I have a question for athiests.

Originally posted by chithappens
The question is an insult to me. If anyone else sees it as "innocent" that is a point of view I guess, but why would I need God for morals?

Besides, he used "murder" in the question and then mentioned a broader idea of moral dilemma, but who the hell needs a system of morality to not kill? That's not something you just up and do when a guy takes a pencil off your desk or jumps in front of you in rush hour traffic.

I just do not see the point of the question. Murder is an extreme circumstance for most people. Murder occurs frequently, in that people are getting murdered everyday, but I do not know a murderer? Do you?

Murder is not common enough to ask it as if that's some shit we all go through.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

...

As for attacks that atheists arbitrarily decide on a set of morals, to me (and many others) the moral standards of religions are equally as arbitrary. And you aren't automatically more "correct" because you have the backing of an organized body of people (neither is 'correct' or 'incorrect' in a strict sense).

As social creatures we are compelled to work together to survive. It is in our best interest to support each other, and work together. I think it is counter productive to kill each other for the sake of pleasure or sport, or even anger. Self defense seems to be the only kustified reason to kill, as far as survival is concerned.

Selfishness comes from fear of others. We only feel we can trust ourselves, therefore we associate another's success with our own failure. For a person who is selfish, it is hard for he or she to see another's happiness as anything other than a threat to his or her own happiness.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
As social creatures we are compelled to work together to survive. It is in our best interest to support each other, and work together. I think it is counter productive to kill each other for the sake of pleasure or sport, or even anger. Self defense seems to be the only kustified reason to kill, as far as survival is concerned.

Selfishness comes from fear of others. We only feel we can trust ourselves, therefore we associate another's success with our own failure. For a person who is selfish, it is hard for he or she to see another's happiness as anything other than a threat to his or her own happiness.

That first paragraph is the basic outline of group selection, which is incorrect in an evolutionary sense...even though it seems to make intuitive sense to us. Its appeal has led to many misconceptions in the genetic base of species altruism. And in actuality, there's more reasons than simply self-defense that help to ensure survival, both within humans and other species.

Acts of survival are more closely related to selfishness, even many acts that appear outwardly altruistic.

Humans stand alone in our ability to go against our genetic programming, so not all of it is genetic selfishness, but a lot more than any of us are aware of is rooted in the innate programming we receive at conception....even if that programming (inherently slefish toward our genes) manifests itself as outward altruism. It's the nature (genes) vs. nuture (environment) argument...but both are partially correct for humans, though if I had to guess I'd say the scales are still tipped more toward nature than we think.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That first paragraph is the basic outline of group selection, which is incorrect in an evolutionary sense...even though it seems to make intuitive sense to us. Its appeal has led to many misconceptions in the genetic base of species altruism. And in actuality, there's more reasons than simply self-defense that help to ensure survival, both within humans and other species.

Acts of survival are more closely related to selfishness, even many acts that appear outwardly altruistic.

Humans stand alone in our ability to go against our genetic programming, so not all of it is genetic selfishness, but a lot more than any of us are aware of is rooted in the innate programming we receive at conception....even if that programming (inherently slefish toward our genes) manifests itself as outward altruism. It's the nature (genes) vs. nuture (environment) argument...but both are partially correct for humans, though if I had to guess I'd say the scales are still tipped more toward nature than we think.

I wasn't talking about Evolution. Human Beings are classified as social creatures, like lions are, like wolves and monkeys are. We benefit off socialization with eachother, and human history has shown this.

We are not like Tigers who live alone, or want to.

People need other people to survive, and it's always been that way. To attack another person, for a reason other than self defense or food, goes against our social nature.

That doesn't mean anything though.

How do you know humans are the only animals capable of going against our "natural programming" ?

There are plenty of animals in the wild who express eradic behavior, even on the verge of being "pointless". Animals are not like computers who follow the same pattern as every other animal. Animals have the ability to make choices, and have shown emotions.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I wasn't talking about Evolution. Human Beings are classified as social creatures, like lions are, like wolves and monkeys are. We benefit off socialization with eachother, and human history has shown this.

We are not like Tigers who live alone, or want to.

People need other people to survive, and it's always been that way. To attack another person, for a reason other than self defense or food, goes against our social nature.

That doesn't mean anything though.

How do you know humans are the only animals capable of going against our "natural programming" ?

There are plenty of animals in the wild who express eradic behavior, even on the verge of being "pointless". Animals are not like computers who follow the same pattern as every other animal. Animals have the ability to make choices, and have shown emotions.

Most erratic behavior can be linked to genetic mutation...which sounds nasty, but is just a recessive gene becoming dominant or a new gene forming that exhibits a different behavior. Even much of our 'social' activity (altruism toward family members, for example) has a clear genetic backdrop for survival pruposes.

Saying it goes against our social nature to kill may be true, but it also goes against (speaking to the majority, excluding rogue mutations) our genetic nature...because genes that promote serial killing mentality, for example, will have their hosts die on them without reproduction and therefore, over time, won't become numerous in the gene pool....this is a case example of natural selection, which is indicative of a FAR larger trend than we could hope to catalogue here.

As for no one but us going against programming, no I can't claim that definitively, so my apologies for slightly overstepping my bounds. Environmental factors play a part in every species. But I'm still not far from the truth...because like I said, far more than most of us are aware of comes down to predetermined genetic disposition.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Haha. I'm an atheist. My heathen, devil-inspired opinion follows:

1. A system of moral laws from a supposed deity is just as arbitrary as any system. If the Christian Church can make a set of moral laws, so can I...and both are equally as valid so long as they are supported by justifiable reasoning.

2. Don't you find it odd that the reason that you are "good" is because someone told you to, with fear of punishment (Hell) for not following them? Sounds like an angry parent dictating rules to a child to me. I'm "good" because I decide to be on my own. It's liberating. You should try it.

3. Social relativism: If I didn't have some standard of moral that is at least roughly consistent with the status quo, I'd end up in jail or dead. Same with anyone, religious or not. Why do think religious teachings, on the whole, have mellowed through the centuries? It's so they aren't persecuted by the general populace for being too rigid and evil. Witch burnings ftw!

4. Evolution. Inamilist summarized it well. basically, our bodies are programmed via thousands/millions of years of genetic conditioning to be altruistic in a general sense toward the species (and more specfically toward close relatives) to ensure the survival of our genes. In an evolutionary sense, terms like morality, altruism, and selfishness are explained fully and the whole thing becomes de-mystified.

Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.

West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.

Right, which would go into the "social relativism" section of my numbered opinions there. I was also brought up a Catholic, so I more than most current atheists can probably attribute my idea of morality to Christian influences.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Most erratic behavior can be linked to genetic mutation...which sounds nasty, but is just a recessive gene becoming dominant or a new gene forming that exhibits a different behavior. Even much of our 'social' activity (altruism toward family members, for example) has a clear genetic backdrop for survival pruposes.

Saying it goes against our social nature to kill may be true, but it also goes against (speaking to the majority, excluding rogue mutations) our genetic nature...because genes that promote serial killing mentality, for example, will have their hosts die on them without reproduction and therefore, over time, won't become numerous in the gene pool....this is a case example of natural selection, which is indicative of a FAR larger trend than we could hope to catalogue here.

As for no one but us going against programming, no I can't claim that definitively, so my apologies for slightly overstepping my bounds. Environmental factors play a part in every species. But I'm still not far from the truth...because like I said, far more than most of us are aware of comes down to predetermined genetic disposition.

Not all humans are the same, and likewise, niether are all animals. And I don't beleive that survival is our only desire in life, only our first instinct. I highly doubt that survival is an animal's only desire either, especially where pets are concerned.

The confusion I have with God having set forth Evolution is that it would suggest that God is working by means of chance, through uncertainties, and through a series of conditional consecutive choices.

That's unlike a "perfect" "all knowing" and "unchanging" God to do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it or not, you are the product of Christianity. (assuming you have European heritage)

Your history, you ancestors, your moral codes, law codes, the freedom to have to have opinions you have, are shaped by Christianity.

The way you implement morality and ethics are shaped by Christianity.

Not just you, but all of you who are from the West.

Your whole history is Christianity. Its funny how many people of European -> North American heritage like to crap all over it all the time.
Don't believe in it - great.

West saturated with strictly Christian (spawned from roman Catholicism) culture, weather you believe in God or not.

Which is why I feel I am right to challenge it or question it. For one to say that Christianity has no effect on my life is false, for it has been one of the greatest forces in shaping my self and environment.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Right, which would go into the "social relativism" section of my numbered opinions there. I was also brought up a Catholic, so I more than most current atheists can probably attribute my idea of morality to Christian influences.

Its a collective Western morality. Everything in the West is shaped and influenced by Christianity - some things more than others. (Well Roman Catholicism to begin with, then it branched off)

We can argue that it slowed down a lot of progress in some aspects - but that too is part of the culture.

Also, I said in the previous post Christian culture, its actually more Judeo-Christian, but you get the gist.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you believe that it's wrong to kill another human, and if so where do you get that from and what do you base it on? I know its wrong because the Bible tells me so, but where do you get that belief?

---

Buddhists need not apply, because I already know that you have a set code of morals and ethics. This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

So you'd probably think it was okay to kill people if the bible didn't say otherwise?

Our morals come from places other than religion. Such as contributions from society, and just basic human morality.

Originally posted by BackFire
So you'd probably think it was okay to kill people if the bible didn't say otherwise?

Our morals come from places other than religion. Such as contributions from society, and just basic human morality.

Exactly. I am surprised he needed a book to tell him that killing someone was bad.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Not all humans are the same, and likewise, niether are all animals. And I don't beleive that survival is our only desire in life, only our first instinct. I highly doubt that survival is an animal's only desire either, especially where pets are concerned.

The confusion I have with God having set forth Evolution is that it would suggest that God is working by means of chance, through uncertainties, and through a series of conditional consecutive choices.

That's unlike a "perfect" "all knowing" and "unchanging" God to do.

No, all humans aren't alike. That's the point. We have different genes, which construct us differently. And since, for example, our family share more genes with us than strangers, we're more likely to be programmed to be altruistic toward them, because genes would tend to survive that promoted mutual altruism instead of mutual slefishness, which would quickly kill themselves off and diminish themselves in the gene pool.

And it is isn't about individual survival. It's about gene survival. They don't actively "want" anything, even survival, since they aren't at the level to have such desires. But because of their nature they construct survival machines (us) to help them survive. We aren't conscious of this either, it's simply hard-wired into our tendencies and actions. Thus, acts like altruism can genuinely be thought of as 'selfless' and 'good' on an individual (human) level because we don't perceive ourselves as doing this for some kind of genetic survival....but these acts can simultaneously be acts that serve the good of our genes. Natural selection has developed, over millions of years, vessles that act on behalf of their genes unconsciously, and this generally involves altruism toward kin and even a larger community of our species.

There are always exceptions, of course, and our consciousness and intelligence gives us other tools for overcoming these tendencies, but that remains the general rule.

...

Yes, throwing God into it poses problems. Evolution is actually quite elegant however...not the hyper-unlikely nigh-impossibility some believe.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Exactly. I am surprised he needed a book to tell him that killing someone was bad.

That is because you're speaking from perspective of someone living in a developed society, 2007AD.

If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.

Or even if you're born in Middle East, your answer might not be the same.

Regardless, I'm not saying Bible told everyone what to do, I am saying those ten commandments have influenced laws and morality of Western Society.

Sometimes it influenced right people, sometimes the wrong ones.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is because you're speaking from perspective of someone living in a developed society, 2007AD.

If I asked you the same question 3 000 years ago, I am not sure your answer would be the same.

Or even if you're born in Middle East, your answer might not be the same.

Regardless, I'm not saying Bible told everyone what to do, I am saying those ten commandments have influenced laws and morality of Western Society.

Sometimes it influenced right people, sometimes the wrong ones.

😆

Well...the Middle East is full of poverty and suffering, to a greater extent than the West. Not to mention fueds which keep refueling themselves between towns.

If I were filled with Anger and Rage, I would think killing was right, or atleast not a big deal in comparison to the pain I felt.

However, being someone with a generally basic slate, I can objectively look at an act of murder, and still see something i just don't like.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Its a collective Western morality. Everything in the West is shaped and influenced by Christianity - some things more than others. (Well Roman Catholicism to begin with, then it branched off)

We can argue that it slowed down a lot of progress in some aspects - but that too is part of the culture.

Also, I said in the previous post Christian culture, its actually more Judeo-Christian, but you get the gist.

For the most part, I agree. Much as I can't agree with Catholicism anymore, I'm probably indebted to it for shaping much of my moral "base". And yes, culture defining morality is a huge trend throughout the world, whether it is merely social morality or religious morality.

As for its impact on culture, a Christian will tell you the Church kept progress alive suring say, the Dark Ages and has had countless positive cultural influecnes (partially true) and others will say it inhibits scientific progress, among other things (also partially true). It's an amusing matter of perspective.

I feel like I am beginning to break down my traditional Christian morality (I no longer believe in root concepts such as 'good' and 'evil' for example) but in terms of functional reality (what I do in my life) not much has changed between Mark "then" and Mark "now" and it's because of my culture, most likely.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would take a while to explain. I'd try to summarize it, but I have the feeling not many would read it. If you're actually interested, read Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". It isn't about God, or a lack of God, or morals, etc. It's about evolution...and it goes deeper than most lay people understand it, and it elegantly explains how evolution accounts for altruism and selfishness, the base concepts behind ideas like morality.

It is a great book.

Originally posted by chithappens
The question is an insult to me. If anyone else sees it as "innocent" that is a point of view I guess, but why would I need God for morals?

Thats exactly what I was thinking and why Queiro got attacked. It sounded like hey "The Bible tell me what to do, but athiests make up morality as you go along."

Where did he say or imply that?

A-T-H-E-I-S-T.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Where did he say or imply that?

A-T-H-E-I-S-T.

Here.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread is specifically directed at those of you on KMC (and there's quite a few) who have no religious preference.

and here.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I'm not denying that at all. Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion "Atheists can be moral." Ok, fine, but where do these morals come from? Did Dawkins just pull his morals out of his ass "I think this is wrong. I didn't get this from any formulized rules, I just arbitrarily made this up. This is what I will live by"?

Are you correcting my spelling?