I don't think the question "Where do atheists get their morals from?" in such a general way, is particularly important. Atheists, like most people regardless of their faith systems, tend to set up their moral compasses according to the ethical values of their communities. They hold principles such as "Killing is wrong." and "Respect your fellow man." to be self evident and hardly ever bother to venture deep into analyzing the implications and veracity of such adages.
I think it would be more interesting to ask the question in a more personal way, to ask atheists to explain how they themselves obtained moral values in a way that doesn't contradict logic.
Why is that more interesting?
From an evolutionary point of view, morals in a group give an advantage in the changes for survival. Morals would bring cohesion to a group, thus giving it strength to survive. That only gets a little tricky if you're already the strongest group, why would you need morals towards a weaker group. In that sense morality in the sense of altruism defies logic maybe.
Originally posted by queeq
Why is that more interesting?From an evolutionary point of view, morals in a group give an advantage in the changes for survival. Morals would bring cohesion to a group, thus giving it strength to survive. That only gets a little tricky if you're already the strongest group, why would you need morals towards a weaker group. In that sense morality in the sense of altruism defies logic maybe.
a recent study modeling the interactions between groups found that early human civilizations would have been most successful with a combination of in group altruism and out group hostility.
In a sense, the altruism you are talking about comes from a larger in-group (nation or species rather than just tribe), but ya, strongest group does better by not being altruistic to its competitors.
Originally posted by inimalistAnd that's where we step over the line of morals and enter the practices of religion!
a recent study modeling the interactions between groups found that early human civilizations would have been most successful with a combination of in group altruism and out group hostility.In a sense, the altruism you are talking about comes from a larger in-group (nation or species rather than just tribe), but ya, strongest group does better by not being altruistic to its competitors.
Originally posted by chickenlover98I was implying that inimalist's description of "a combination of in group altruism and out group hostility" can be described in one word: religion. Of course, I'm a supporter of one organized religion in particular, but religions in general are so easy to make fun of I just couldn't help myself.
speaking of religon i worship ur moms holes every night 😛 .
Originally posted by Quark_666i was just joking. i understand ur point though
I was implying that inimalist's description of "a combination of in group altruism and out group hostility" can be described in one word: religion. Of course, I'm a supporter of one organized religion in particular, but religions in general are so easy to make fun of I just couldn't help myself.