Happy Atheist Forum

I’ve had a few atheistic friends over the years, although I could never grasp their reasoning. (I’ll let you label me an idiot up front just to save you time) A question I’ve always had is, if I were an atheist, and we were having a discussion and you pissed me off enough to kill you, and I did, why would that be wrong? Actually, the scenario doesn’t really matter. If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?
You may have moral reasons, although I don’t know why. The only difference between humans and the animal kingdom is we have an intelligence they don’t. So what? If you say that intelligence gives us a moral reasoning or some sort, Who cares. That would be your opinion, not mine. If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free, right? If you say in killing you I may have taken you away from family and friends who love you. Again, so what? Why would I care?

I admit, to me an atheist would be someone who believes in evolution or something other than a creator. We are just random chance little better than the animal kingdom, or no better. Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules? What would limit us? Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with. What would stop me from killing you? And why would that be bad?

I’m just curious what would be your reasoning from an atheistic point of view. I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

I think the difference between theists and atheists is that we don't need a book to tell us what's right and what's wrong. Makes you wonder who the better persons are?

Pricia, That's not even close to being an answer to my question.

Quote from: "tdh26"I’ve had a few atheistic friends over the years, although I could never grasp their reasoning. (I’ll let you label me an idiot up front just to save you time)

I'll label you an idiot if you prove to be one.

Quote from: "tdh26"A question I’ve always had is, if I were an atheist, and we were having a discussion and you pissed me off enough to kill you, and I did, why would that be wrong?

It would be a breach of social contract.

Quote from: "tdh26"Actually, the scenario doesn’t really matter. If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?

It would still be a breach of social contract.

Quote from: "tdh26"You may have moral reasons, although I don’t know why. The only difference between humans and the animal kingdom is we have an intelligence they don’t.

Ok... Sorry, but ou are an idiot.

Quote from: "tdh26"So what? If you say that intelligence gives us a moral reasoning or some sort, Who cares.

My morals are derived from Social Contract. So are yours, only they have been written down in a book and conveniently twisted to suit someone's perverted vision of right and wrong.

Quote from: "tdh26"That would be your opinion, not mine. If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free, right? If you say in killing you I may have taken you away from family and friends who love you. Again, so what? Why would I care?

You shouldn't. But don't complain when someone comes and cuts your arms and legs off for killing me. I believe even your book states somewhere that you should not do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you..? That is a part of social contract. (you see the theme emerging here?)

Quote from: "tdh26"I admit, to me an atheist would be someone who believes in evolution or something other than a creator. We are just random chance little better than the animal kingdom, or no better.

We are a part of the animal kingdom. How can a fingernail be better than the rest of the body?

Quote from: "tdh26"Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules?

This is an anarchist idea. It has nothing to do with atheism. Again, Social Contract.

Quote from: "tdh26"What would limit us?

...You can probably guess my answer. If not, Social Contract.

Quote from: "tdh26"Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with. What would stop me from killing you? And why would that be bad?

Social Contract. If you attempted to kill me, I would attempt to kill you to prevent it. Why would it be "bad"? Using the broadest definition of the word "bad", it would be because you'd be risking your own life and more in attempt to take someone else's.

Quote from: "tdh26"I’m just curious what would be your reasoning from an atheistic point of view. I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

It all boils down to "I will not try to harm you if you don't try to harm me and I will try to aid you if you try to aid me".

Quote from: "tdh26"If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?

If you really need a reason, the most obvious one is the threat of punishment. The reason most people don't kill is a combination of avoiding the wrath of others, as well as empathy. These are ingrained in us beacuse of the culture in which we are raised. Note that there are many civilizations, including our own, that view killing in certain contexts as being morally defensible. I suspect there is also an evolutionary reason, in that our aversion to killing our own species might be instinctual.

Quote from: "tdh26"Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules?

Yes, I suppose it does. Does that worry you?

Quote from: "tdh26"What would limit us?

The fact that pretty much everyone wants to live, and wants at least certain minimal freedoms, compels us to form some sort of social structure in which there is, at the very least, a disincentive where wantonly murdering others is concerned. Apart from that, pretty much everything is open to debate. Isn't that grand? I think it is. It's part of what makes humanity such a fascinating and worthwhile enterprise.

Quote from: "tdh26"Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with.

Indeed.

Quote from: "tdh26"What would stop me from killing you?

The law and those entrusted to enforce it. And your individual conscience of course.

Quote from: "tdh26"I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

You mean you haven't received an answer you agree with yet. What would be a reasonable answer to you?

ethics and morality are social memes that have in many ways, in the past, been helped along through various religions. Nowadays we only practice some of those ethics displayed in the bible. In fact, in recent history our ethics and morality have continued to evolve despite religious condemnation. Slavery is championed in the bible, by Jesus himself, but we no longer practice it. Not only do we no longer practice it, the thought is offensive. The point is, religion latches onto ethics and morality to drive it's social power. Many times this has been good for society, and others it has been horrific.

Where you take your morality/ethics from is irrelevant.  So long as you can interact in your society then does it really matter?

Like Asmodean keeps saying, its all about the "social contract" and how much faith you put in the ability for one human being to trust that another human being won't turn around and stab him/her in the back.  Its the constant struggle between individual liberty (the physical ability to do something or get what you want) and freedom (which requires everybody to give up some of those "liberties" to keep from having everybody living in an overly paranoid state of constant "survival of the fittest" mode.)  

It can't be proven that the King James version of the Bible is where the very first time that the ideas of "don't kill other people for no reason" and "don't take other people's stuff" came about.  It can be proven that other people who've never seen a Christian or heard of the KJvB have come up with the same ideas of what is right and wrong.

MY, morals/ethics come from my experiences in the world.  The things I've seen, the things I've done, the mistakes I've made and how I feel about them.  Some of my moral/ethical philosophy is dictated by the society that I live in (following the laws and regulations set by those in political or bureaucratic authority over me) which makes things nice and easy.  Some of my moral/ethical philosophy comes from what just feels right (which is hard 'cause you have to figure things out for yourself), ex. I don't steal when I don't have to regardless of whether I'd get caught because it doesn't feel right.  I can think what it would be like to have something of mine taken and I don't think I should make somebody else feel that way unless I have a really good reason to do so (my morality vs survival imperative).  The rest of my moral/ethical philosophy is stolen from books.  You can find all sorts of books on morality and ethics, with authors defending or attacking one philosophy or another.  Its not a cheap and easy answer but it gives you the opportunity to critically think about not just "what" might be considered the right/wrong action but also "why" its the right/wrong thing.

I personally find absolutely nothing wrong with using the a religious text as a source for morality or ethics, so long as you remember than you hold within yourself the liberty to choose which parts of that text to take your morality from and which parts of the text to ignore.  I'm down with the thou shalt not kill, steal, and covet some other dude's ass, but I don't think it is moral to own slaves, nor do I think that eating shrimp or sitting next to some guy who may be uncircumcised as issues of a moral nature that require a law to dictate whether the acts are moral/immoral.

QuoteAsmodean wrote: My morals are derived from Social Contract. So are yours, only they have been written down in a book and conveniently twisted to suit someone's perverted vision of right and wrong.

Social Contract? What an arbitrary term. And who makes-up this contract? Can I just make-up one and call it “My binding civil rules”? (I may not agree to yours!)

Again; If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free)

How do you feel about what Hitler did in Germany? That was just their Social Contract they put together.

QuoteAsmodean wrote: We are a part of the animal kingdom. How can a fingernail be better than the rest of the body?

I think it’s cute you associate yourself as no better then a reptile or insect.

QuoteAsmodean wrote: It all boils down to "I will not try to harm you if you don't try to harm me and I will try to aid you if you try to aid me".

You have no binding reason for anyone to go along with this except through force or coercion, so again, if I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free).
Added note to this is, the other comments so far have nothing referenced to a “Social Contract” You all need to get together and agree to something.

Quotepjkeeley wrote: If you really need a reason, the most obvious one is the threat of punishment. The reason most people don't kill is a combination of avoiding the wrath of others, as well as empathy. These are ingrained in us beacuse of the culture in which we are raised. Note that there are many civilizations, including our own, that view killing in certain contexts as being morally defensible. I suspect there is also an evolutionary reason, in that our aversion to killing our own species might be instinctual.

By this reasoning, what Hitler did in Germany, if he had not invaded other countries, did nothing wrong. He had no treat of punishment once he was in power and he defined the culture by controlling the media. (Jews are scum)
(That’s not my belief) Empathy is a term that’s easily thrown around but has little meaning when used as a reason not to do something.

Quotepjkeeley wrote: You mean you haven't received an answer you agree with yet. What would be a reasonable answer to you?

A reasonable answer would be that most of you (atheists) would have a similar foundational belief that can be applied to life as a whole that’s not completely subjective to each situation in life.

I’ve noticed it’s very hard not to become overly defensive in this dialogue. Forgive me if I come across that way. That’s not my intention. I’d rather have a verbal dialogue and not hide behind this forum. Anyway, I’m sure I’m not going to change anyone’s mind.

So are you saying Christians do good things to others simply because they're afraid of retribution from god? When you do something ethical, is it because you fear going to hell? Nobody thinks this way on a day to day basis, do they?

Quote from: "tdh26"Social Contract? What an arbitrary term. And who makes-up this contract? Can I just make-up one and call it “My binding civil rules”? (I may not agree to yours!)

Use the quotes. It's not that hard.

No-one and everyone makes SC. And if you do not agree to follow it when dealing with me, you can damn well expect me not to follow it when dealing with you. OR you can expect some sort of negative response from the society, which is generally interested in maintaining the SC.

Quote from: "tdh26"Again; If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free)

Define guilt. As is, this statement is both correct and incorrect.

Quote from: "tdh26"How do you feel about what Hitler did in Germany?

I don't give a dancing banana.

Quote from: "tdh26"That was just their Social Contract they put together.

Again, yes and no. Do specify.

Quote from: "tdh26"I think it’s cute you associate yourself as no better then a reptile or insect.

I'm a link in the same chain. A link with the ability to break the chain, true, but just a link none the less.

Quote from: "tdh26"You have no binding reason for anyone to go along with this except through force or coercion

Bullshit. People tend to look after their own best interest. Following the basic social contract is most often in their best interest. You do the math.

Quote from: "tdh26"so again, if I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free).

Yes and no. It depends on the situation and your definition of guilt.

Quote from: "tdh26"You all need to get together and agree to something.

Point 1: Why?

Point 2:

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Like Asmodean keeps saying, its all about the "social contract" and how much faith you put in the ability for one human being to trust that another human being won't turn around and stab him/her in the back. Its the constant struggle between individual liberty (the physical ability to do something or get what you want) and freedom (which requires everybody to give up some of those "liberties" to keep from having everybody living in an overly paranoid state of constant "survival of the fittest" mode.)

Quote from: "tdh26"By this reasoning, what Hitler did in Germany, if he had not invaded other countries, did nothing wrong. He had no treat of punishment once he was in power and he defined the culture by controlling the media. (Jews are scum)

What's your obsession with Hitler? Can't you find a more recent scumbag to make poor references to? Like GWB for instance..?

Quote from: "tdh26"A reasonable answer would be that most of you (atheists) would have a similar foundational belief that can be applied to life as a whole that’s not completely subjective to each situation in life.

"You atheist would have a similar foundational belief..."  ..?  :hail:

I was going to stay out of this, but fine.

Quote from: "tdh26"Social Contract? What an arbitrary term. And who makes-up this contract? Can I just make-up one and call it “My binding civil rules”? (I may not agree to yours!)

Again; If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free)

How do you feel about what Hitler did in Germany? That was just their Social Contract they put together.

A social contract is arbitrary to people who are ignorant to social realities. The contract exists as a matter of existing in a society. When you live in a given society, there are general assumed rules that are usually enforced by a government of some kind. One such rule is not to kill. Most people have this understanding, therefore it's adopted into governmentaly enforceable law. If you don't agree you either accept that it's the rule of the land or you break the law and get consequences. Your example is a bad one, though. Those who are not effected by the taking of a life have severe antisocial personality disorder and probably dissocial personality disorder, characterized by enough diagnostic criteria to be diagnosed on the spot. In other words, if you think murder is okay then you're what's colloquially known as a sociopath.

Quote from: "tdh26"I think it’s cute you associate yourself as no better then a reptile or insect.

Please treat people with respect if for no other reason than Jesus taught you to do so.

I'll answer your question very simply: we're social animals. Our conscience evolved as a survival trait. Humans, for a very long time, existed in family units. When we feel guilt because we have killed or harmed a family member, it is because we have put in danger the continuation of our genes to the next generation. When we feel guilt because we have killed of harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially put in danger the continuation of our genes to the next generation via retaliation from their family. These traits have played a major part in the success of our species, therefore they're strong traits that are very common. Those who don't have these traits more often than not are diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder or dissocial personality disorder and are separated for treatment so that they can learn to adapt to social norms.

As for Hitler: the explanation for Nazi Germany is psychological, economic, political and social, but not moral. If you'd really like me to dissect the whole thing let me know and I'll clear my afternoon. The summaraization would be: country loses war, country signs treaty that makes it everyone's bitch, country falls back into conservative fundamentalism and racism due to mass depression and poverty, Hitler uses the opportunity to come to power and push his right wing agenda, Hitler fakes terrorist attacks to ensure all Germans are afraid and are dependent on him and his government for protection and even identity, Hitler consolodates power into the executive, Hitler uses police force to persecute those who are blamed for terrorism...etc. The bottom line: fear, group think, depression, brainwashing, and several other factors are to blame for Nazi Germany. None of it has anything to do with the question of where morality comes from and it has nothing to do with atheism.

Quote from: "Willravel"Please treat people with respect if for no other reason than Jesus taught you to do so.

Thanks, Will. But I've done nothing to earn its respect, so it can disrespect me to its heart's content as long as it sticks to forum rules.  (   )

*disclaimer for those who wonder: DO notice the cheezy grin at the end. Asmodean does know forum rule number one.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Thanks, Will. But I've done nothing to earn its respect, so it can disrespect me to its heart's content as long as it sticks to forum rules.

Gotcha.

I think this is finished, though. You provided the intellectual reasoning right off the bat and I followed up with the innate reason. What more is there?

Quote from: "Willravel"What more is there?

See, that's where the line between homo sapiens sapiens and homo jesus fundeus goes. For an intelligent person, this debate is over, but for a regular jesus-variety fundie, there is still a ton of semantics and definitions to dig through in an attempt to... I don't know... Fool itself, maybe..?

 

I don't have anything to add...a valid explanation has been offered and it is the one I would have used in my response.  We covered, social contract, sociopaths....did anyone mention empathy and how all mentally healthy humans have the ability to empathize with others?  There are, of course, some other ways to explain secular morality.  However, I think social contract is the easiest one to understand.

QuoteWhere does your morals/ethics come from?

I won it in a sweepstakes. I don't know where everyone else got theirs.

Thanks guys! Truly entertaining! You've answered my question, although it's all rather naive to me. Funny how each camp normally spends time in their own forums and pat each other on the back.



A man convinced against his will, is of the same persuasion still.

Quote from: "tdh26"Thanks guys! Truly entertaining! You've answered my question, although it's all rather naive to me.

Any time. Although to me it seems that looking for moral guidance in a 2000 year old book is naive.

Quote from: "tdh26"Funny how each camp normally spends time in their own forums...

It's natural.

Quote from: "tdh26"...and pat each other on the back.

Oh, we do disagree sometimes. Some debates between atheists can get as heated as some debates between people from different "camps" as you put it.

Quote from: "tdh26"Thanks guys! Truly entertaining! You've answered my question, although it's all rather naive to me.

We're naive to think we have morals without religion? So we don't even have the morals we claim to have? Is that what you're saying?

You behave as though atheism is a hypothetical situation that doesn't actually exist in the real world. We're sitting here telling you right now that we're atheists and we don't use the Bible for morality.

QuoteFunny how each camp normally spends time in their own forums and pat each other on the back.

I spend far more time posting on other forums than on this one, debating people who disagree with me.

Quote from: "tdh26"Social Contract? What an arbitrary term. And who makes-up this contract? Can I just make-up one and call it “My binding civil rules”? (I may not agree to yours!)

The 10 Commandments have some social contract rules in them (killing, stealing, bearing false witness). What's arbitrary about this exactly? Or maybe this is more accurately called a religious contract.

QuoteAgain; If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free (guilt-free)

Correct. If you commit a crime and don't get caught, you are scot-free.

QuoteHow do you feel about what Hitler did in Germany? That was just their Social Contract they put together.

How do you feel about what Islam has done to the Middle East? That's just another religion they put together.

QuoteI think it’s cute you associate yourself as no better then a reptile or insect.

We think it's cute that you're admitting that wishful thinking is proof enough in God for you. You want there to be a divine moral-giver, therefore you believe in a divine moral-giver. Your cherished beliefs are adorable.

QuoteYou have no binding reason for anyone to go along with this except through force or coercion,

Neither do you.

QuoteAdded note to this is, the other comments so far have nothing referenced to a “Social Contract” You all need to get together and agree to something.

You're not going to get atheists to agree on very much, since we're not a religion. Sorry.

QuoteA reasonable answer would be that most of you (atheists) would have a similar foundational belief that can be applied to life as a whole that’s not completely subjective to each situation in life.

Again, sorry, but atheism doesn't have foundational beliefs because atheism is not an ethical position, it is a metaphysical position. Ethics is a separate branch of philosophy from metaphysics.

QuoteI’ve noticed it’s very hard not to become overly defensive in this dialogue. Forgive me if I come across that way. That’s not my intention. I’d rather have a verbal dialogue and not hide behind this forum. Anyway, I’m sure I’m not going to change anyone’s mind.

I don't see why not. Convincing and persuasive writers change minds every day. Or did you mean you personally won't change anyone's mind?

Please all... a reminder: to tdh26...If you want to simply have a discourse, then do so. Do not start to insult the people with whom you wish to discuss this. Saying, "I think it’s cute you associate yourself as no better then a reptile or insect." is childishly sarcastic and an attempt at condescension that won't fly here.

Replying to tdh26 in kind isn't going to fly either. Please refer to him as a person, not an "it". He hasn't become a troll. At least not yet. Thanks!

*Asmodean goes over to his dark corner and plays with his T-Rex toy, looking as well-behaved as they get*

*Disclaimer: (I seem to be writing a lot of those lately) I tend to refer to anyone whos sex I am unsure of as "it". Usually, no offence intended. But I'll try to break that habbit, I guess.

Umm, empathy? Why don't we go and kill people for no reason? Well, how would you like it if someone came and did that to you? If you really don't like someone, chances are they don't like you either...we don't kill each other because we don't want to be killed.... Think about it. If you could get away with a crime and face no punishment, would it be okay to do it? No. Because then it would be okay for anyone to do the same thing to you. So, a loose definition of crime is anything you wouldn't want someone to do to you....

"Naive" is the worst thing someone can call me. Condescension and trolling seem to be walking hand in hand in this thread.

Although the arguments have been covered quite thorougly, the answers have been somewhat oblique.  I'd like to try a somewhat different wording.

Some animals are solitary, e.g., wolverines, and some are social, e.g., wolves and humans.  Solitary animals have no rules other than immediate self-interest and survival.  Social animals are also driven by self-interest, but it's mediated in a number of ways.  First, it can be delayed or long-term, second, the group agrees unconsciously to certain behaviors, and punishes infractions.  For example, a Benobo adult male that purposely injures a young monkey will be set upon and killed by all of the adult females acting as a team.  Conversely, social species protect each other against intruders, and often protect and assist disabled or elderly members.  Humans fit this same pattern.

Second, I believe we learn almost all of our morals and ethical behavior from our parents in our first three or four years by watching and inculcating into ourselves their behavior patterns.  By the time we are first exposed to religious philosophy, we've already got our morality thoroughly set.  All the religion does is give some a reason to justify their beliefs.

We know of many "good" Christians who have affairs on their spouses, cheat on their taxes, steal, rape, are pedophiles, etc.  I'm certain there are atheists who fit the same descriptions.  In other words, our morality is set by our early training, not by whether or not we have later Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc. exposure.  

To my mind, the question asked by a Christian of how an atheist can have morals, demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of where his/her own morals came from or a desire to denigrate another person, which, in itself, is an indication of weak morals of the questioner.

Occam

I'd be happy to try to explain and answer your question, but let me start by asking you a question.

Where do god's morals come from? Did he invent them? If he did, were they logical, or were they random?

Could god have made standing on your head immoral rather than murder?

Quote from: "tdh26"I’ve had a few atheistic friends over the years, although I could never grasp their reasoning. (I’ll let you label me an idiot up front just to save you time) A question I’ve always had is, if I were an atheist, and we were having a discussion and you pissed me off enough to kill you, and I did, why would that be wrong? Actually, the scenario doesn’t really matter. If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?
You may have moral reasons, although I don’t know why. The only difference between humans and the animal kingdom is we have an intelligence they don’t. So what? If you say that intelligence gives us a moral reasoning or some sort, Who cares. That would be your opinion, not mine. If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free, right? If you say in killing you I may have taken you away from family and friends who love you. Again, so what? Why would I care?

I admit, to me an atheist would be someone who believes in evolution or something other than a creator. We are just random chance little better than the animal kingdom, or no better. Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules? What would limit us? Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with. What would stop me from killing you? And why would that be bad?

I’m just curious what would be your reasoning from an atheistic point of view. I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

Do you think god ever talked directly to a human being? Do really believe that the universe operates this way?

If you do, then I have nothing more to say to you, because nothing I have to say would change your mind.

If not, then isn’t god just another idea, among many, that tries to explain how the universe works?

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” â€"Ephesians 6:5-6.

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” â€"Exodus 21:2-6.

Soooooo, we base our ethics and morality on this?

or how about....

"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people." Deuteronomy 13:6-9

Sooooo, we should all be killing people that don't follow our god, well at least we have that going for us in the middle east.

I could continue but the point is made. The bible has some good points to it, that doesn't mean it represents our moral foundation. We have continued to change what is lawful, ethical, and moral based on what we experience as a society.

Wow, you leave the forum for two days and a juicy debate forms...
tdh26, this is a typical theist question to atheists: "Where do your morals come from?" It was the first question my dad asked me when I told him I was an atheist (soon followed by "What's your reason for living", which is a whole other topic...) My dad used the Hitler example as well-though he added Stalin to the equation.

My answer is short and simple: empathy and just plain common sense. I don't think there is one set of right and wrong that we all must follow. I would feel horrible if I killed a person because I took their life and caused their family and friends pain. It's wrong. No need for "thou shalt not murder" IMO.

Quote from: "tdh26How"do you feel about what Hitler did in Germany?

Yes, Hitler thought he was doing right (right by God I might mention: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." ~Hitler). That doesn't mean every atheist condones what he did. I certainly don't. What he did was horrible beyond words. You can't compare all non-theist morals to Hitler's morals.
There are many things done in the Bible (I believe mrwynd posted good examples) that I'm sure many Christians wouldn't condone today (Excuse me, I'm assuming you're a Christian, please correct me if I'm wrong). But Christians still get their morals from the Bible despite this.

* * *

One thing I have to mention is that not every atheist is the same (just as I'm sure not every theist is the same). Your posts on this thread seem to me like you're clumping us all together as if we are all immoral and anarchists. We are people that happen to not believe in a god. That doesn't we are all the same and that we feel the same about everything.

That being said, sweet! This thread was fun to read over.
Look forward to future discussions!

Quote from: "tdh26"Thanks guys! Truly entertaining! You've answered my question, although it's all rather naive to me. Funny how each camp normally spends time in their own forums and pat each other on the back.

Social Contract theory is considered credible by many philosophers.  We only scratched the surface of explaining it in this thread; frankly, I assumed you didn't care to approach this question with any depth.  

If your only response is to call us naive and imply that we might not feel comfortable speaking around a largely theistic audience; then you have wasted both our time and  yours.

Though it seems Social Contracts has been already mentioned you could go farther back to the basics of why humans do as we do. The ultimate reason is for survival of the species. If to use your first example you get mad at me and kill me for no other reason then a rational person can see that the mortality rate for the human race would be very high. (especially in LA during rush hour) We as humans create laws in order to induce social order. By creating social order we do two things: first we make sure that you cannot kill me or any one else, without knowing that there will be some sort of retribution. The second is that we make sure you cannot hurt people without just cause.(Just cause is another conversation) Thus we have protected you me and every one else from harm that may be induced from a  persons pent up rage. Then there is another reason that is probably more important. I will demonstrate this by switching  that scenario around. If I am angry enough to want to see you die, then I need to have a good reason to stop the first assault against my reason. Fear of retribution fits the bill, but there needs to be another reason or eventually the fear may not be enough. This is when reason comes into play and tells me that if I kill you then some one will be hurt by that. You may have children, you may have a wife. In short some one some where will feel saddened at your loss. That is probably the best reason not to kill you on so slight a temptation.

Quote from: "DragonofHeaven"If to use your first example you get mad at me and kill me for no other reason then a rational person can see that the mortality rate for the human race would be very high. (especially in LA during rush hour)

Uh... Doesn't LA already have that problem?  

Yes we are just animals in a sense.But how many animals do you see finding cures for dieases,or going to the moon.Yes you could kill an atheist and not care.But the question should be asked about theists who kill just to have power.Albert Fish was a god fearing man,Hitler made statements about being Christian,President Bush christian.My morals came from my parents and theirs came from their parents.And what I see in the world around me.Look at how the world is today,most of the country I live in has no morals what so ever and I live in a bible loving country.Divorce is well commonplace,guns everywhere,children going without food or shelter,hate crimes well I could go on but there is no need to.How many Atheist do you hear about killing a theist over their religious belief?If you have to find your morals in a book then you are a sad case.

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Yes we are just animals in a sense.But how many animals do you see finding cures for dieases

Some do seem to use herbs.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"Yes we are just animals in a sense.But how many animals do you see finding cures for dieases

Some do seem to use herbs.

Shut up I'm making a point  

Quote from: "afreethinker30"How many Atheist do you hear about killing a theist over their religious belief?

Ever hear of communist China, The USSR, Nazi Germany? All pretty much atheist! That's just the short list.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"How many Atheist do you hear about killing a theist over their religious belief?

Ever hear of communist China, The USSR, Nazi Germany? All pretty much atheist! That's just the short list.

Ever heard of avoiding answering the questions?

But ok, I'll play along. How many religious people did Soviet regime kill because of their religion? How many did the Chinese regime kill? Nazi Germany has no real place on the atheist list though.

Now I don't want the total body count of any of those regimes, thank you very much. Just how many religious people were killed because of their religion.

Quote from: "Asmodean"But ok, I'll play along. How many religious people did Soviet regime kill because of their religion? How many did the Chinese regime kill? Nazi Germany has no real place on the atheist list though.

Nazi Germany absolutely on the list. They fully believed in Darwins theory 'survival of the fittest'. (I group this as a atheistic belief although you may call it science. Part of it may be science but part of it is a religion on its own.)The religious had no place in their utopia. (6 million Jews, 4 Million Catholics and other denominations, the rest might not have been any religious group) The USSR - the Jews were not treated any better there, nor were Christians. Exact numbers cannot be had because they were such a closed government, but it was in the 100's of thousands. Pretty common history if you really want to look. The Viet-Cong targeted Christians with a vengeance. Again, atheists.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"How many Atheist do you hear about killing a theist over their religious belief?

Ever hear of communist China, The USSR, Nazi Germany? All pretty much atheist! That's just the short list.

Don't fall into the fallacy of mistaking correlation with causation.  It would like saying the Chinese government as it is now (being far less hard line communistic that it was way back in the day) is persecuting the Tibetans ONLY because of the their religious beliefs instead of the reason being because the Tibetans not too pleased at having a foreign power invade, occupy, control, and treat the native inhabitants as second class (or worse citizens), are resisting the occupation.  I don't think there is much proof that the Chinese government is out busting Tibetan heads only because of their religious beliefs.  I'm more inclined to believe there is a more strategic/economic explanation.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Asmodean"But ok, I'll play along. How many religious people did Soviet regime kill because of their religion? How many did the Chinese regime kill? Nazi Germany has no real place on the atheist list though.

Nazi Germany absolutely on the list. They fully believed in Darwins theory 'survival of the fittest'. (I group this as a atheistic belief although you may call it science. Part of it may be science but part of it is a religion on its own.)The religious had no place in their utopia. (6 million Jews, 4 Million Catholics and other denominations, the rest might not have been any religious group) The USSR - the Jews were not treated any better there, nor were Christians. Exact numbers cannot be had because they were such a closed government, but it was in the 100's of thousands. Pretty common history if you really want to look. The Viet-Cong targeted Christians with a vengeance. Again, atheists.

When it comes to Nazi Germany, if Hitler's speeches and writing are to be believed then he was a Protestant. Is there any way to prove that the ONLY reason these people were targeted was because of religious belief?  The Jews have been the whipping post of the world for a few thousand years (easy to turn them into a target for disgruntled brown shirts), they also got stereotyped into jobs where they worked with money and political power(bankers, real estate, jewelry, politics) making it much easier to blame all of the problems (unemployment, poverty, etc) that Germany had after WWI on them.  (The same can be said about the Roma (gypsies), they've been demonized for ages even though they haven't really had any real political/economic power.)

This goes right back to correlation vs causation.  Hitler may have killed off a bunch of people who were Catholic, but was it solely because they were Catholics or was there some other explantion?  Where large groups of Catholics involved in resistance movements against Hitler and the Nazi party, did they own land or resources that could be stolen by the Nazi's?
 
How may black people did were sent to the gas chambers and concentration camps?  Not many you say? Then I guess he wasn't a racist right?  But the whole Aryan "master race" thing goes against this?  If it turns out that the absolute population of black people in Germany at that time were pretty small, the numbers for those that were murdered wouldn't be anywhere near as large as the numbers for Jews and Catholics and Roman.  Giving the appearance, by one form of numerical statistics, that Hitler wasn't as much of a racist as he sounded.

First things first: you are avoiding the question. Give me a straight answer or none at all.

Quote from: "tdh26"Nazi Germany absolutely on the list. They fully believed in Darwins theory 'survival of the fittest'. (I group this as a atheistic belief although you may call it science. Part of it may be science but part of it is a religion on its own.)

Nazism is not based on nor imbued with the idea of atheism. Hitler himself was a self-proclaimed Christian.

Quote from: "tdh26"The religious had no place in their utopia. (6 million Jews, 4 Million Catholics and other denominations, the rest might not have been any religious group)

Was religion the cause of the holocaust? Or of the Second world War? It was not.

Quote from: "tdh26"The USSR - the Jews were not treated any better there, nor were Christians.

The soviet regime outlawed organised religion. They did not go around slaughtering people for following a deity, they just frowned upon them and sent some to Siberia as Anti-Sovietists.

Quote from: "tdh26"Exact numbers cannot be had because they were such a closed government,

That's an argument so weak, that I can't even see why you bothered to type it out.

Quote from: "tdh26"but it was in the 100's of thousands.

Millions died in exile or labour camps in early Soviet. The vast majority were the "elite" and those denounced for anti-Soviet views. It had little to nothing to do with them being possibly religious. The soviet regime killed atheist and believer with equal ease.

Quote from: "tdh26"Pretty common history if you really want to look.

Common history, simplified to the point of distorting the facts. Maybe you should try doing some research into what you can't find in a 4th grade history book.

Quote from: "tdh26"The Viet-Cong targeted Christians with a vengeance. Again, atheists.

Of course they did. They were fighting an occupying force. Defending their country. (And their ideology and way of life, while they were at it). The religion of French and later US soldiers had nothing to do with it.

Now I have two words for you: Christian crusades.

That said, Jolly Sapper made a very good post before me. (He has a cool avatar too) So I think between the two of us, we covered and re-covered most of the holes in your carpet.

Quote from: "tdh26"Ever hear of communist China

Strictly speaking, China is not currently communist. It's actually a combination of fascist oligarchy and corporatiocracy. The term "communist" is simply a part of the name of the part currently in power. Regardless, it is not an atheist country. Buddhism and Taoism are widely practiced, even by the high ranking governmental officials who are guilty of such heinous crimes against their own people. China also has many Muslims and Christians. Only 10-14% of China claims to be atheist.

Quote from: "tdh26"The USSR

When Vladimir Lenin took power in the USSR, he claimed to be a champion of atheism and communism. He gave up on each of these almost immediately, instead making himself a near godlike figure, erecting massive statues of himself. Stalin did much the same thing.

Quote from: "tdh26"Nazi Germany

Adolph Hitler was likely a protestant, though he was raised catholic. Hitler was strongly opposed to state atheism.

Quote from: "tdh26"All pretty much atheist! That's just the short list.

It seems you have quite a bit of homework to do.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Asmodean"But ok, I'll play along. How many religious people did Soviet regime kill because of their religion? How many did the Chinese regime kill? Nazi Germany has no real place on the atheist list though.

Nazi Germany absolutely on the list. They fully believed in Darwins theory 'survival of the fittest'.

This is neither religion nor science. You might as well say that producers of biological weapons "fully believe in Pasteur's germ theory."

Furthermore, "survival of the fittest" is not Darwin's phrase, it is Herbert Spencer's. It is also not an accurate description of the machinations of evolution, which is described by biologists not as survival of the fittest but as "natural selection." It is closer to the truth to describe actual evolution as "proliferation of the adaptable."

QuoteThe religious had no place in their utopia.

Incorrect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)

Quote(6 million Jews, 4 Million Catholics and other denominations,

The Catholics who were persecuted were treated that way for opposing the Nazi party, not by virtue of being Catholics. The Jews who were persecuted were treated that way for their ethnicity, not for their religion -- non-practicing, atheist, and even Christian Jews were in just as much danger as practicing Jews.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "afreethinker30"How many Atheist do you hear about killing a theist over their religious belief?

Ever hear of communist China, The USSR, Nazi Germany? All pretty much atheist! That's just the short list.

Regardless of Hitler's religious position (which is debatable and imo he was at least a theist if not Christian), Nazi propaganda was highly based on Christianity and they had the pope's backing.

Also...communism is not atheism nor is communism necessarily bad (in theory; in practice it never works due to people being power hungry).   There is no such thing as an atheist dogma or bible for people to do bad things in the name of.  Anything an atheist may do wrong is the result of some other philosophical stance.    Plus, considering how may wars have be waged in the name of religion; those which you can even remotely attribute to atheist leaders are a very small percentage.

Btw, this thread is moving to the religion section.

see what we've done? We had a perfectly good philosophical discussion and we had to bring religion into it  

Quote from: "mrwynd"see what we've done? We had a perfectly good philosophical discussion and we had to bring religion into it

It's inevitable.

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two? They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth. Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak. That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around. The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

Quote from: "tdh26"No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two?

This sounds like you're assuming that anybody that doesn't believe in YOUR particular interpretation of God is an atheist.  Which isn't really atheism as it allows for me to believe in any supernatural deity.  I'm not sure that you can have a "wider" definition of atheism as the definition of atheism is pretty specific, there's no vagary to play semantics with.

Quote from: "tdh26"They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

First, cool beans!  A theist that doesn't like the social contract theory.. *high five to you*... Second, there is no way to actually PROVE that the laws (of which many are ignored in the KJvB) you take from your bible are actually "objective" or even original.  Its one thing to want to "believe" that there are certain behaviors that are always wrong ( I do for instance, as I don't like racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, involuntary genital mutilation and feel these are always wrong regardless of the norms of a society) but there really is nothing to prove that my beliefs are based on some universal objective truth.  You can't have it both ways.  Just because you do something its the objectively based "right" thing to do but if somebody does something else that a large number of people agree is "wrong" then the person who did the wrong thing is being a moral relativist.

Quote from: "tdh26"Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

If something is physically possible, its within the laws of nature.  If I am able to exercise free will, or I believe I exercise free will, then my free will is falls inside the laws of nature not outside of them.

By the way, as somebody that lives on a farm, sheep aren't the dumbest or most stubborn of animals.

Quote from: "tdh26"No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist.

I would label Atheist as someone who denies the existence of a god, for me my atheism denies the existence of anything "supernatural". I don't believe anything exists outside of nature, we simply put "supernatural" onto anything we cannot easily explain. Science in all of it's forms has dispelled this "supernatural" view in so many places, yet people cling to things not yet fully understood and label them "supernatural".

Your more general view seems to label "pagans" or "heretics" as the same as atheists. I'm sorry but that offends me, I find other supernatural views as silly as Christianity.

Quote from: "tdh26"Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.

This is rather backwards. We create laws based on observation. We see what stars, planets and everything else in space does and we create laws to understand why they do such things. To instead label it as "God did it" destroys the complexity and wonder we find in our universe.

Quote from: "tdh26"Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

If we have free will, then god gave us the choice to either follow him and live forever, or not and suffer in pain and anguish for all eternity in hell. He then gives no definitive proof of his existence, no miracles to show us he exists. If he is all knowing, is outside of space and time, and is everywhere at once, he already knows what choices we will make. Therefore he creates 70% of mankind to suffer and die for all eternity......how does god love us again?

The bible displays a very selfish, easily offended, and sadistic god whom you are expected to fear. If god created us in his image it would explain a lot, but then god wouldn't be perfect. The bible gives a god that is very far from perfect.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I'm not sure that you can have a "wider" definition of atheism as the definition of atheism is pretty specific, there's no vagary to play semantics with.

Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

Quote from: "tdh26"No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours.

Yes. 2+2 really is 7, I know. Atheism is lack of a belief in god(s) Atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). It's that simple.

Quote from: "tdh26"Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist.

And what if out of tens and hundreds of thousands of gods out there, one endorses exactly that philosophy?

Quote from: "tdh26"They are just making it up as they want or want to believe.

So do you, more likely than not. Or maybe someone did it for you, so you wouldn't have to strain yourself. but then you have to take your book literally. Every word of it.

Quote from: "tdh26"Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.

As long as he believed in god's existence, he was a theist. Period.

Quote from: "tdh26"If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

"Objective truth"..?  

Quote from: "tdh26"Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.

You stood the facts up on their head here. The relations between matter and energy are described by laws of physics. Those laws are something we define in order to more accurately describe the universe around us.

Quote from: "tdh26"We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

So you can do something the laws of physics claim impossible? Can you jump up and stay in the air unaided? Or turn water (H2O) into the same amount of ethanol (C2H5OH)? Without using other atoms than those already in your glass?

Quote from: "tdh26"Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak.

Your god allegedly created us in its image. Thus it's just as stupid and weak.

Quote from: "tdh26"That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around.

No. Obviously, you've never even seen a sheep.

Quote from: "tdh26"The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

We don't need them to be happy and content.

Quote from: "tdh26"Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

Ok... Let's play. Just back up your claims so they don't seem so utterly hollow.

a definition I found on the internet for "objective truth" is: "This is an unbiased truth. It is often used to mean Ultimate Truth. Compare with Subjective Truth."

I believe the meaning tdh26 was trying to make with that is there's an "absolute truth" to religion, Christianity in particular believe their faith is based on an absolute truth. I used to argue this point when I was a Christian. When you're on the outside this is an obvious problem. If you base what you believe to be irrefutable truth on faith, you've placed fact where there is no fact. A fact must have evidence that is repeatable and observable. It's impossible to claim truth from faith.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "mrwynd"see what we've done? We had a perfectly good philosophical discussion and we had to bring religion into it

It's inevitable.

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two? They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth. Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak. That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around. The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

Here's the short version of everyone else's response to you. Your whole post depends on already believing in God, so it's meaningless to someone who doesn't.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Yes. 2+2 really is 7, I know. Atheism is lack of a belief in god(s) Atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). It's that simple.

Quote from: "Loffler"Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Objective truth"..?

An objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.

Quote from: "Asmodean"You stood the facts up on their head here. The relations between matter and energy are described by laws of physics. Those laws are something we define in order to more accurately describe the universe around us.

I should have said 'laws of physics' instead of 'laws of nature'. We don't define the laws of physics, only try to explain them and give them a definition so we can understand them. They are what they are.

Quote from: "Asmodean"So you can do something the laws of physics claim impossible? Can you jump up and stay in the air unaided? Or turn water (H2O) into the same amount of ethanol (C2H5OH)? Without using other atoms than those already in your glass?

I wasn't infering "Free Will" means we can cancel the laws of physics. "Free Will" implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Your god allegedly created us in its image. Thus it's just as stupid and weak.

Actualy, He created us perfect, but we screwed it up in the garden on Eden through sin, which is just us refusing to live by his commandments.

Quote from: "mrwynd"He then gives no definitive proof of his existance, no miracles to show us he exists. If he is all knowing, is outside of space and time, and is everywhere at once, he already knows what choices we will make. Therefore he creates 70% of mankind to suffer and die for all eternity......how does god love us again?

This is it in a nut shell! You see the universe and just see random happenings or such. I see miracles all the time and proof of his existance. Just look at a tree. How complex! You try to create one. Ever take an anatomy class? The human body is so complex it's truely mind boggling. Doctors have to specilize in just one small part of it and then they don't know very much. All this is suppose to to just have happened on it's own. Humans know so little about this universe but we think we're so smart.
God loves us so much because he gave a "Free Will" so we could make our own choices. He knows what our choices will be but WE make them and those choices have consequences.
I know, this isn't proof of a God in your eyes, but it's the basis for me and we all have to start somewhere!

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"By the way, as somebody that lives on a farm, sheep aren't the dumbest or most stubborn of animals.

I said "One of". This comes from my own discussions with people who raise them.

And the beat goes on.....

Quote from: "tdh26"An objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.

Thank you for clarifying. Your god is disqualified from the "objective truth" though - if anything god said or did was an objective truth, by your definition, everyone would agree to it/follow it.

Quote from: "tdh26"I should have said 'laws of physics' instead of 'laws of nature'. We don't define the laws of physics, only try to explain them and give them a definition so we can understand them. They are what they are.

Relations between matter and energy are what they are. We use laws of physics, which we define, to explain these relations. This is arguing over semantics though so I'll leave it be. The original point, however, was that the stars can not "decide" to not abide by the laws of physics any more than you can decide to jump up and stay in the air un-aided. It is about relations between matter and energy and unless you do all your equasions, and do them right, you can jump all you want, but every time you'll fall down. Thus, creating your "chaos" is impossible.

Quote from: "tdh26"I wasn't infering "Free Will" means we can cancel the laws of physics. "Free Will" implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.

No, free will implies that my actions are mine alone.

Quote from: "tdh26"Actualy, He created us perfect, but we screwed it up in the garden on Eden through sin, which is just us refusing to live by his commandments.

Thus, god is a sinner. Or a poor mechanic. Or just a lazy f***. Basically, it is as flawed as we are. In any case, definitely not worth wasting our time on.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

Why did you quote me without responding? Did you forget?

This is the exact point I was making before, "it's too complex, so it must have been created" takes all the complexity and wonder out of the thing you describe. If our eye was engineered, why do we have part of a 3rd eyelid that most animals have developed? Why do mammals that have been thrust into a new environment (australia) have a developed 3rd eyelid while the mammals not in these environments have a less developed 3rd eyelid? Did god just decide well....I'll give humans the remnants of this 3rd eyelid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality)

Just because our minds haven't evolved to the point that we can understand everything all at once doesn't mean it's not there. If scientists had accepted religious thought as truth we would never have questioned why electrons work as both particles and waves. Therefore we would never have computers or any electronics. We don't have to be able to make a tree ourselves to understand how it is created in nature and to say god created it without questioning how it exists leaves us ignorant.

There's one big question to the "need for creation". If everything is too complex to exist on it's own and must be created, what created god? It's a silly argument to say things we see cannot possibly exist on their own and assume something so complex that has never been seen simply exists for all time, indeed without time. The burden of proof lies on you to show your God's existence. We can give you tangible proof as to how things got here, where's yours? There's exactly just as much proof and scripture to show Allah, Zeus or Poseidon exists as your god. Indeed if everything must be created, why not Zeus?

First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

Quote from: "atheist2308"First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

As I've said in an earlier post, If you believe in God, but in no way live it, you might as well be an athiest. There is very little difference. You are both doing the same thing in life.
Why does the question "where do we get our morals from?" make you laugh? Do you not have any standards to go by or base them on?
As for religion killing more people... that's debateable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquistions.

Quote from: "tdh26"Do you not have any standards to go by or base them on?

I think everybody that's responded to your OP stated where they get their morality from, but it didn't conform to your expectations that morality can only come from a totally objective source.

QuoteAs for religion killing more people... that's debateable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquistions.

I thought the old testament had God tell his loyal followers to go kill all sortsa of people, who was it that ran around smoting folks with the jawbone of an ass?

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "atheist2308"First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

As I've said in an earlier post, If you believe in God, but in no way live it, you might as well be an athiest. There is very little difference. You are both doing the same thing in life.

There is no difference to a third party. But an atheist doesn't believe in God, and a theist does.

If someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?

QuoteI thought the old testament had God tell his loyal followers to go kill all sortsa of people, who was it that ran around smoting folks with the jawbone of an ass?

Samson.

Quote from: "Loffler"If someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?

Is that a trick question?

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"If someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?

Is that a trick question?

Yes, a trick question started by you. You did most of the work for me by saying people who act like atheists are atheists.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"If someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?

Is that a trick question?

No, its the same question I ask the angry street preachers when they tell me (or yell and scream at me) that EVERYBODY is going to hell that hasn't "heard the word of God/Jesus/King James version of the Bible."

What if there is a tribe of people in the most remote region on the planet that totally by accident live in total compliance with what we call the 10 Commandments and the other laws of Moses as well as the teachings of Jesus the Christ.  None of these people now anything about what you call Christianity.  So would they all be damned to hell or would they get their tickets to the happy place by virtue of living a pure and virtuous life? (and no pulling the whole, "Its impossible for this to happen because all human beings are born chock full of sin and are going to hell regardless of their virtuous life and ignorance of their own "sin debt.")

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"No, its the same question I ask the angry street preachers when they tell me (or yell and scream at me) that EVERYBODY is going to hell that hasn't "heard the word of God/Jesus/King James version of the Bible."

If you have had someone say that to you, that's disgusting.
I'd love to comment on the rest of your post but it would be very lengthly and my cat wants to play.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"No, its the same question I ask the angry street preachers when they tell me (or yell and scream at me) that EVERYBODY is going to hell that hasn't "heard the word of God/Jesus/King James version of the Bible."

If you have had someone say that to you, that's disgusting.
I'd love to comment on the rest of your post but it would be very lengthly and my cat wants to play.

How about answering my question instead, since it follows logically from your statement about atheists. Is everyone who acts like a Christian a Christian?

Well if this is a question of morals then anyone who gets morals from the christian bible has some major issues...I'm so tired of hearing that the bible makes you a good person.All it does it spread hate.You can't honestly read this and tell me this promotes love!

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

I Corinthians 14:34-35   Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


Proverbs 23:13  Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod [sceptre], he shall not die.


Genesis 22:1-2  God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...

Matthew 10:34-35  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

QuoteWhy does the question "where do we get our morals from?" make you laugh? Do you not have any standards to go by or base them on?

No, I'm not laughing yet. Yes, I have standards/morals but I don't base them on a 2,000 year old book.

QuoteAs for religion killing more people... that's debatable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside Islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquisitions.

I don't think I said "Go kill people". I was more or less talking about wars fought in the name of god, sacrifices of people and animals if you like. One example is that the Mayan in only one of there sacrifices to there gods, they killed over 80,000 of there own people. And for what?, just to spill there blood as an offering. That was just one of the events of just one of the many religions. There may not be a doctrine telling them anything but something is.

QuoteIf someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?

Not to me. I think that that needs to be worded differently, "If someone acts like a good person,.....".  I believe it depends on the kinda person they are, how they were raised, and many other factors that make a person act the way they do, talking about atheist that is. I'm atheist and have been my whole life cause I've never really believed in god. I thought it was all nonsense, even as a child, but I'm also a good person. I've never killed anyone, been in jail or anything like that. I like to help people and I like to recycle and I have many other good qualities. I'm living proof that you don't need to be a believer to be a good person.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "atheist2308"As for religion killing more people... that's debateable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquistions.

Your Bible

First, we'd like to think that Christianity and it's parent religion Judaism are peaceful religions, but it's just not true. This first passage shows how plainly it is spelled out in the bible that there is nothing wrong with killing people and taking their stuff - as long as they are "at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby". Yeah - real ethical there! I would also like to point out that these passages are right next to the passage that condemns homosexuality and various other sexual "laws". Christians still blow that trumpet, most of them anyway. The best part? This is the same book of the bible the "10 Commandments of God" are written.

Deuteronomy 20:10-
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

skip a bit more nonsense....and another real ethical view is shown in the bible...

Deuteronomy 21:10-
 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Now that we're on a roll lets go into "go kill people" that's not just "war", since Christians obviously still believe it's ok to kill people in war, most of them anyway.

Bad son? Stone him!

Deuteronomy 21:18-
 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Your wife wasn't a virgin when she married you? Stone her!

Deuteronomy 22:13-
 13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Now, there are a lot more quotes that are just appalling in the Christian Bible to a modern day person, because we have changed our ethical views. I can give you more quotes, or you can just open your bible and read it for yourself.

How many theists have really sat and read the bible?I'm pretty sure most of them haven't cracked open a bible ever.How many preachers,ministers,priests mention these parts of the bible at serivces?Of course alot a people can sit and say God is good ..If they don't read the bible.Morals have been around alot longer then a modern god.

Quote from: "tdh26"I’ve had a few atheistic friends over the years, although I could never grasp their reasoning. (I’ll let you label me an idiot up front just to save you time) A question I’ve always had is, if I were an atheist, and we were having a discussion and you pissed me off enough to kill you, and I did, why would that be wrong? Actually, the scenario doesn’t really matter. If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?
You may have moral reasons, although I don’t know why. The only difference between humans and the animal kingdom is we have an intelligence they don’t. So what? If you say that intelligence gives us a moral reasoning or some sort, Who cares. That would be your opinion, not mine. If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free, right? If you say in killing you I may have taken you away from family and friends who love you. Again, so what? Why would I care?

I admit, to me an atheist would be someone who believes in evolution or something other than a creator. We are just random chance little better than the animal kingdom, or no better. Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules? What would limit us? Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with. What would stop me from killing you? And why would that be bad?

I’m just curious what would be your reasoning from an atheistic point of view. I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

I don't think you're an idiot. I've heard your sentiment many numbers of times. It's a common Christian meme that basically states that atheism encourages people to run around killing and raping one another because they would be in your words, 'scot-free' to do so. In other words atheists can do whatever they want because they don't fear everlasting punishment for sin.

First of all, your statement belies that your belief system is at least partly based on fear of judgement, or should be.

Second of all, belief in the afterlife has never prevented someone with a predisposition for murder from killing a person. Wouldn't you agree that there have been both theistic and atheistic murdering bastards?

So lets think about this further. If both theists and atheists are capable of murder, maybe there's more at work. Maybe our internal moral workings have more to do with a feeling of appreciation for human life, independent of our belief in God.

To answer your question if I thought killing someone is wrong, I would say yes. But not because God made it so. I would say it's wrong because killing another human being is not healthy for the human family. My code of ethics is based on a secular worldview that involves appreciation for everyone as one human family, no matter how they feel about God. I believe this worldview superior to theism. It's based on universal acceptance of people for the simple fact that they are people, as opposed to the idea of eternal isolation (or possibly torture) for non-believers . This atheistic view is beyond your belief in punishment for sin, which is what you seem to think keeps people from killing others (which is simply not true).

Quote from: "myleviathan"To answer your question if I thought killing someone is wrong, I would say yes. But not because God made it so. I would say it's wrong because killing another human being is not healthy for the human family. My code of ethics is based on a secular worldview that involves appreciation for everyone as one human family, no matter how they feel about God. I believe this worldview superior to theism. It's based on universal acceptance of people for the simple fact that they are people, as opposed to the idea of eternal isolation (or possibly torture) for non-believers . This atheistic view is beyond your belief in punishment for sin, which is what you seem to think keeps people from killing others (which is simply not true).

That is absolutely true. I believe that we have only one life. This makes life for me something that is extremely wonderful and valuable. The idea of killing other people therefore abhors me. To be honest, I find all Abrahamic religions scary because they promise an after-life for which their followers are willing to die (and kill) for. It is also an historical fact that many theists are willing to put all their morals aside, when their clergy tells them to do so in the name of their God(s). Finally I can't believe why modern men would want to take morals from thousands of years old scriptures, that are loaded which absurdities, injustices, cruelties, violence and contradictions.

Quote from: "Loffler"How about answering my question instead, since it follows logically from your statement about atheists. Is everyone who acts like a Christian a Christian?

Let me take a stab at this because I started it anyway. Is everyone who acts like a Christian a Christian? Of course my first response would be NO, but.... if you act like a Christian, why would you not become one? (All the perks you know!) There must be a reason. In the same sense, If a person who claims to be a Christian but acts in complete contradition to that belief, why not become who you are acting as? This of course is just being true to yourself. Something I'm not very good at by the way. This probably isn't a good answer but there it is.

Quote from: "tdh26"(All the perks you know!)

Perks?
Oh, you mean like, giving your hard earned money, which you pay taxes on, to a church that doesn't have to pay taxes. And what do they really do with all that money anyways??

Like, spending a lot of time going to church instead of maybe doing something productive?

Like, having someone watching your every move, know your every thought and hear everything you say, even in you "private" moments?


Damn! Those are some good perks! Wasting money, wasting time and being paranoid. As good as that may sound, I don't think so, lol.

Quote from: "atheist2308"Damn! Those are some good perks! Wasting money, wasting time and being paranoid. As good as that may sound, I don't think so, lol.

Why so hostile? I assume you don't do these things. Why should it bother you someone else does?

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"How about answering my question instead, since it follows logically from your statement about atheists. Is everyone who acts like a Christian a Christian?

Let me take a stab at this because I started it anyway. Is everyone who acts like a Christian a Christian? Of course my first response would be NO, but.... if you act like a Christian, why would you not become one? (All the perks you know!) There must be a reason. In the same sense, If a person who claims to be a Christian but acts in complete contradition to that belief, why not become who you are acting as? This of course is just being true to yourself. Something I'm not very good at by the way. This probably isn't a good answer but there it is.

You said you consider someone who acts like an atheist pretty much an atheist. So I wanted to know if you took that in both directions. Furthermore, saying someone who acts like an atheist "might as well becomes what they are acting as" is different from saying people who act like atheists are effectively atheists.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "atheist2308"Damn! Those are some good perks! Wasting money, wasting time and being paranoid. As good as that may sound, I don't think so, lol.

Why so hostile? I assume you don't do these things. Why should it bother you someone else does?

We don't care what unintelligent, extreme believers do. We care what intelligent, marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits.

QuoteWhy so hostile? I assume you don't do these things. Why should it bother you someone else does?

Believe me when I say, if I was being "hostile" you would know it, and that was just sarcasm. Yeah, your right. I don't waste my time and money and I don't believe that there is an invisible man always watching me. It doesn't bother me what someone else does, unless it directly involves me. Or if I see someone doing something that does bother me, then I might just have to step in and do something.

Quote from: "Loffler"We don't care what unintelligent, extreme believers do. We care what intelligent, marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits.

You put yourself on a pretty high pedestal considering atheists comprise a very small portion of the poplulation and through history. I think if you would do a serious study of the advances of mankind, they were done by people who believed in a God. What motivates an atheist to to accomplish great things for his fellow man and when has it happened? You must be able to list them If you think we are so stupid.

tdh26, you have had numerous opportunities to respond directly to questions asked of you (especially by loffler, who has reminded you a few times that you have not responded to him). I suggest if you want to have even the least bit of credibility that you respond to direct questions, especially since you keep bringing up each subject that members here are taking the time to respond to.

You've also been corrected (social contract theory is one example) and just blown it off as if it didn't matter. The whole point of this thread that you started was determining where an ahteist's morals and or ethics come from. Social Contract Theory (which has been pointed out to you by Will Ravel, laetus, et al) is valid. Perhaps you should take the time to learn about it before blowing it off as unimportant. You could then possibly try to answer to the corrections pointed out to you.

You may also want to work on the definition of atheism as you think yours is broad, but is, in fact, narrower than an atheist's.

Lastly, why are you trying to attempt to try throw hard sciences into a talk about philosophy and social science? Related to this question is this suggestion: first learn some of the science you're trying to throw around so willy-nilly, because you come across as glaringly short in knowledge of biology, genetics, evolutionary biology and even the history of evolutionary biology. In other words, don't try to bullshit your way through a subject you have no knowledge of when talking with people who actually do know it. Again, total lack of credibility. Be willing to state that you don't know something, rather than try to bluff your way through it.

Of course, you can ignore all this too. Up to you. But I would just rather see something meaningful come out of this thread aside from you dodging valid points.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"We don't care what unintelligent, extreme believers do. We care what intelligent, marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits.

You put yourself on a pretty high pedestal considering atheists comprise a very small portion of the poplulation and through history. I think if you would do a serious study of the advances of mankind, they were done by people who believed in a God. What motivates an atheist to to accomplish great things for his fellow man and when has it happened? You must be able to list them If you think we are so stupid.

Here's a list. (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence  <---- Just a little reading to answer your last sentience.

Quoteatheists comprise a very small portion of the population

There's more then you may think. Atheist and other non-believers make up around 14% to 15% of the worlds population.

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"We don't care what unintelligent, extreme believers do. We care what intelligent, marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits.

You put yourself on a pretty high pedestal considering atheists comprise a very small portion of the poplulation and through history. I think if you would do a serious study of the advances of mankind, they were done by people who believed in a God. What motivates an atheist to to accomplish great things for his fellow man and when has it happened? You must be able to list them If you think we are so stupid.

What motivates most atheists, and there are all kinds, is the pursuit for truth. Of course believers made all sorts of contributions to science because that was the pervasive belief of the day. However as more scientific discoveries were made, religious beliefs and their influence receded more and more in the scientific community. God cannot be sensed by science, so it makes sense that atheism is the standard in current scientific thinking. Think about this - Christians used to believe that God physically resided in the sky, but when we learned how to look into space, Christians accepted the new way of thinking over time. Christians also believed Satan literally lived in the earth, beneath the ground - but as geology progressed this belief passed away as well. As dinosaurs were discovered by paleontologists, Christians had to readjust their opinion that creation revolved around them, and all animals' sole purpose was to benefit humanity. Now, as evolution has taken the forefront as a scientific theory, slowly but surely more and more Christians are adjusting their view to accomodate evolution into their beliefs. I don't think that religion and science are mutually exclusive - but as scientific pursuit matures, it's naturally going to wax atheist because science tends to dispell religious views. And as far as atheist scientists go:

Ivan Pavlov (1849â€"1936): Nobel Prize winning Russian physiologist, psychologist, and physician, widely known for first describing the phenomenon of classical conditioning

Sigmund Freud (1856â€"1939): Father of psychoanalysis

Julius Axelrod (1912â€"2004): American Nobel Prize winning biochemist, noted for his work on the release and reuptake of catecholamine neurotransmitters and major contributions to the understanding of the pineal gland and how it is regulated during the sleep-wake cycle.

Sir Edward Battersby Bailey FRS (1881â€"1965): British geologist, director of the British Geological Survey

Patrick Blackett OM, CH, FRS (1897â€"1974): Nobel Prize winning English experimental physicist known for his work on cloud chambers, cosmic rays, and paleomagnetism

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910â€"1995): Indian American astrophysicist known for his theoretical work on the structure and evolution of stars. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983

Richard Feynman (1918â€"1988): American theoretical physicist, best known for his work in renormalizing Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics . He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Vitaly Ginzburg (1916â€"): Russian theoretical physicist and astrophysicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003. He was also awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1994/95

Stephen Jay Gould (1941â€"2002): American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.

Stephen Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (1942â€"): British theoretical physicist, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes, and his popular works in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general, including A Brief History of Time.

Sir Julian Huxley FRS (1887â€"1975): English evolutionary biologist, a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund

Frédéric Joliot-Curie (1900â€"1958): French physicist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1935

Harold Kroto (1939â€"): 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

Alfred Kinsey (1894â€"1956): American biologist, sexologist and professor of entomology and zoology

Richard Leakey (1944â€"): Kenyan paleontologist, archaeologist and conservationist

John Maynard Smith (1920â€"2004): British evolutionary biologist and geneticist, instrumental in the application of game theory to evolution, and noted theorizer on the evolution of sex and signalling theory

Jacques Monod (1910â€"1976): French biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis

Norman Pirie FRS (1954â€"): British biochemist and virologist co-discoverer in 1936 of viral crystallization, an important milestone in understanding DNA and RNA

Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield, CBE (1950â€"): British scientist, writer and broadcaster, specialising in the physiology of the brain, who has worked to research and bring attention to Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease

Richard J. Roberts (1943â€"): British biochemist and molecular biologist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 for the discovery of introns in eukaryotic DNA and the mechanism of gene-splicing

Claude Shannon (1916â€"2001): American electrical engineer and mathematician, has been called "the father of information theory", and was the founder of practical digital circuit design theory

Michael Smith (1932â€"2000): British-born Canadian biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1993

Linus Torvalds (1969â€"): Finnish software engineer, creator of the Linux kernel

Steven Weinberg (1933â€"): American theoretical physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force.

Quote from: "McQ"tdh26, you have had numerous opportunities to respond directly to questions asked of you (especially by loffler, who has reminded you a few times that you have not responded to him). I suggest if you want to have even the least bit of credibility that you respond to direct questions, especially since you keep bringing up each subject that members here are taking the time to respond to.

You've also been corrected (social contract theory is one example) and just blown it off as if it didn't matter. The whole point of this thread that you started was determining where an ahteist's morals and or ethics come from. Social Contract Theory (which has been pointed out to you by Will Ravel, laetus, et al) is valid. Perhaps you should take the time to learn about it before blowing it off as unimportant. You could then possibly try to answer to the corrections pointed out to you.

You may also want to work on the definition of atheism as you think yours is broad, but is, in fact, narrower than an atheist's.

Lastly, why are you trying to attempt to try throw hard sciences into a talk about philosophy and social science? Related to this question is this suggestion: first learn some of the science you're trying to throw around so willy-nilly, because you come across as glaringly short in knowledge of biology, genetics, evolutionary biology and even the history of evolutionary biology. In other words, don't try to bullshit your way through a subject you have no knowledge of when talking with people who actually do know it. Again, total lack of credibility. Be willing to state that you don't know something, rather than try to bluff your way through it.

First of all, I'm new to this forum and actually this is the only forum I've ever responded to other menbers. I haven't even gotten to much of the other questions in here. I want to respond to a lot of comments but it does take time and I type very slow. My family keeps telling me to get off the internet. We just have dial-up.
Anyway, I've really enjoyed being here so far. It has made me think more than I have in a long time. I'm sure you have formulated your thoughts on this subject for a long time because it's your belief system. Seeing this thread has generated a good number on replies, it must mean a lot to you and I respect that.
As for not responding to some questions, I did just respond to a question from loffler. Sorry I've missed others. Some questions I need a little time to formulate a response. And I am going to read the link I was given. But over the years, I've learned you can't believe every thing you read. There is a lot of garbage out there. As you would put it; the Bible!

Quote from: "McQ"first learn some of the science you're trying to throw around so willy-nilly, because you come across as glaringly short in knowledge of biology, genetics, evolutionary biology and even the history of evolutionary biology.

I have not gotten into any great detail in anyone of these sciences, just broad comments of things I have read for years. I don't have a PhD. Do you? If you want specifics I would have to find them again, if your willing, and post maybe in another section.
Just today I read that more than 50,000 physicists acknowledges many members of the scientific community don't believe humans are the primary cause of climate change.
I thought there was a concensus that we are the cause! (If you listen to Al Gore) I think It's nonsense. But we believe what we want.

Darn, another post for me! I'll never catch-up!

Quote from: "tdh26"

Quote from: "Loffler"We don't care what unintelligent, extreme believers do. We care what intelligent, marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits.

You put yourself on a pretty high pedestal considering atheists comprise a very small portion of the population

Also a small portion of a population: geniuses. Also a small portion of a population: Olympic gold medalists.

Quoteand through history.

For most of history there were almost zero admitted atheists, for a very good reason.

QuoteI think if you would do a serious study of the advances of mankind, they were done by people who believed in a God.

Curiously few in the days since atheism stopped carrying the death penalty.

QuoteWhat motivates an atheist to to accomplish great things for his fellow man and when has it happened? You must be able to list them If you think we are so stupid.

I didn't say you're stupid. I said that we don't care what unintelligent or extreme believers do. We care what intelligent or marginal believers do, because they have intelligence which could be better used on more meaningful pursuits. In other words,  we don't care what Appalachian snake handlers do with their lives, they wouldn't be winning any Nobel prizes with or without religion.

Quote from: "Loffler"Also a small portion of a population: geniuses. Also a small portion of a population: Olympic gold medalists.

*nods*

The great things in the world were not done by the flock of white sheep. They were done by those who went their own way.

Quote from: "Loffler"I didn't say you're stupid. I said that we don't care what unintelligent or extreme believers do.

Sorry, the stupid comment came from someone else.

Quote from: "myleviathan"And as far as atheist scientists go:

24
You listed Sir Julian Huxley. Here's something he wrote: “We all jumped at the Origin of Species because the idea of God, interfered with our sexual mores.”
That speaks volumes. After all, if children fine out they were created by a God that they are accountable to, it will become more difficult to promote the pagan “do what thou wilt. For that is in the mature of man world view.
It comes down to this: Either we are a result of chance random process, or intelligent design.
If we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes, there is no sin. Murder is only wrong because someone may think that it is…not because it is. Moral relativism reigns.
I'm surprised you listed Alfred Kinsey. From what I've read, a most discusting person in how he did his research. Anyway..........

Quote from: "tdh26"If we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes

Evolution alone does not disprove god(s), just the fact that your "creator" is not a creator.

As for rights and wrongs, your statement is hollow as a soap bubble. It is based on the assumption that gods define right and wrong which in turn is based on the assumption that gods exist. Ockham's Razor.

QuoteIf we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes, there is no sin. Murder is only wrong because someone may think that it is…not because it is. Moral relativism reigns.

The fact that so many Christians say this leads me to question whether it's such a good idea for atheists to try to convert Christians to atheism. People who say the above are basically admitting they have no internal morality; maybe you people can't be trusted with the truth.

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteIf we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes, there is no sin. Murder is only wrong because someone may think that it is…not because it is. Moral relativism reigns.

The fact that so many Christians say this leads me to question whether it's such a good idea for atheists to try to convert Christians to atheism. People who say the above are basically admitting they have no internal morality; maybe you people can't be trusted with the truth.

  to Loffler!!! I couldn't have said it any better. If Christians believe that the only way to know right from wrong is religion, well, Loffler said it best.


But maybe convert is the wrong word and way to go about it. Converting is something religious people like to do. We atheist don't need to do that, all we need to do is just plant the seed of doubt in there brain and hope it grows. Maybe it is a form of converting but I don't like calling it that.

Quote from: "atheist2308"

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuoteIf we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes, there is no sin. Murder is only wrong because someone may think that it is…not because it is. Moral relativism reigns.

The fact that so many Christians say this leads me to question whether it's such a good idea for atheists to try to convert Christians to atheism. People who say the above are basically admitting they have no internal morality; maybe you people can't be trusted with the truth.

  to Loffler!!! I couldn't have said it any better. If Christians believe that the only way to know right from wrong is religion, well, Loffler said it best.


But maybe convert is the wrong word and way to go about it. Converting is something religious people like to do. We atheist don't need to do that, all we need to do is just plant the seed of doubt in there brain and hope it grows. Maybe it is a form of converting but I don't like calling it that.

It works like this:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg522.imageshack.us%2Fimg522%2F7599%2Fspectrumzd6.png&hash=35e185a617a561dd38bd35beec12eccd482dbe84)

Preaching the good word of atheism isn't for converting the Extreme Christians. It's for the Marginal Christians who are having some doubts, and if you're really convincing and invest the time, maybe the Skeptical Christian as well.

QuotePreaching the good word of atheism isn't for converting the Extreme Christians. It's for the Marginal Christians who are having some doubts, and if you're really convincing and invest the time, maybe the Skeptical Christian as well.

I see your point there.

Quote from: "tdh26"I’ve had a few atheistic friends over the years, although I could never grasp their reasoning. (I’ll let you label me an idiot up front just to save you time) A question I’ve always had is, if I were an atheist, and we were having a discussion and you pissed me off enough to kill you, and I did, why would that be wrong? Actually, the scenario doesn’t really matter. If I kill you for any reason, what’s the problem?
You may have moral reasons, although I don’t know why. The only difference between humans and the animal kingdom is we have an intelligence they don’t. So what? If you say that intelligence gives us a moral reasoning or some sort, Who cares. That would be your opinion, not mine. If I get by with it and don’t get caught, I’m scot-free, right? If you say in killing you I may have taken you away from family and friends who love you. Again, so what? Why would I care?

I admit, to me an atheist would be someone who believes in evolution or something other than a creator. We are just random chance little better than the animal kingdom, or no better. Doesn’t that mean we can just makeup our own rules? Do what ever we want as long as we can get by with it and not get caught by our own collective man made rules? What would limit us? Civility and laws are just a collective thought (rule) that maybe I in particular may not agree with. What would stop me from killing you? And why would that be bad?

I’m just curious what would be your reasoning from an atheistic point of view. I haven’t received a “reasonable” answer so far.

This is all really thought provoking. I, myself, have been thinking about morality and what the word really means.

From my current perspective, morality does seem meaningless to me, with or without a god. How do you suppose we "get our morality"? (what does "get our morality" mean anyway?)

Quote from: "Loffler"The fact that so many Christians say this leads me to question whether it's such a good idea for atheists to try to convert Christians to atheism. People who say the above are basically admitting they have no internal morality; maybe you people can't be trusted with the truth.

I think that goes a little bit too far. I am sure that theists have internal morality. The only difference is that they think that their morality comes from a higher being. When for example a christian child would steal a cookie from a cookie jar his parents will punish the child, just like atheist parents would do. Both children will learn that stealing is bad so the end effect is the same. However the christian child may be told that stealing is morally bad in the eyes of Jesus/God while the atheist child may be told that stealing is bad because it harms other people and that people who steal end up in prison.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Loffler"The fact that so many Christians say this leads me to question whether it's such a good idea for atheists to try to convert Christians to atheism. People who say the above are basically admitting they have no internal morality; maybe you people can't be trusted with the truth.

I think that goes a little bit too far. I am sure that theists have internal morality. The only difference is that they think that their morality comes from a higher being. When for example a christian child would steal a cookie from a cookie jar his parents will punish the child, just like atheist parents would do. Both children will learn that stealing is bad so the end effect is the same. However the christian child may be told that stealing is morally bad in the eyes of Jesus/God while the atheist child may be told that stealing is bad because it harms other people and that people who steal end up in prison.

Exactly. That Christian child in your example has not cultivated an internal morality.

Quote from: "Loffler"That Christian child in your example has not cultivated an internal morality.

In both cases the child learns that stealing is bad, because the parents taught the child that it is bad. The only difference is that atheist parents leaves out the supernatural aspect. Since most Christians are very decent people, who love their children as much as atheist parents do, it is very likely that the parents of the christian child also taught the child that stealing is bad because it harms other people. From my point of view the internal morals of both children are then cultivated on the same level.

Should the christian child however been  brought up in a fundamentalist environment then its upbringing will be fundamentally  different. In that case the morals of the child will come from parent who have a distorted worldview. The development of the internal morality could then be become damaged, because the child will only learn morals from its parents out of the fear from God. Leaving out the human aspect in the child's upbringing is something what I (and many other atheist) find so scary.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "Loffler"That Christian child in your example has not cultivated an internal morality.

In both cases the child learns that stealing is bad, because the parents taught the child that it is bad. The only difference is that atheist parents leaves out the supernatural aspect. Since most Christians are very decent people, who love their children as much as atheist parents do, it is very likely that the parents of the christian child also taught the child that stealing is bad because it harms other people. From my point of view the internal morals of both children are then cultivated on the same level.

By definition, a morality based on God watching you is external. You are motivated by a fear of an external force punishing you rather than being motivated by fear of one's internal guilt.

There is evidence, however, that this external morality can translate or transition into a second, internal morality, and that evidence is the fact that many if not most ex-Christians retain their moral sense after losing their faith. But we're not talking about them; we're talking about the Christians who ask atheists where morality comes from.

Quote from: "Loffler"There is evidence, however, that this external morality can translate or transition into a second, internal morality, and that evidence is the fact that many if not most ex-Christians retain their moral sense after losing their faith. But we're not talking about them; we're talking about the Christians who ask atheists where morality comes from.

Very good point. The 2nd part of my previous posting already made it clear that fundamentalist Christians harm children by exposing them to the external (God) "morality" only, which brings in elements of fear (of God), intolerance (towards non-Christians, homosexuals, women, etc.) and other bad stuff literally taken from the Bible. Discussing morality with these kind of people is hopeless, because in their worldview there is no place for internal morality.

The last few posts have tried to explain how christians get their morality. I would put it this way; when you want to learn something, you go to someone who knows the subject more than you. A team has a coach, a school has teachers, universities a professor, as so on. That's typically how we get or share knowledge. Libraries are full of information we get from other people, not ourselves. How long do professors go to school...Wow!
Once the christian comes to the conclusion that there is a God and he created the universe, you use his 'rule' book because that is the knowledge ot truth. Who else would be better able to explain his creation than the one who made it?
Furthermore, everyone of us is biased in one way or another. Scientists, Doctors, teachers, you and me. In one sense I see this as a bad thing. It can lead us in the wrong direction
because the mind tends to gather information it is looking for. That's why you are here and not hanging around at the christain sites. Please don't respond to the last sentence as I don't have time to respond back to that one!
Once you made the very foundation of beliefs, God - no god, you start gathering information to support it and each side claims to have supporting evidence.

I like Loffler's pix of beliefs, but it's a two way street, not a one way street.

Here we have it there are good theist folk and good atheist folk.We may all get our morals from different sources and have different reasons for them.The only thing that matters is that people aren't running chaotic in the streets murdering and harming others.Maybe it is that humans have morality spot on the brain.We don't know yet.But I'm sure one day we will.I think atheist get upset on the issue because we are always attacked when it comes to purpose and morals.I have heard of only one atheist who used his non-religion against theists.But many times theist attacking other religious groups for belief.Just because I don't share your belief in God doesn't mean that my morals are any less then the next persons.There is to much hate in the world and if people would only think about how it does no good for anyone,maybe things would change.Alot of atheist do understand morals and religion because alot of us grew up with religion.I personally don't think using god to stop a child from stealing a cookie is the best way to go about it.Telling a child that a sky god is watching you and you are being good to go to heaven isn't a lesson in morals.It's scaring a child into not doing something wrong.Just like offering a cookie to behave.There is no lesson in it just be good to earn a reward.I would like to think that someone would tell their child not to steal because it harms other people.That teaches the child to think about others not just themself.

Think about this. If someone came up to you with a gun or knife or something and you felt like your life was in danger and they were going to try to kill you, are you thinking about your morals? No. You are think either run, kill or be killed. Your morals would be long gone at that point and your natural animal instincts for survival would kick in because we are animals, which we seem to forget.

You could pray to your god to help you but I would call the cops because they'll actually show up.

Edit: I should also say that when it comes down to a situation like that (and others), it doesn't matter where we get our morals or why we have them because in that moment its about survival.

Quote from: "tdh26"The last few posts have tried to explain how christians get their morality. I would put it this way; when you want to learn something, you go to someone who knows the subject more than you. A team has a coach, a school has teachers, universities a professor,

Zoos have animals...

Quoteas so on. That's typically how we get or share knowledge. Libraries are full of information we get from other people, not ourselves. How long do professors go to school...Wow!
Once the christian comes to the conclusion that there is a God and he created the universe, you use his 'rule' book because that is the knowledge ot truth. Who else would be better able to explain his creation than the one who made it?
Furthermore, everyone of us is biased in one way or another. Scientists, Doctors, teachers, you and me. In one sense I see this as a bad thing. It can lead us in the wrong direction
because the mind tends to gather information it is looking for. That's why you are here and not hanging around at the christain sites. Please don't respond to the last sentence as I don't have time to respond back to that one!
Once you made the very foundation of beliefs, God - no god, you start gathering information to support it and each side claims to have supporting evidence.

My information gathering as a Christian lead me to atheism.

QuoteI like Loffler's pix of beliefs, but it's a two way street, not a one way street.

Lately it's been a pretty one-way street.

Quote from: "tdh26"Once the christian comes to the conclusion that there is a God and he created the universe, you use his 'rule' book because that is the knowledge ot truth. Who else would be better able to explain his creation than the one who made it?

Morality is not an explaination of something, it's an enforced code of rules set down by someone that thought that "this is right".

Quote from: "tdh26"Furthermore, everyone of us is biased in one way or another. Scientists, Doctors, teachers, you and me. In one sense I see this as a bad thing. It can lead us in the wrong direction
because the mind tends to gather information it is looking for.

That's so true. But it is possible to stay objective if you try. I do my best.

Quote from: "tdh26"That's why you are here and not hanging around at the christain sites. Please don't respond to the last sentence as I don't have time to respond back to that one!

I have to respond to this allegation. That is an assumption that isn't true, at least for me. I have been browsing the Christian forums regularily for over a year now.

Quote from: "tdh26"Once you made the very foundation of beliefs, God - no god, you start gathering information to support it and each side claims to have supporting evidence.

Well, let's not get into that, as that will lead into an entire discussion that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

---

I don't like the way this discussion is going. "Where we get our morals" is not as important as "what the justification for our morals is so that we can impose them on others". What if Hitler told me that stealing, rape, and murder were wrong? Would that mean that I'm getting my morals from Hitler? Is that good/bad? It doesn't matter because you're not thinking about the justifcation for those morals. Of course, if you continue on looking for a justification for a moral code, you realize that it's completely subjective, making justification for imposing that moral code objectively impossible.

In reality, any moral code is completely meaningless if it is unenforced. If one thinks that stealing is wrong, will they sit back and allow someone to take his/her things? No, they must enforce their rule on others, or else it is meaningless. But once someone enforces their own moral code on others, they become intolerant of others' moral codes. Really, morality is just a matter of a powerful authority pushing their morals on others. This can be in the form of parents, government, or God (or rather man speaking for a god they claim exists). It's all the same: "because he holds the gun."

Of course, I maybe just confused. Does anyone have anything to say about this?