Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is there such a thing? Apparently, most Americans don't think so:

"A new study by the Minnesota Department of Sociology found, according to its researchers, that 'Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.'"

http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/05/04/views4.html

Do you really care about the opinions of people who are prejudice against muslims, gays, and immigrants? So some people who don't like minorities found another minority to hate. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not atheists are moral.

Morality doesn' t require religion. My consideration for other people is not based upon what some god tells me to do.

Hang on, that's a loaded question.

You ask a bunch of people that are more likely than not to be religious about what kind of people share their views of what American society is... why the heck is there any surprise that they rate the people with no religion at all as being outside of this? Clearly they simply see religion as part of American society, because they are religious!

What a pointless exercise.

I really don't think it is any commentary on whether they can have morals.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hang on, that's a loaded question.

You ask a bunch of people that are more likely than not to be religious about what kind of people share their views of what American society is... why the heck is there any surprise that they rate the people with no religion at all as being outside of this? Clearly they simply see religion as part of American society, because they are religious!

What a pointless exercise.

I really don't think it is any commentary on whether they can have morals.

Well said.

As a starting point, using the views of generally religious Americans on the morals of aethiests is a posta non-grata.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hang on, that's a loaded question.

You ask a bunch of people that are more likely than not to be religious about what kind of people share their views of what American society is... why the heck is there any surprise that they rate the people with no religion at all as being outside of this? Clearly they simply see religion as part of American society, because they are religious!

What a pointless exercise.

I really don't think it is any commentary on whether they can have morals.

Niiice.

How ironic.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hang on, that's a loaded question.

You ask a bunch of people that are more likely than not to be religious about what kind of people share their views of what American society is... why the heck is there any surprise that they rate the people with no religion at all as being outside of this? Clearly they simply see religion as part of American society, because they are religious!

What a pointless exercise.

I really don't think it is any commentary on whether they can have morals. That's very true....Asking religious people what they think of Atheists....LOL

Isn't it biased? I believe most Americans feel, it's better to believe in some god, then nothing at all........They'll tell you that too, but then they'll also condemn you/convert you to the right god if you believe in the wrong god......

Like asking stanch vegetarians what they think of evil meat eaters...

Morality is independent of religion. One's individual morality is independent of many things.

It is very dependent however, on one's experiences, biases, and pre-misconeptions.

Oh yeah....and relations with other people.

If you lived on an island by youself, you probably wouldn't develop your own sense of morality.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you lived on an island by youself, you probably wouldn't develop your own sense of morality.

Yeah you would, can't really be a thinking person without developing a sort of morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah you would, can't really be a thinking person without developing a sort of morality.

Yes you can. There are people who don't beleive in morality. Ask PVS...ask many others.If your born to a realm where you have no contact with other human beings, and you are surrounded by wild animals, your only concern will be survival.

If you do develop a sense of morality it will be the most minimal amount you can imagine, and only based on impulse and emotion. Your inaccess to other human beings will render your logical development non existant.


I still beleive the most important element to developing your own sense of morality is exposure to other human beings. We already know that as children we develop our morality through the influences of our parents, then peers. You won't develop one growing up alone and totally isolated.

PVS is a very reasonable being, I doubt that he denies that subjective morals exist.

But even if he does, well, they do exist (as certain as I exist..which, isn't much certainty at all, imo) and everyone has them, even if it is a morality of pure selfishness..you just can't be a thinking being without developing a moral code for yourself (as basic as it may be).

Originally posted by The Omega
Urizen> Why do you think a cognient human alone on an island cannot develop a sense of what she thinks is right and wrong? Hehe, I like how you said she.....

Lets try an axperiment. I can see evidence both ways. WHo wants to be born alone on an island?

Pro independant morality >> Natural inclinations related to the survival of the species (You usually don't feel good if you hurt someone)

Anti independant morality >> SOcietal overtones and learned behavior (Homosexulaity is wrong)

Bottom line...its untestable. You are going to learn behavior based on other humans actions around you. SInce no child can survive independantly from infancy, we're never goin gto get a concrete answer.

Originally posted by Alliance
Lets try an axperiment. I can see evidence both ways. WHo wants to be born alone on an island?

Pro independant morality >> Natural inclinations related to the survival of the species (You usually don't feel good if you hurt someone)

Anti independant morality >> SOcietal overtones and learned behavior (Homosexulaity is wrong)

Bottom line...its untestable. You are going to learn behavior based on other humans actions around you. SInce no child can survive independantly from infancy, we're never goin gto get a concrete answer.

But you will have some sort of morality...I mean morality is not just interaction between humans...it's towards animals...and things...and most of all towards oneself...so everyone has an own morality....that doesn't mean that you have to consider their morals....moral.

I wasn't debating the relativity of morals or the presence of them.

I was addressing the origin of morality and the island debate, saying it was untestable and neither you or Urizin could find a testable way to prove your point.

Honestly, like most things associated with higher inter-species communication, I think its is a combination of learned behavior and biological determinism.

Originally posted by Alliance
I wasn't debating the relativity of morals or the presence of them.

I was addressing the origin of morality and the island debate, saying it was untestable and neither you or Urizin could find a testable way to prove your point.

Honestly, like most things associated with higher inter-species communication, I think its is a combination of learned behavior and biological determinism.

Why do you think it is untestable?

Also, you don't need to test something to be sure it is true....

Physical evidence is the easiest way to back up an argument. True things can be tested, if not physically, then intellecutally.Originally posted by Alliance
Since no child can survive independantly from infancy, we're never going to get a concrete answer.

Thats why its untestable.

Behavior is a very physical concept, it is best examined physically, especially becasue we have such a limited knowledge of its concrete neurobiological workings.

Originally posted by Alliance
Lets try an axperiment. I can see evidence both ways. WHo wants to be born alone on an island?

AN impossibility. My mum would've had to be there, and been there long enough for her to teach me the basic survival skills...

Originally posted by The Omega
AN impossibility. My mum would've had to be there, and been there long enough for her to teach me the basic survival skills...

There are cases where infants survived without human guidance, are there no?

Originally posted by The Omega
AN impossibility. My mum would've had to be there, and been there long enough for her to teach me the basic survival skills...

Read the whole post. Thats why I said:
Originally posted by Alliance
Since no child can survive independantly from infancy, we're never going to get a concrete answer.
<><><>


Originally posted by Bardock42
There are cases where infants survived without human guidance, are there no?
Not that I am aware of. You have to get some sort of nourismnet as a child, you can't hunt for yourself, you can't even eat solid foods as an infant. If you're exposed at birth, I can't imagine a scenario where you're going to die without outside human interference.

Originally posted by Alliance
Read the whole post. Thats why I said:

<><><>



Not that I am aware of. You have to get some sort of nourismnet as a child, you can't hunt for yourself, you can't even eat solid foods as an infant. If you're exposed at birth, I can't imagine a scenario where you're going to die without outside human interference.

You might be right, although I think their are cases where a little bit older children survived without human guidance, I'm not sure how old they were though.

But I don't think such a test is necessary to decide which position is most likely right.

Because we are taught from a young age that hurting other people is bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You might be right, although I think their are cases where a little bit older children survived without human guidance, I'm not sure how old they were though.

But I don't think such a test is necessary to decide which position is most likely right.

Originally posted by Eis
Because we are taught from a young age that hurting other people is bad.

TO me, there is something wrong about it. I feel compassion for thie position of pain and I'm usually compelled to help. Maybe its learned, but animals (like us) exibit natural defenses and become agressive in respone to certain stressors. THose behaviors are somewhat innate.

Then how would you test it then?

Originally posted by Alliance
TO me, there is something wrong about it. I feel compassion for thie position of pain and I'm usually compelled to help. Maybe its learned, but animals (like us) exibit natural defenses and become agressive in respone to certain stressors. THose behaviors are somewhat innate.

Then how would you test it then?
Well of course an animal will attack back if another animal is attacking it. But that isn't the same as feeling bad for hurting another being.

no its not, but then why does a child's dog go up and lick that child when its is crying?

i believe that the only thing that can POSSIBLY be mystical in nature in a human is love, hate and despair and pain. other things like morality etc are products of your enviornment. think about the soldiers in darfur etc. ALL of them rape and murder people of the different or same sex without fail and without stopping. they have forgotten morality as most people think of it and do not feal anything close to guilt {in their current life, when they are surrounded by people of the mindset} when they continuously do such horrible acts. if the bases of morality can change so easily while staying WITH humans for a small time{compared to your entire life} and can easily be acuired or given up then surely it is the society and not the individual mind that has morality set up so strongly.

I agree with the statement that they are learned behaviors. The problem is that the environment is the teacher. Whether it be a parent scolding or some other consequence, it is learned. Given the hypothetical naive subject raised in a solitary situation, each action will result in some consequent reaction. This reaction, or consequence, will either increase or decrease the probability that the given action will occur. If the subject decides that doing something results in a negative consequence, and then lives in such a way as to prevent the negative outcome, has he learned a moral?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
think about the soldiers in darfur etc. ALL of them rape and murder people of the different or same sex without fail and without stopping. they have forgotten morality as most people think of it and do not feal anything close to guilt {in their current life, when they are surrounded by people of the mindset} when they continuously do such horrible acts. if the bases of morality can change so easily while staying WITH humans for a small time{compared to your entire life} and can easily be acuired or given up then surely it is the society and not the individual mind that has morality set up so strongly.

If what you say is true, then how is their morality "wrong" as it is all societal determenation anyway. Therefore, since its all societal reletavism, you can't really condemn them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you will have some sort of morality...I mean morality is not just interaction between humans...it's towards animals...and things...and most of all towards oneself...so everyone has an own morality....that doesn't mean that you have to consider their morals....moral.


Perhaps you are right in that aspect, but the morality will be minimum.

Any respect you may have towards another animal will be our desire to be social which is inate, and not learned.

But most people are taught thier morals when they are young by parents, whether the morals be negative or positive or neutral, however, every individual has the power to reject such teachings or beleive in them 100% or reject and keep some here and some there.

I still think that without other human beings to interact with, we have a much harder time developing our morality.

Religious people have thier morality, due in most part to thier religion. I am not arguing on the validity of thier morality, just on the fact that they had the influence. I strongly beleive our morality depends more on our influences.


Is it possible that every individual has a unique sense of morality possibly due to our genetics, birth sign, mental health, etc. ? Yes, ofcourse. But I think one is only sure of his or her own morality when exposed to other people, allowing a comparison, contrasting, and eventual validifying of one's own morality.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I strongly beleive our morality depends more on our influences.

I agree, but I still fell that a basic core of that is innate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are cases where infants survived without human guidance, are there no?

Do you know of any? Newborn humans are completely and utterly helpless. I do not know at what age a human child would be able to survive on its own on some remote island, but certainly not from birth...

Well there was that Romulus and Remus founder of Rome. The son of Mars and eponymous founder of Rome who, with his twin brother, Remus, was reared and suckled by a wolf.

Originally posted by The Omega
Do you know of any? Newborn humans are completely and utterly helpless. I do not know at what age a human child would be able to survive on its own on some remote island, but certainly not from birth...

Well, there are a few cases of feral children I believe, it is rather rare though and often not tracable, so no, I don't have any evidence for that.

And obviously alone on the island it has no chance, but there are cases where they are isolated from humans but taken care of (Kaspar Hauser) or raised by animals (Oxana Malaya)

Romulus and Remus are obviously fictional though, like Mowgli or Tarzan.

Small children, yes. Newborns, no. And as I said, a lot of the cases of so-called feral children are by no means well-documented.

Even if a child could survive away from humans from the time it was born, we would have a lot of difficulty gauging how "moral" it was, what with the brain-deterioration that's been known to occur in cases of extreme isolation.

Romulus is my hero.

I by no menas thing specific morals are deterministic, but I think that we have general feelings that have been evolutionarily indoctrinated to protect our species form ourselves and others. These emotions/responses are what are shaped by societal pressures to form morality.

Morality -

A capacity to
1) distinguish right from wrong
2) act on this distinction, and
3) experience pride in virtuous conduct and guilt or shame over acts that violate one's standards

Supported psychoanalytic thoughts. Current theories state that conscience may begin in toddlers if they have warm and responsive parents. This occurs through committed compliance. Where a child will has high motivation to comply with the parent's wishes, is sensitive to whether the parent gives some body language type signal that they have done right or wrong, and internalize those reactions as pride, shame, guilt to help them evaluate and control their own behavior.

Cognitive-Developmental theories state that morality is learned. Initially a child follows no rules. Eventually rules are absolute as a child comes into contact with rules set up by authorities (parents, police, etc.) Finally, children learn that rules are flexible depending on the situation. Kohlberg expanded on this, but the theory follows a similar course that is more complex. Learning Theory says morality is learned by contact with the consequences of actions.

Morality has been shown a number of times to be controlled by the upbringing of a child. Poor upbringing results in a poor level of moral maturity. Good upbringing results in a good level of moral maturity.

Psychology today does believe that experience and learning plays the major role in morality and conscience development. It is a fact. There is little support there for the idea that they are inborn into a person. There may be something there, but without the proper raising there is no reason to believe that such a child would grow to have a conscience or a moral structure as we view morality.

Issues with children having grown in the wild. During one of my psychology courses we discussed Victor of Aveyron, the professor was a developmental psychologist of fairly strong reputation, he mentioned that the documentation is fairly decent and that it is probable that Victor really did exist.

Also someone mentioned the girl being raised in a solitary cell. Her father was the only one to enter the room, and only to give her food, she was bound to a chair. He only grunted and gestured at her, no language was presented to her. She was unable to learn language at a decent level after she was discovered. I am unable to remember the exact references for this, but she does exist. I do not recall any studies with her outside of language. They did not want her to be just a subject to be poked and prodded.

do you wanna cite that?

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Is there such a thing?

Yes, it is called Humanism or Secular Humanism.

Originally posted by Regret
Morality -

A capacity to
1) distinguish right from wrong
2) act on this distinction, and
3) experience pride in virtuous conduct and guilt or shame over acts that violate one's standards

Supported psychoanalytic thoughts. Current theories state that conscience may begin in toddlers if they have warm and responsive parents. This occurs through committed compliance. Where a child will has high motivation to comply with the parent's wishes, is sensitive to whether the parent gives some body language type signal that they have done right or wrong, and internalize those reactions as pride, shame, guilt to help them evaluate and control their own behavior.

Cognitive-Developmental theories state that morality is learned. Initially a child follows no rules. Eventually rules are absolute as a child comes into contact with rules set up by authorities (parents, police, etc.) Finally, children learn that rules are flexible depending on the situation. Kohlberg expanded on this, but the theory follows a similar course that is more complex. Learning Theory says morality is learned by contact with the consequences of actions.

Morality has been shown a number of times to be controlled by the upbringing of a child. Poor upbringing results in a poor level of moral maturity. Good upbringing results in a good level of moral maturity.

Psychology today does believe that experience and learning plays the major role in morality and conscience development. It is a fact. There is little support there for the idea that they are inborn into a person. There may be something there, but without the proper raising there is no reason to believe that such a child would grow to have a conscience or a moral structure as we view morality.

Issues with children having grown in the wild. During one of my psychology courses we discussed Victor of Aveyron, the professor was a developmental psychologist of fairly strong reputation, he mentioned that the documentation is fairly decent and that it is probable that Victor really did exist.

. Yes, people learn by error and consequences.......In society when a person is shunned because of unacceptable behavior, then have 2 choices......leave or change....Or stay shunned.....It is cognitive...........I don't believe people are born with morals......It's learned.

This appears to be wrenching off-topic too much. Whilst the idea of whether morals are in-built or acquired may get a mention in a thread asking about how atheists can have morals, it shouldn't become the main point of discussion- that would warrant a thread of its own.

Let's try and bring this back to the atheists please.

Originally posted by Alliance
do you wanna cite that?


I will respond to this because I believe citation to be important, and then if someone starts a thread as Ushgarak suggested PM me and I may join that discussion. I will respect the Moderator though, and not post off topic material following this post.



I will add the citations that I feel are pertinent. If you need more I can look up some.

Originally posted by Regret
Morality -

A capacity to
1) distinguish right from wrong
2) act on this distinction, and
3) experience pride in virtuous conduct and guilt or shame over acts that violate one's standards

Quinn, R.A., Houts, A.C., & Graesser, A.C. (1994). Naturalistic conceptions of morality: A question-answering approach. Journal of Personality, 62, 260-267.

Shaffer, D.R. (1994). Do naturalistic conceptions of morality provide any answers? Journal of Personality, 62, 263-268.

Originally posted by Regret
Supported psychoanalytic thoughts. Current theories state that conscience may begin in toddlers if they have warm and responsive parents. This occurs through committed compliance. Where a child will has high motivation to comply with the parent's wishes, is sensitive to whether the parent gives some body language type signal that they have done right or wrong, and internalize those reactions as pride, shame, guilt to help them evaluate and control their own behavior.

Emde, R.N., Biringer, Z., Clyman, R.B., & Oppenheim, D. (1991). The moral self of infancy: Affective core and procedural knowledge. Developmental Review, 11, 251-270.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutuallyresponsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implications for early socialization. CHild Development, 68, 94-112.

Kochanska's article in Developmental Psychology from the same year is also an interesting read.

Labile, D.J., & Thompson, R.A. (2000). Mother-child discourse, attachment security,shared positive affect, and early conscience development. Child Development, 71, 1424-1440.

Originally posted by Regret
Cognitive-Developmental theories state that morality is learned. Initially a child follows no rules. Eventually rules are absolute as a child comes into contact with rules set up by authorities (parents, police, etc.) Finally, children learn that rules are flexible depending on the situation. Kohlberg expanded on this, but the theory follows a similar course that is more complex. Learning Theory says morality is learned by contact with the consequences of actions.

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligerice. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in chil_dren. New York: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1960). Psychology of intelligence. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. (Original work pub_lished 1932.)
Piaget, J. (1970a, May). A conversation with Jean Piaget. Psychology Today pp.25-32.
Piaget, J. (1970b). Piaget's theory. In P H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psy_chology (Vol.1). New York: Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psy_chology of the child. New York: Viking Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development; 15, 1-12.
Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Penguin.
Piaget J. (1977). The role of action in the devel_opment of thinking. In W. F. Overton & J. M. Gallagher (Eds.), Knowledge and development (Vol.1). New York: Plenum.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

If you would like Kohlberg's stuff let me know, but it is mainly just evolving to a better model of moral development, and does not really add to the idea that morality and conscience are somehow "built-in".

As for learning theory, we just believe that everything is as my sig states. There is no need for further reference into behavioral work. Behavior says everything is due to the consequences of prior behavior, with very few, if any, genetic predispositions built into humans. Morality is one that would not be "built-in" in the majority of behavior analyst's opinions.

Originally posted by Regret
Morality has been shown a number of times to be controlled by the upbringing of a child. Poor upbringing results in a poor level of moral maturity. Good upbringing results in a good level of moral maturity.

Hoffman, M.L. (1970). Moral development. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

Originally posted by Regret
Psychology today does believe that experience and learning plays the major role in morality and conscience development. It is a fact. There is little support there for the idea that they are inborn into a person. There may be something there, but without the proper raising there is no reason to believe that such a child would grow to have a conscience or a moral structure as we view morality.

This is my statement based on my education and the above information.

Originally posted by Regret
Issues with children having grown in the wild. During one of my psychology courses we discussed Victor of Aveyron, the professor was a developmental psychologist of fairly strong reputation, he mentioned that the documentation is fairly decent and that it is probable that Victor really did exist.

Also someone mentioned the girl being raised in a solitary cell. Her father was the only one to enter the room, and only to give her food, she was bound to a chair. He only grunted and gestured at her, no language was presented to her. She was unable to learn language at a decent level after she was discovered. I am unable to remember the exact references for this, but she does exist. I do not recall any studies with her outside of language. They did not want her to be just a subject to be poked and prodded.

I am sorry, I can't remember the name of the girl, if I could I would have an easy time getting the references for her. I will try to remember her name, if I come up with the references I will get them to you. As for Victor, we never went into the references, and I am unsure as to where to find them, I would suggest looking him up by name and going from there.

I beleive Morality to be both subjective and intuitive.

Yes, like Debbiejo said much of our morality is LEARNED...either by religion, and even in the case of Athiesm you learn from your influences (freinds, peers, etc) until you finally come up with a morality of your own.

However, I also beleive that there are certain aspects of morality that are innate, and not learned. I think there is a common morality that more than one person can share, without understanding why they think this way.

For example: I beleive that it is UNDENIABLY IMMORAL to torture another person for your own pleasure. I am not talking S&M, because the "victim" enjoys the torture, therefore it is not torture. I am talking about a crime....where one person inflicts unbearable pain onto his or her unwilling victim.


Was I taught to think this? No...this is just how I feel about it. No one ever taught me that this was evil, this is something I always felt was wrong, regardless of anyone's input, and the decision NEVER changed nor will it EVER change. Sorry. AND not to mention that there are TONS of people who feel the same exact way about the issue. WHY?

I think as humans we are social beings, and it is a natural desire to enjoy each other's company and work together to ensure our survival and pleasure. When a person harms another person, it is usually motivated by self survival. However, when a person harms another person for no other reason than pleasure....i feel that is abnormal, dangerous, and most likely an act of insanity. And I am one of many people who think this way.

I have personal morals, like I don't drop kick babies and rape goats.

Truth be told, I'd probally rob a bank if I thought I'd get away with it.

Urizen, did you even look at what I said? You didn't even attempt to mention atheism there.

Seriously, if you want to talk about whether morals are innate or learned, open a thread for it.

Originally posted by Alliance
no its not, but then why does a child's dog go up and lick that child when its is crying?
Because it learns that... They learn to love, I'm not saying animals are incapable of loving but it's not something... genetic. If a dog is born and it is kept in isolation with no contact with animals or humans until he's 3 years old and then you take him out of isolation and the dog sees a little kid crying, do you seriously believe it'll automatically feel compasion for him and go lick his face? No. It's illogical.

Ohhhhhhh everyone knows Atheists don't have morals.......It says so right here in the bible....
Along with uncircumcised, pork eating heretics......

and every one else whose not even vaguely "Christian"

Originally posted by Alliance
If what you say is true, then how is their morality "wrong" as it is all societal determenation anyway. Therefore, since its all societal reletavism, you can't really condemn them.

that is true. atleast partially in the mind of the individual. but lets not forget that no matter what their COMPREHENSION, the outcome of THEIR MORALITY is most definately destructive and hurtful to anuy human who has recieved the nurturing and instinctual common sense that humans are meant to atleast genetically have. that in my mind is what makes it WRONG. its not all reletive because for a simpal fact that human beings do NOT like being treated badly, be hurt physically, be raped murdered etc. now as far as the problem of GENETIC morality as sum1 mentioned it before goes. i say that the fealing of love, caing etc are only genetically present in family's and sumtimes in lovers, other than that any normal MORALITY eg, perverted sexual behavious invasion of privacy, socially unacceptable behavious etc is NOT part of any higher or genetic/mysicaly or INHERITED morality.

Somewhere there is someone that thinks that another's morality is immoral from their point of view, same goes for Christians, Atheists, Altruists, Feminists, Misogynists, Sadomasochists, Satanists, Racists, Polygamists, Monogamists, Humanists, etc., etc... Somebody somewhere thinks you and I are immoral, keep them happy and maintain their beliefs

Nobody expects me to have any morals, I might as well please them and drop kick babies.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
Is there such a thing? Apparently, most Americans don't think so:

"A new study by the Minnesota Department of Sociology found, according to its researchers, that 'Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other MINORITY GROUPS in "sharing their vision of American society." Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.'"

http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2006/05/04/views4.html they're below me? Damn

Originally posted by Kritish
Nobody expects me to have any morals, I might as well please them and drop kick babies. they go really far...




yeah i'm going to hell...

Whats more amusing than a flying, crying, broken baby?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This appears to be wrenching off-topic too much. Whilst the idea of whether morals are in-built or acquired may get a mention in a thread asking about how atheists can have morals, it shouldn't become the main point of discussion- that would warrant a thread of its own.

Let's try and bring this back to the atheists please.


Ushgarak....that's what you don't get. There are people like Adam Poe who are argue that morals do not exist. Therefore if we simply accept his argument as to avoid a change in subject, then it may derail the debate in another direction.

If we are talking about Athiest Morality then I beleive we have to be under the common assumption that morality DOES exist. Whether or not it is independent of religion is a whole other story.

That's basically all I was trying to get across, I didn't mean to get off topic.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
There are people like Adam Poe who are argue that morals do not exist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE



Yes, it is called Humanism or Secular Humanism.

****tard.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, it is called Humanism or Secular Humanism.

****tard.

And how do you know that Atheist Morality is always Humanism? I consider myself Humanist in many ways, but I am not Athiest.

Sure, Humanism was the START in the movement of non-religious morality, but not all Athiests of today are Humanistic.

And no name calling please....ur freakn user name is Adam Poe, THAT is enough to laugh at, so don't even get me started.

You HAVE said that morality is all subjective, how it doesn't exist, and all that BS, so don't deny it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And how do you know that Atheist Morality is always Humanism? I consider myself Humanist in many ways, but I am not Athiest.

Nowhere have I stated that all athiests are Humanists. However, even if we presume that all athiests are Humanists, it does not follow from this that all Humanists are atheists.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sure, Humanism was the START in the movement of non-religious morality, but not all Athiests of today are Humanistic.

If I had argued that all athiests are Humanists, you would almost have a point. However, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Many athiests are also Buddhists, Humanists, Materialists, Naturalists, and so on.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And no name calling please....ur freakn user name is Adam Poe, THAT is enough to laugh at, so don't even get me started.

By all means, get started. On your best day, you are not half as intelligent as I am on my worst day.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You HAVE said that morality is all subjective, how it doesn't exist, and all that BS, so don't deny it.

Nowhere have I stated that morality does not exist. To the contrary, the following post indicates that not only does morality exist, but that it can be completely independent of religious belief:



Yes, it is called Humanism or Secular Humanism.

Moreover, morality is subjective. If morality was absolute, then there would not be cultural relativism.

That's not true, it would just mean that many, if not all, cultures had got it wrong.

I don't know why people think that the idea of objective morality automatically means everyone's interpretation of what is moral would be identical.

Atheists often attempt to find a basis for this outside of the spiritual.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Ushgarak....that's what you don't get. There are people like Adam Poe who are argue that morals do not exist. Therefore if we simply accept his argument as to avoid a change in subject, then it may derail the debate in another direction.

If we are talking about Athiest Morality then I beleive we have to be under the common assumption that morality DOES exist. Whether or not it is independent of religion is a whole other story.

That's basically all I was trying to get across, I didn't mean to get off topic.

Don't assume I don't get it. Fact is, that is an argument for a different thread.

If a thread requires an assunption to work, then fine. Don't like the assumption? Don't bother with the thread. Easy.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nowhere have I stated that all athiests are Humanists. However, even if we presume that all athiests are Humanists, it does not follow from this that all Humanists are atheists.


You just referred to Athiest Morality as Humanism or Secular Humanism...




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If I had argued that all athiests are Humanists, you would almost have a point. However, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Many athiests are also Buddhists, Humanists, Materialists, Naturalists, and so on..

Yes, something we both know. I don't care to have a point against you, I only care that you are not trying to say that the only morality Athiests have is a Humanistic one. Now that i know you have no stated this, let's end it.





Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, get started. On your best day, you are not half as intelligent as I am on my worst day. .


And you know this how ? Nice 5th grade insult, you are SO CUTE !!!




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nowhere have I stated that morality does not exist. To the contrary, the following post indicates that not only does morality exist, but that it can be completely independent of religious belief:.

You have stated on the Abortion threads that morality is only subjective (suggesting that intuitive morality is non existant) and that I was wrong to apply it to Abortion. Please stop being a hypocrit ok?



Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, it is called Humanism or Secular Humanism

Moreover, morality is subjective. If morality was absolute, then there would not be cultural relativism.

I beleive nothing to be absolute. Not as far as we know. Although morality differs from person to person, it does exist. The mental existances are just as valid as the physical.



NE WAY...just so i dont stay off topic......Ofcourse Athiests have a morality, a morality that can be equal to, better, or worse than that of a religious person.

We both seem to agree that you don't need to be religious to have morals. However, since some Athiests may lack a religion, I beleive thier morality to be a mixture of intuitive feelings AND logic based on thier experiences.

I beleive that religious people, not all, but many, have an almost "programmed" morality since they were taught thier morals from a young age.

I believe most Athiests to have a more Unique morality since they had to learn on thier own, however.....i feel that both religious people AND Athiests may have an intuitive ability to decide right from wrong, WITHOUT prior experience to justify thier beleifs.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You just referred to Athiest Morality as Humanism or Secular Humanism...

As well as Buddhism, Materialism, Naturalism, and so on.




Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, something we both know. I don't care to have a point against you, I only care that you are not trying to say that the only morality Athiests have is a Humanistic one. Now that i know you have no stated this, let's end it.

I should not have to clarify something that I never stated in the first place. Perhaps you should have been certain what it is that is being stated before you started it.




Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And you know this how ? Nice 5th grade insult, you are SO CUTE !!!

By the inane stupidity that you demonstrate in every illogical, rhetorical, and otherwise, irrelevant post.




Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You have stated on the Abortion threads that morality is only subjective (suggesting that intuitive morality is non existant) and that I was wrong to apply it to Abortion. Please stop being a hypocrit ok?

Why would one argue that morality is subjective if he believes that morality is non-existent? Stop arguing like a complete idiot.

Perhaps an atheist morality would be a more universal, and more accepting morality. The reason for this thought is that atheist morality should include the knowledge that their morality came from themselves and not from some more grand entity, be it government, God, society or something else. The problem that exists is that those with a self defined morality want a group to cling to oftentimes. This causes some to learn the morality of the group and not morality for themselves. I believe that any form of morality is weak if the reasoning behind the morality is not personal. Once it becomes sourced from a larger entity it becomes too absolute with little tolerance for others views.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
As well as Buddhism, Materialism, Naturalism, and so on.


Okay......





Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I should not have to clarify something that I never stated in the first place. Perhaps you should have been certain what it is that is being stated before you started it.


Then why bring up the point? YOU were the one who brought this up, even before in the Abortion Threads.





Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By the inane stupidity that you demonstrate in every illogical, rhetorical, and otherwise, irrelevant post.


Mhhmmm.......how old are you again?





Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why would one argue that morality is subjective if he believes that morality is non-existent? Stop arguing like a complete idiot.


That's what I always wanted to ask you. You contradicted yourself from this thread to the abortion one. And I'm the idiot...yeah.......

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then why bring up the point? YOU were the one who brought this up, even before in the Abortion Threads.

I should not have to clarify that not all athiests are Humanists when I never stated that all athiests are Humanists. That is a statement that you attributed to me based on an inference that you made from my post.



Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's what I always wanted to ask you. You contradicted yourself from this thread to the abortion one. And I'm the idiot...yeah.......

I never argued that morality is non-existent. To the contrary, I argued that morality is existent, but subjective. The perceived contradiction is based on statements that you attributed to me that I never made.



So yes, you are the idiot.

Folks, please try and stick to making constructive posts.

---

"The reason for this thought is that atheist morality should include the knowledge that their morality came from themselves and not from some more grand entity, be it government, God, society or something else"

---

"Should"? Why "should"? It is perfectly feasible for an atheist to believe that morals come from without.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Folks, please try and stick to making constructive posts.

---

"The reason for this thought is that atheist morality should include the knowledge that their morality came from themselves and not from some more grand entity, be it government, God, society or something else"

---

"Should"? Why "should"? It is perfectly feasible for an atheist to believe that morals come from without.

The original atheist that had no one to teach him morality, if he has morals, had to come to the reasoning behind them on his own. For those that believe in an "Enlightenment" or "Nirvana" type of state, the original moral person would have to have come to an understanding as to morality on his own. If the belief is held that the "Universe" or other similar idea gave him this understanding, it seems to be too similar to the idea of god to fit the term atheist.

If this doesn't properly respond to your statement, I believe that I will need more clarification as to what "come from without" is referring to.

I also assume the "Folks, please try and stick to making constructive posts" did not refer to my post?

Well, I am afraid you are simply wrong.

An atheist does not have to belief in God to belive that morals are a conceot independant of humanity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I am afraid you are simply wrong.

An atheist does not have to belief in God to belive that morals are a conceot independant of humanity.

I did not say this. Where, independent of humanity, does an atheists morals come from? How do morals for an atheist come into being if they are independent of humanity? I cannot concede that I am wrong without an explanation of this.

Well, now you are simply asking for a given atheist to explain such a stance. That's hardly the point. The point is, atheists can (and many do) have such a stance- a belief in an objective morality that is independant of humanity itself.

Morals don't have to come from a spirutal soruce, nor do they have to come from humans, so there is no reason why someone can't envisage a moral code independant of either.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, now you are simply asking for a given atheist to explain such a stance. That's hardly the point. The point is, atheists can (and many do) have such a stance- a belief in an objective moraity that is independant of humanity itself.

Morals don't have to come from a spirutal soruce, nor do they have to come from humans, so there is no reason why someone can envisage a moral code independant of either.

Should I start a thread posing that question? We could discuss it there if this is an inappropriate thread for the discussion.

There is no reason for someone not to define such a thing in here. My point is only that it is possible.

Not all atheists believe morals are an internal thing for humans, simple as that.

I agree it is possible.

I think that the discussion has evolved from just "Do atheists have morals?" to include the question "If so where do they come from?"

I have difficulty understanding where, independent of humanity, morals could come from that would not include something not unlike the idea of god. And my term god refers to anything that fits the parameters of the definition of God, minus the being/man type terms, especially definitions two or four.

god

NOUN:

God
1)
a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2) A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5) A very handsome man.
6) A powerful ruler or despot.

ohho ush rules

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no reason for someone not to define such a thing in here. My point is only that it is possible.

Not all atheists believe morals are an internal thing for humans, simple as that.

I sort of agree here. There is much reason to beleive that morality is also intuitive, rather than just subjective.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I sort of agree here. There is much reason to beleive that morality is also intuitive, rather than just subjective.

Intuitive is still developed in the individual, not attributed to something external and independent of humanity

Originally posted by Regret
Intuitive is still developed in the individual, not attributed to something external and independent of humanity

So do you also beleive that intuition cannot be attributed to genetics? To the subconcious?

You know the subconcious is a realm of the mind that we have no direct access to.....it is the part of our mind we are unaware of. I beleive it is highly possible that many parts of our morality may come from this part of our brain.

Do you ever feel that sometimes u KNOW the answer to something...or you have this feeling about something, but you don't understand why. Nothing in your memories can be attributed to this certain feeling, this kind of instinct, you just have this "knowledge" from out of no where.

I beleive that intuitive feeling to come from either the subconcious parts of our mind, or possible genetic mental attributes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So do you also beleive that intuition cannot be attributed to genetics? To the subconcious?

You know the subconcious is a realm of the mind that we have no direct access to.....it is the part of our mind we are unaware of. I beleive it is highly possible that many parts of our morality may come from this part of our brain.

Do you ever feel that sometimes u KNOW the answer to something...or you have this feeling about something, but you don't understand why. Nothing in your memories can be attributed to this certain feeling, this kind of instinct, you just have this "knowledge" from out of no where.

I beleive that intuitive feeling to come from either the subconcious parts of our mind, or possible genetic mental attributes.

The response to this is no. I do not believe that there is "genetic" morality. As far as subconscious, it is a hypothetical that may not exist. Physiologically, I do not believe there is anything in your brain telling you anything other than the four F's:

Feed
Fight
Flee
Fornicate

Everything else is learned, but we have been directed to avoid the debate over learned or not.

thats a grreat synopsis, but those can lead to some basic morals.

Most animals aren't cannibalistic, even though members of your own species are often the closest food source and removing them increases local competition (but decreases the special compitition as well).

Animals just don't mate with the first thing that crosses their path, they choose, indicatign some sort of biological selection...a preference possibly based on some sort of baisc moral code.

Originally posted by Alliance
thats a grreat synopsis, but those can lead to some basic morals.

I agree that genetics can lead to the development of morals. But, it is a development, it is not the genetics popping out morals. It takes reasoning outside of the genetics, although maybe based upon the genetics, to come to a form of morality.

Maslows data sucks. His methodology sucked. His subject samples were too small to make the generalizations he made. Also, he chose his subjects based on ambiguous and inconsistent measures of "psychological health" that he came up with. Maslow himself agreed that his methods did not measure up to scientific standards. Most aspects of Maslow's research and theories have no respectable support.

But then that's just the general Psychological community's opinion of Maslow.

Regret> I see you only stating your opinion. Do you have any facts?

Originally posted by The Omega
Social and psychological studies and research must be among the hardest subjects to test in real life.
Thats why I don't consider it a real science.

Would you say a basic moral constuct is built in.

Atheist morality is much different than Atheist mortality, or is that immortality..........

I'm going to start a new thread with the subject "How is morality developed, or is it innate?" in the philosophy forum.

Let's discuss this there.

ok

*runs to philosphy forum*

OK...takes a nap

Originally posted by Regret
I agree it is possible.

I think that the discussion has evolved from just "Do atheists have morals?" to include the question "If so where do they come from?"

I have difficulty understanding where, independent of humanity, morals could come from that would not include something not unlike the idea of god. And my term god refers to anything that fits the parameters of the definition of God, minus the being/man type terms, especially definitions two or four.

god

NOUN:

God
1)
a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2) A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3) An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4) One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5) A very handsome man.
6) A powerful ruler or despot.

Well, this all seems rather basic. I can assume you have not had much contact with Humanism.

Atheist morality can be souced simply into the nature of the universe, or as represented by a philisophical truth to be discovered.

Heck, you could think aliens invented it and the position would still hold.

But the absolute still has merit as a possibility. Objective morality existing in the universe, but not sourced from any spurious idea of God (which calls into question its objectivity anyway), nor simply a result of the way Humans develop. This is where alien consideration would be important, because true objective morals would be true for all sentient life.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, this all seems rather basic. I can assume you have not had much contact with Humanism.

Atheist morality can be souced simply into the nature of the universe, or as represented by a philisophical truth to be discovered.

Heck, you could think aliens invented it and the position would still hold.

But the absolute still has merit as a possibility. Objective morality existing in the universe, but not sourced from any spurious idea of God (which calls into question its objectivity anyway), nor simply a result of the way Humans develop. This is where alien consideration would be important, because true objective morals would be true for all sentient life.

I personally do not believe that humanism is a credible stance. People lie, cheat, and steal. I do not believe that man would be moral without some religious motivation, unless of course man learned his morality.

I do believe atheists can be moral. Something somewhere could have input morality into the atheist. I believe I am more interested in how morals develop, or from where they originate, than whether atheists get morals from somewhere independent of humanity. As such I will be responding to morality issues on the thread I mentioned above.

I again say that morality is a learned process. Now I know many good Christians, but when push comes to shove, I've seen Christians that act like pure evil........Then again people will say, "Well, they really weren't real Christians anyway."...........Then there are atheists who are always condemned that don't need to please a god and yet still stand strong in their belief of what is right.

Believing in a god does not make one moral. Morals existed before the Book/books.

Originally posted by Regret
I personally do not believe that humanism is a credible stance. People lie, cheat, and steal. I do not believe that man would be moral without some religious motivation, unless of course man learned his morality.

I do believe atheists can be moral. Something somewhere could have input morality into the atheist. I believe I am more interested in how morals develop, or from where they originate, than whether atheists get morals from somewhere independent of humanity. As such I will be responding to morality issues on the thread I mentioned above.

Humanism is not necessarily the statement that Humans ARE moral without religion.

It is the more the position that they should be.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Humanism is not necessarily the statement that Humans ARE moral without religion.

It is the more the position that they should be.

Yes, I understand this. I don't see a reason for the should be.

The problem I have with that is that I personally would not be moral without a good reason to be. Without some reason, either escaping something or gaining something, I do not see a need for morals. I might seem to behave in a moral manner, but would it be what we are referring to as morality? I do not believe so. I do not believe that, without some reason to behave well, people really are dignified or of worth. I believe that people that state they would behave otherwise are full of crap. I don't believe that man would be moral without the rules that exist. He may not kill or steal, but not doing things we consider bad by our estimation of morality does not necessitate morals. I believe that that is why, if religion is only man made, religion exists, to give man a reason to behave with dignity, to give man a reason to believe he is of worth. This is my personal opinion. God help us if I decide the atheist is right lol

Again, you do seem to skate around the point there.

When I say 'should', I am talking about right.

Humanists say that believing as they do is the right way to be, as opposed to those who do not, who are in various ways wrong.

So it is all very well for you to say you would not be moral without a 'good reason'. A Humanist would say that if you do not recognise that morality is its own good reason, then you are simply in error.

It is nothing to do with what humans tend to be, or how people may on average turn out. It is about what people should be, what it is right for them to be. And the point being that people should be like this without needing any recourse to spiritual justification, like religion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you do seem to skate around the point there.

When I say 'should', I am talking about right.

Humanists say that believing as they do is the right way to be, as opposed to those who do not, who are in various ways wrong.

So it is all very well for you to say you would not be moral without a 'good reason'. A Humanist would say that if you do not recognise that morality is its own good reason, then you are simply in error.

It is nothing to do with what humans tend to be, or how people may on average turn out. It is about what people should be, what it is right for them to be. And the point being that people should be like this without needing any recourse to spiritual justification, like religion.

I believe I am missing your point in some way. I just stated that my opinion was that the optimism of a development of morality is not necessarily accurate. If you are arguing that it is possible, I'll concede that, but if you are arguing that it is necessarily probable, I disagree.

To my understanding humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our our understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source. This to me, does not necessitate what we refer to as morality occurring. This is optimism that morality would develop, but not stating that it will.

'Transcendental' is a very vague term.

But again, you are talking a lot about where the morality comes from. That's not the point. The point is meant to be the desirability of having them.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
'Transcendental' is a very vague term.

But again, you are talking a lot about where the morality comes from. That's not the point. The point is meant to be the desirability of having them.

Agreed, that is why I made that other thread, I don't think I am the proper person to comment in this forum, and I do not have the knowledge to properly debate this aspect of the topic. Also, I am probably not as interested in this topic as I thought I was, the other thread is a better area for me. Perhaps it is not quite proper either, if there were a science forum I think my views on morality and where it came from would fit best there.