Happy Atheist Forum

I'm curious...for the atheists on the board...where do you find a basis for morality and ethics?  Is it philosophy, society, government, autonomous self, etc.?  Thoughts?

homer, this topic always sparks debate when asked by a theist.  I've moved it to the philosophy/ethics section of the forum where you are welcome to watch the responses.

Quote from: "homer"I'm curious...for the atheists on the board...where do you find a basis for morality and ethics?  Is it philosophy, society, government, autonomous self, etc.?

Yes, the very same places theists get their basis for morality.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "homer"I'm curious...for the atheists on the board...where do you find a basis for morality and ethics?  Is it philosophy, society, government, autonomous self, etc.?

Yes, the very same places theists get their basis for morality.

Minus the influences of institutionalised superstition.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "homer"I'm curious...for the atheists on the board...where do you find a basis for morality and ethics?  Is it philosophy, society, government, autonomous self, etc.?

Yes, the very same places theists get their basis for morality.

Minus the influences of institutionalised superstition.

Because "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Honor your father and mother...", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" ...these are superstitious ideas.

Basic social contract... Hive mentality...

Honestly, who cares where someone's morality is derived from?! As long as it works, it works.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Basic social contract... Hive mentality...

Honestly, who cares where someone's morality is derived from?! As long as it works, it works.  

I agree, Asmodean.  But some, as evidenced above, seem to think ANYTHING from a different source is rubbish.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Because "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Honor your father and mother...", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" ...these are superstitious ideas.

Oh, I DO like examining those..!  :raised:

"Do not steal" ...Unless looting spoils of war or doing it to help the poor, I suppose?

Those rules are, in themselves, not supersticious ideas. However, the setting in which they are presented and the enforcing authority provided... Those are supersticious ideas. They are also full of holes, many of them are, holes which are exploitable in some cases and you can not be blamed for exploiting a hole in a rule, now can you? And then there is the new vs. the old, but I'm not starting a debate on that  

As I strongly implied above, I don't care where a personal morality is derived from as long as it works, and for far too many people, the moral guidance value of those rules as presented would be low.

How about commen sense? It may not be that common, but it is out there, somewhere.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"How about commen sense? It may not be that common, but it is out there, somewhere.

I think the expression should go: "How about common sense? It may not be common, but hey, at least it's SENSIBLE."  

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Because "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Honor your father and mother...", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" ...these are superstitious ideas.

These ideas all predate the Bible, thus the Bible cannot claim them as original, Christian morals.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Because "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Honor your father and mother...", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" ...these are superstitious ideas.

These ideas all predate the Bible, thus the Bible cannot claim them as original, Christian morals.

Whether they do or not is really of no consequence as the God that wrote these down (whether you believe in God or not) is the God that claims to have created Man in His own image...and if so, then the basis of these are not of "Man", but innate.

So what we are left with is your belief that they existed prior to the Exodus acct. and my agreement with you.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Whether they do or not is really of no consequence as the God that wrote these down (whether you believe in God or not) is the God that claims to have created Man in His own image...and if so, then the basis of these are not of "Man", but innate.

So what we are left with is your belief that they existed prior to the Exodus acct. and my agreement with you.

Concepts like empathy, 'honoring' fellow members of the species, not killing and not stealing actually predate sentience in human evolution and can theoretically be dated back to before we were even primates. Our distant ancestors that first evolved cooperation with other members of the species are actually the root of these things, and that dates back tens of millions of years. Theism itself is really only maybe 20,000 years old, and the concept of Yahweh is only a few thousand years old. Like every religion, Christianity adopted natural human ethics as Christian in a (successful) attempt to appeal to people and spread.

"Would I be upset if someone did this to me?"
If the answer is yes, I don't do it. (Except in extenuating circumstances where intervention is absolutely necessary.)

The same rule I learned in kindergarten still applies today.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"So what we are left with is your belief that they existed prior to the Exodus acct. and my agreement with you.

Concepts like empathy, 'honoring' fellow members of the species, not killing and not stealing actually predate sentience in human evolution and can theoretically be dated back to before we were even primates. Our distant ancestors that first evolved cooperation with other members of the species are actually the root of these things, and that dates back tens of millions of years. Theism itself is really only maybe 20,000 years old, and the concept of Yahweh is only a few thousand years old. Like every religion, Christianity adopted natural human ethics as Christian in a (successful) attempt to appeal to people and spread.

As I mentioned before, we are left at the same point.  These are natural, whether they be of God or of Evolutionary nature, they are natural.
So then, the point I'm making is that;

Quote from: "Tank"Minus the influences of institutionalised superstition.

There is no superstition in them if these are natural, either by God or by Nature.

The institutionalized superstition, from an atheist's perspective, is the association between natural morals and a supernatural creator. We don't believe in the supernatural, so, from our perspective, adding god into the equation is unnecessary and only serves to cloud the truth.

Quote from: "Will"The institutionalized superstition, from an atheist's perspective, is the association between natural morals and a supernatural creator. We don't believe in the supernatural, so, from our perspective, adding god into the equation is unnecessary and only serves to cloud the truth.

Whether they are of God or Nature does not cloud the truth that they are NOT superstition.  I am not speaking of all 10 Commandments at all.  I specifically called out a few Commandments that are natural.  Had I mentioned the 4th Commandment, then it could be rightly stated that the Sabbath is from "institutionalized superstition".  These others are not superstitious.  You and I both agree they are natural.

From the atheist perspective, god is superstition. That was the point.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Davin"Minus the influences of institutionalised superstition.

Because "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Honor your father and mother...", "Do not murder", "Do not steal" ...these are superstitious ideas.

If you say so I just thought they were reasonable behaviour by normal people. I was thinking more of the existance of god, heaven, hell, talking snakes, the world only being a few thousand years old, a big wooden boat. All of what you have written here has been done before and since. Morality is institutionalised socially acceptable behaviour and there is no need to mix in institutionalised superstition with it. Unless of course you need an excuse to rape, murder and commit genocide (which is why there is a big wooden boat in the fairy tales of some mythologies).

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Whether they do or not is really of no consequence as the God that wrote these down (whether you believe in God or not) is the God that claims to have created Man in His own image...and if so, then the basis of these are not of "Man", but innate.

So what we are left with is your belief that they existed prior to the Exodus acct. and my agreement with you.

Concepts like empathy, 'honoring' fellow members of the species, not killing and not stealing actually predate sentience in human evolution and can theoretically be dated back to before we were even primates. Our distant ancestors that first evolved cooperation with other members of the species are actually the root of these things, and that dates back tens of millions of years. Theism itself is really only maybe 20,000 years old, and the concept of Yahweh is only a few thousand years old. Like every religion, Christianity adopted natural human ethics as Christian in a (successful) attempt to appeal to people and spread.

I think it's easier for the morality of Atheists to evolve compared to theists, who have to reconcile their morals with millennia old scribblings.  Passing on the earth with it's beauty and diversity in tact to future generations seems a moral imperative to me, so I'd say birth control is good and huge families are immoral.

The difference between ethics and morality is that ethics are reasonably arrived at, whereas morality is not.

Ethics has to do with refraining from knowingly doing harm to others. Morality is based on placing the values of material/the physical (materialism/the superficial)) over the value of person. ( if person is considered to be the non-physical)

Quote from: Old Seer on April 25, 2023, 04:11:23 PMEthics has to do with refraining from knowingly doing harm to others. Morality is based on placing the values of material/the physical (materialism/the superficial)) over the value of person. ( if person is considered to be the non-physical)

Is it not humane ethics vs. inhuman morality or am I deceived?

Quote from: MarcusA on April 25, 2023, 07:16:25 PM

Quote from: Old Seer on April 25, 2023, 04:11:23 PMEthics has to do with refraining from knowingly doing harm to others. Morality is based on placing the values of material/the physical (materialism/the superficial)) over the value of person. ( if person is considered to be the non-physical)

Is it not humane ethics vs. inhuman morality or am I deceived?

My understanding of human is not the same yours so I cannot comment.

Morality is what I say is right. Immorality is what I say is wrong.

no one thinks that what you think makes sense.

Is it better to be cruel to be kind sometimes?

Quote from: billy rubin on April 25, 2023, 09:54:49 PMno one thinks that what you think makes sense.

Wait, does he? Or does no-one think that what no-one thinks makes sense? :headscratch: The Asmo shall figure it out, see if He shall not!

Quote from: MarcusA on April 25, 2023, 10:26:34 PMIs it better to be cruel to be kind sometimes?

I think you'd have to operate with some rather self-serving definitions of "cruel" and "kind" to achieve that, so I'd formulate the question in terms of possibility rather than preferability and answer "no." Cruelty defeats kindness.

An analogy; it may be possible to do evil to be good. However, it is not possible to be evil to be good.

Quote from: Asmodean on April 27, 2023, 02:07:13 PM

Quote from: billy rubin on April 25, 2023, 09:54:49 PMno one thinks that what you think makes sense.

Wait, does he? Or does no-one think that what no-one thinks makes sense? :headscratch: The Asmo shall figure it out, see if He shall not!

Quote from: MarcusA on April 25, 2023, 10:26:34 PMIs it better to be cruel to be kind sometimes?

I think you'd have to operate with some rather self-serving definitions of "cruel" and "kind" to achieve that, so I'd formulate the question in terms of possibility rather than preferability and answer "no." Cruelty defeats kindness.

An analogy; it may be possible to do evil to be good. However, it is not possible to be evil to be good.

To me, doing is being.

One is an action - the other is a condition.

Actions speak louder than words, merely.

I really don't have a ready answer to the separation of action from the human condition.

What is evil but subjective. I am good but dull.

I need sleep. I'll decide what to do tomorrow.

I've decided to give it a rest for a while, a long while.

I couldn't keep away.

HAF the flypaper of humanity.  ;D