuse to consider evolution since they rely on a 2600 year old book to inform them of how the world works, but if so inclined, I don't see why others who need to believe in a god don't accept that god uses the laws of physics in a orderly way. Oh, that's right, there are lots who do....

[TheStudent]

Originally Posted by RoaminRed

You can't attribute the word "moral" or "morality" to a person without religion and without belief in a deity. It just doesn't apply, because those terms are by their very nature based in religion. It would be like asking a horse how his feathers are today -- it just doesn't apply.

Incorrect. The term "moral" or "morality" is a common term shared by the religious and irreligious alike, being simply defined as "Principles of behaviour based on the concepts of right and wrong." There was nothing loaded or complex about the question. In fact, it is very legitimate seeing that the traditional view is that "God" and/or a "divine law" is the source of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by RoaminRed

Now, right/wrong aren't necessarily tied to morals or religion, though often they are. The term I would most closely relate to what you're describing as objective morality is "social mores".


Social mores are things that are generally accepted as right and wrong in the society in which you live. For instance, in our society true pedophilia is always wrong (and I'm not talking about an 18 yr old being with a 17 yr old). Serial killers are always wrong. Things like this are indeed cut and dry, and what I would consider absolutes. Very few things are absolutes. Most things could be either right or wrong depending on the extenuating circumstances.

How do we decide if something is right or wrong? Simple. We're humans, we're smart. We use our brain to make choices. It's our intelligence that allows us to decide what is right and what is wrong. It's not nearly as difficult or unbelievable as you are making it out to be.

It appears that you are saying that human beings have an inherent conscience, and are thus able to decipher betwixt what is right and what is wrong. This, instead of answering the question, begs the question: Right and wrong according to whom? Public opinion? Parental guidance? Is right/wrong absolute??

[easternerDC]

Originally Posted by Tesaje

T
The argument is based on a false premise. Compassion is found in nature and in other animals. .

You know I just saw a National Geographic video last night about leopards. In part of the video, a female leopard comes upon a baby baboon who has been abandoned and nearly freezing to death. She picked up the baboon and then cleaned it with her toungue and then cuddled with it for hours to try to keep it warm.