Why Are Atheists Moral

Originally posted by chithappens
1) The first two sentences are contradicting: "Born with" and "capable of" are very different. It is not instinctive to care about the man adjacent to you.

2) Dawkins statement is helpful to what you want it to say. "Halo theory" says that one will say something that the majority would agree simply to appear moral. We have no clue what said person would do if they REALLY KNEW that there was no god.

If may be true, but there is no way to know that with certainty.

1) To a point it is, the preservation of the herd. I don't know dude, i just know if someone needs help and i can help them, i'll do it. And it's not for my own gain.
2) Sure, you really don't know what anyone is capable of, but most sane individuals would rationalize against murder and rape, it's not just a fear of prison or hell. There are people from all types of religious backgrounds sitting in prison right now including atheist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what agnosticism is about.

So then what's it all about?? If not's based on an "I don't know" outlook on the world?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But most people that call themselves agnostics generally know their shit.

Now by "most people", are you just referring to yourself? If so, then what shit do they know? Since apparently, you're the Official World Agnostic's Spokesman.

I've known many Agnostics in my 40 years, and 9 times out of 10, they're the uncertain-of-themselves-or-their-place-in-the-universe wanderer that I'm talking about. They also tend to shy away from any theological discussion.

I don't know, every Agnostic I know has read into religion a lot and just didn't think it was very convincing.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then what's it all about?? If not's based on an "I don't know" outlook on the world?

Yes. It is based on an "I don't know" outlook just as much as theism is based on "I think there's a God". But obviously, just like theism, it goes beyond that.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Now by "most people", are you just referring to yourself? If so, then what shit do they know? Since apparently, you're the Official World Agnostic's Spokesman.

No, agnostics I know. That being said at least I am agnostic when speaking about agnostics, while you speak about and for them without any base in reality whatsoever. You call agnostics indecisive and too cowardly to make a decision, what gives you that right? I am not like that...so in this sample group 100% of agnostics aren't.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I've known many Agnostics in my 40 years, and 9 times out of 10, they're the uncertain-of-themselves-or-their-place-in-the-universe wanderer that I'm talking about. They also tend to shy away from any theological discussion.

Well, so it is experience against experience. You must admit though that there can be more to agnostics and that there are agnostics that there is more to. In fact I would assume a 9 out of 10 rate is in fact accurate...as in my opinion that about happens to be the rate of atheists that are unknowledgable and that shy away from any theological discussion as well as theist that are not knowledgeable and shy away from theological discussion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You call agnostics indecisive and too cowardly to make a decision, what gives you that right?

It's an observation that tends to be true.

I can tell you right now that Fords from the 80's and 90's tend to have problematic air conditioning systems. What gives me the "right" to say that? It's an observation.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Well, so it is experience against experience.

And I have alot more than you, kid.

Originally posted by Bardock42
theist that are not knowledgeable and shy away from theological discussion.

Theists tend not to shy away, porque they actually have something to bring to the table beyond "I don't know" and then walk away.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

And I have alot more than you, kid.

You had twenty years more, granted. Though that doesn't mean shit if you suck at evaluating it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Theists tend not to shy away, porque they actually have something to bring to the table beyond "I don't know" and then walk away.

Obviously nonsense. A large amount of theists do not like discussing their faith (because, if you are honest, they don't have much more than "It's in that book there"😉, while there are also many agnostics who will not just shy away from discussing their opinions. I find your statements extremely ignorant and stupid to be honest, I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You had twenty years more, granted. Though that doesn't mean shit if you suck at evaluating it.

Obviously nonsense. A large amount of theists do not like discussing their faith (because, if you are honest, they don't have much more than "It's in that book there"😉, while there are also many agnostics who will not just shy away from discussing their opinions. I find your statements extremely ignorant and stupid to be honest, I wouldn't have expected that from you.

That's because they are mindless Bible thumpers who's definition of debating is quoting the Bible without adding any of their own imput or independant thought.

How are my statements ignorant? Maybe if I had never met a single Agnostic, you could say that.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's not really scientifically tenable unless you qualify it rather heavily.

We share a remarkable number of genetic similarities with the entire population of humans. Yet we see how the small percent difference (anywhere between 0 to 10%, ranging from identical twins to distant cultures) accounts for a surprising number of differences.

This percent difference you refer to is polymorphism, right?

Also, where did you get you number of 10%? You were referring to nucleotide sequences, right? Do not misconstrue my point as me calling your numbers "bullshit" as I have great respect for just about anything you post. I believe it was xmarksthespot and I who had an argument about nucleotide sequences of chimps and how they compare to humans and I made a blunder in interpreting data that I had read about years ago. (The blunder I made was related only to 21st pair of chromosomes.)

Very minute amounts of genetic difference account for the measurable differences in the human species.(Physical characteristics like bone length, pigment etc. and other things like number and type of cell site receptors.) In other species, polymorphism is much more pronounced.

Originally posted by chithappens
It is not instinctive to care about the man adjacent to you.

Hmmmm, this doesn't occur quite often, but I disagree with you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's because they are mindless Bible thumpers who's definition of debating is quoting the Bible without adding any of their own imput or independant thought.

How are my statements ignorant? Maybe if I had never met a single Agnostic, you could say that.

What has that got to do with it?

So calling all Mexicans smelly, lazy criminals is not ignorant as long as I have met a single Mexican?

Anyways, I agree there's a horde of moronioc agnostics...just as there are loads of moronic atheists and theists. But just as there are smart, well-reasonign theists and atheists there are also those agnostics.

Originally posted by queeq
Very clever, DK... we have certainly missed your constructive contributions to this debate.

He's agnostic, not Christian... how would he know that's the case?

Contributions like "ask god some questions for me since you know him so well"? I'm participating in this thread because of the topic, not for you to tell me that I'm wrong by not discussing what I say and relying solely on the nothing you contribute over and over. So, argue my points if you'd like. But arguing my points doesn't involve opening your face and crying the victim again.

Originally posted by queeq
As usual, you make up your own stories, twisting and turning as usual, misconstruing people's posts in order to make them look bad and make you look like the God of this forum. Well, enjoy.

I didn't make up that story, you did.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Hmmmm, this doesn't occur quite often, but I disagree with you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

Perhaps I should have said innate. That's more accurate to what I meant to say.

By this I mean no one automatically cares about a stranger next to them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you really think that the most basic morals upon which society has established it's laws can't or don't predate Judaism?
I don't understand this part... ancient Chinese polytheism...

I am sorry, did I actually say that? No.

WEST is built upon Judeo-Christian tradition. Morality in the East existed when your ansestors were climbing trees.

Originally posted by queeq
But Sherlock doesn't tell us how to live, so who cares if he is an inconsistent hypocrite.

So you're saying that if it weren't for the presence of god in your life that you'd have no concept of what 'wrong' is? Obviously not a question you can answer with any real certainty, but you can take a stab at it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This percent difference you refer to is polymorphism, right?

Also, where did you get you number of 10%? You were referring to nucleotide sequences, right? Do not misconstrue my point as me calling your numbers "bullshit" as I have great respect for just about anything you post. I believe it was xmarksthespot and I who had an argument about nucleotide sequences of chimps and how they compare to humans and I made a blunder in interpreting data that I had read about years ago. (The blunder I made was related only to 21st pair of chromosomes.)

Very minute amounts of genetic difference account for the measurable differences in the human species.(Physical characteristics like bone length, pigment etc. and other things like number and type of cell site receptors.) In other species, polymorphism is much more pronounced.

All very correct. I think my comments that you were responding to were directed at someone else (Mark Question, I think). I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing.

And I used 90% as a rough estimate, because I realize there's some discrepancy in the exact percentages epending on how one measures it. I can't pretend to be an expert on such matters, and I read 90% as a "base level" for similarity in humans once in an article on genetic replication, so that's what I was using as my guidepost.

Originally posted by Bardock42
..there's a horde of moronioc agnostics...just as there are loads of moronic atheists and theists. But just as there are smart, well-reasonign theists and atheists there are also those agnostics.

Wow. ✅

That may not seem profound to anyone else, but that was well put. 👆

I would seem to think that most of us strive for the latter persona you described...however, it doesn't always work that way.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
All very correct. I think my comments that you were responding to were directed at someone else (Mark Question, I think). I didn't mean to come across as disagreeing.

You are correct, your post was towards someone else. I was interjecting my own thoughts onto your post because I am a busybody.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And I used 90% as a rough estimate, because I realize there's some discrepancy in the exact percentages epending on how one measures it. I can't pretend to be an expert on such matters, and I read 90% as a "base level" for similarity in humans once in an article on genetic replication, so that's what I was using as my guidepost.

Hmmm, I am not sure what you are referring to then. Nucleotide sequences are the only thing I can think of. We are actually 99.9% similar.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hmmm, I am not sure what you are referring to then. Nucleotide sequences are the only thing I can think of. We are actually 99.9% similar.

Hmm. I'll defer to you for the moment and try to check my source on that (it might have even been from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Otherwise, the conclusions we take from such similarities are similar, so functionally speaking it's a moot point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. It is based on an "I don't know" outlook just as much as theism is based on "I think there's a God". But obviously, just like theism, it goes beyond that.

Not in my experience. In my experience with them, it's been based on the "I can't know" perspective. Which has always struck me as a subscription to the idea that this life matters to what comes after, if anything at all does come after this life. Morals, again, are a human affair. Morals are not at all super-human. In fact, they're one of the only things that seperate us from other animals, which is why so many people want to ascribe them to something that has been handed to us by a god that keeps a list and checks it twice before he comes sliding down the chimney of a trailer that doesn't have a chimney on the date of a long-held "'pagan" holiday based on nature that doesn't actually take into consideration the true birth of their much-loved and exhaulted savior, who may or may not have existed at all.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Nope... but had a quick skim now.

The authors seem to conclude that there are both innate sub/unconscious morality and conscious decision making morality (something that isn't particularly surprising or revolutionary...) - both of these are likely the result inherent biological instinct and learned behavior imo.

I tend to sway away from pure psychology based articles... they make my head hurt.

lol, fair enough

I don't think it is anything revolutionary either, but that people would have such a uniform behaviour in a moral situation yet not consciously know the moral principal they are following is, at least to me, fascinating.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Morality is essentially based on the ability to empathize, which is derived from evolution both biological and cultural, the latter of which may have a religious aspect, but is not dependent upon it.

Simply put (to those who think that morals are derived from a transcendent authority) if you had not been taught (as religion is very much taught) about [insert religion] would you be an amoral sociopathic monster?

absolutely

while this is only speculation, looking for moral commonalities in scriptures could offer a window into understanding our natural tendencies to moral principals... immoral principals also

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hmm. I'll defer to you for the moment and try to check my source on that (it might have even been from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene). Otherwise, the conclusions we take from such similarities are similar, so functionally speaking it's a moot point.

I disagree. The original point was arguing the singularity or oneness aspect of humanity. If we are much more unique(Because of our many unique characteristics that humans have in common that also differentiate us from other species creating a gap, or, more to the point, an exalted status relative to all other species.) than other species, this gives merit to theists who subscribe to crude creationism. The current point you and I are discussing effectively bestows a certain quality of deity to the genetics of the human species. (From the perspective of a creationist...)

I found something on what I was referring to. I am correct with my 99.9% number so meh memory doesn't fail me this time.

http://www.genomicseducation.ca/informationArticles/society/genomics_race.asp

"All of us human beings share 99.9% of the same DNA."

Do humans represent God's final and ultimate amelioration? His "image"/spiritual children? I chose "amelioration" ONLY because I believe that humanity was created over the course of billions of years via an evolutionary process that occurred with our universe and then with organisms. From my perspective, using the word "creation" is an insult to a Being with such a purported intelligence.

As a person of religion, I would call these altruistic behaviors as "the light of Christ" as He was God's hand in creating this universe. Are we not good beings in our own right? Just because our matter was created and organized by Jesus Christ doesn't mean that we are not good. What IF the goodness naturally inherit in humanity DID come from God in the form of altruistic behaviors originating in primitive areas of the brain? That last question stretches too much for me because that would lead down the path the nullifies the existence/essence of our spirits and, therefore, destroy the entire point of asking the question in the first place. And I will come full circle...who the hell defined this word "good" that I keep using? "Altruistic" should be relative to the eye of the beholder and I am measuring the wholesomeness of humanity with my own subjective meter stick therefore I am biased and blinded by my limited questions. But what if this altruistic behavior exhibited by humans transcends any such damming definitions such as " subjective judgments"? What if this behavior is really from the reality that all of our spirits were nurtured by a kind and benevolent God? For me, a creating God would have to subscribe to a Buddhist philosophy: He would seek to harmonize to this complex universe and not try to crudely control it...the latter is an ignorant "inside the box" human construct that humans have held onto for far too long.

I'm actually quite frustrated now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. The original point was arguing the singularity or oneness aspect of humanity. If we are much more unique(Because of our many unique characteristics that humans have in common that also differentiate us from other species creating a gap, or, more to the point, an exalted status relative to all other species.) than other species, this gives merit to theists who subscribe to crude creationism. The current point you and I are discussing effectively bestows a certain quality of deity to the genetics of the human species. (From the perspective of a creationist...)

I found something on what I was referring to. I am correct with my 99.9% number so meh memory doesn't fail me this time.

http://www.genomicseducation.ca/informationArticles/society/genomics_race.asp

"All of us human beings share 99.9% of the same DNA."

Do humans represent God's final and ultimate amelioration? His "image"/spiritual children? I chose "amelioration" ONLY because I believe that humanity was created over the course of billions of years via an evolutionary process that occurred with our universe and then with organisms. From my perspective, using the word "creation" is an insult to a Being with such a purported intelligence.

As a person of religion, I would call these altruistic behaviors as "the light of Christ" as He was God's hand in creating this universe. Are we not good beings in our own right? Just because our matter was created and organized by Jesus Christ doesn't mean that we are not good. What IF the goodness naturally inherit in humanity DID come from God in the form of altruistic behaviors originating in primitive areas of the brain? That last question stretches too much for me because that would lead down the path the nullifies the existence/essence of our spirits and, therefore, destroy the entire point of asking the question in the first place. And I will come full circle...who the hell defined this word "good" that I keep using? "Altruistic" should be relative to the eye of the beholder and I am measuring the wholesomeness of humanity with my own subjective meter stick therefore I am biased and blinded by my limited questions. But what if this altruistic behavior exhibited by humans transcends any such damming definitions such as " subjective judgments"? What if this behavior is really from the reality that all of our spirits were nurtured by a kind and benevolent God? For me, a creating God would have to subscribe to a Buddhist philosophy: He would seek to harmonize to this complex universe and not try to crudely control it...the latter is an ignorant "inside the box" human construct that humans have held onto for far too long.

I'm actually quite frustrated now.

your stat is wrong

when they mapped the genome recently they found potentially huge variance among individuals

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/the-genome-is-m.html
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254