Where does the atheist/humanist get their morality from?

[spiritualwarrior77]

I did type something up. But it's pointless.

I'm sure it's not pointless, Genersis.
Do share

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is a question for atheists and humanists...
Where do you get your ideas about what is right and what is wrong from?

From within

Who gets to decide this for society?

Society does

What's makes your morality more moral than mine?

I don't know, how moral are you? If you're a perfectly moral person, we aren't any more moral than you are.

Where does the conscience come from?

Biology and Evolutionary processes

Whose to decide who's conscience is 'correct'?

Society

What's to stop the 'elite' deciding that, under 'survival of the fittest', they are more than justified to dominate the rest of us?

Being rich doesn't make you any more fit for survival. In many cases, it can be the opposite

Why does every society under 'humanism' decay (and yet the Judeo-Christian ethic remains as strong as ever)?

I'm not aware of a society ever being formed under strictly humanistic principles.

Likewise, the vast majority of Judeo-Christian societies have decayed and failed going right back to the Roman Empire. Many would argue the United States has been in a state of decay over the last 30 years.... in that time the Religious Right went from being a voice in the crowd to a major political power.

Isn't the logical conclusion of a 'humanist' society built on the principles of Darwinism, one of domination by a dictatorial elite?

Wondering...

Darwinism doesn't talk about domination by a dictatorial elite at all.... it talks about survival of the fittest.

History has shown the more free a society is, the more productive it is. Through history, especially in developed countries, the trend has been to give people more and more freedoms.

Of course, there will be a pendulum effect where there are phases of freedoms being removed (i.e. Post WW2 America), however, the long term trend when speaking in terms of centuries is more freedoms.

That's what Darwinism favours.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Social Darwinism is the inevitable result of the Theory (incorrect I might add) of Evolution. You might not agree with it, but many will and take it to it's logical conclusion... a dominant elite class.

Not true. Natural selection describes a certain process in nature, Natural selection doesn't even imply that this reality is "good" only that it exists. Any sort of value judgement would fall outside the realm of the scientific theory.

Natural selection doesn't imply that animals or humans HAVE to kill the weak or let them starve (that's more conservatism ) Working together can also aid in the survival of a species. In fact now that we have nukes and such omnidestructive weapons, working together , compassion, peace and all that good stuff is probably more important than ever.

Not to mention the fact that we are currently unraveling the mysteries of genetics and can now take control of our evolution through technological means rather than leaving it up to chance.

 

[IAmCatwoman]

Once again, POE. ABANDON THREAD.

Even if he's not a Poe, he's feigning ignorance and interest so he can insult all of us with his ridiculous ideas. It's not worth it. Stop responding. He doesn't care.

 

[Illuminaughty]

This is a non-sequitur in the same way that concluding from gravity that we should drop everything.
Keyterms: descriptive vs. prescriptive.

QFT. You hit the nail on the head here.

 

[NailsII]

It depends on your definition of humanism.

Let's just say the combination of humanism (humans being the highest moral authority), Darwinism (survival of the fittest) and atheism (there is no God) = Auschwitz.

Darwin's theory of evolution suggests that those animals best suited to their environments will on average survive and reproduce more than those who are less suited.
It is clear from the fossil record that the biggest predators are no longer alive today like Megalodon, Allosaurus etc) so clearly the biggest and most powerful do not prosper.

It's the logical conclusion of this belief system. You may think Auschwitz is wrong but you have no moral authority to explain why. Hitler and the Nazis believed that Jews were akin to vermin and it was their duty to rid the world of them. They truly believed this with every fibre of their being. The humanist can only appeal to 'conscience' without explaining where it came from and who's conscience is more correct. What about people who don't have a conscience or have a partial conscience (the sociopath)?

If you truly belief that morals can only come from the bible, why do the Chinese not kill each other at random?
Why was ancient Egypt a flourishing state with great technological advances if there was nothing to stop them killing, raping and destroying at will?
Ask yourself why Hitler hated the Jews, and it is because he believed they were directly responsible for the death of Jesus, as did the Roman Catholic church.
Sociopaths are one of the great anomolies that show us that a consious mind does not need to be moral, as morality is not a given. It hsows that morality is evolved, not god-given.
But you must also conside the idea that if god gave us a moral centre in our brain, why did he feel the need to write any commandments?

I agree with Beanieboy that the conscience comes from God. But unless we have an outside authority (God inspired scripture) as a guide to confirm our conscience, then we end up in endless argument as to who has the 'better' conscience.

We all have a consious, and none is better than the other.
We all generally want the same things, but disagree as to why and how these are best acheived.

The Judeo-Christian scripture are the bedrock of civilised society and as soon as they are ignored, society disintegrates!

So show me where democracy, freedom and self-determination are in the bible.
Equal rights for all human beings, where is that in the bible.
I'm really sorry but you have a very blinkered view on society.
The facts show that a society disintegrates when there is no credible law enforcement.

Atheists have already done this. Think Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot etc. MASSIVE slaughter.

The one thing that all these despots have in common is that they were communists, and that is more likely to be their driving force in their horrific tyranical reins.
I must however point out that I am not a historian, nor would I wish to read up on these people.

If you can show me from the sayings of Jesus or the writings of Paul or Peter where genocide is given the green light, I shall drop my religion pronto!

Mathew 10:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

Maybe not total carnage, but it is not peace and love...

Social Darwinism is the inevitable result of the Theory (incorrect I might add) of Evolution. You might not agree with it, but many will and take it to it's logical conclusion... a dominant elite class.

Yes, it is totally wrong, and is not a logical conclusion at all.
Maybe you can explain to us why there has been a dominant elite class ruling European nations for centuries, long before Darwin wrote his book...

My posting at post #14 gives more info about where I understand Hitler as coming from. He was an occultist, very much influenced by Theosophy which taught that humanity was evolving through seven 'root races'. The Aryan race was the fifth (the Atlanteans the fourth). It was (and is) based on the theory of evolution and used it to justify racism and genocide.

If Hitler was so influenced by Darwin, can you provide a quote from Mein Kamp where he states this?
Surely somewhere he would have written about how great Darwin or his theory was, if he based his life's work on it?
What you actually find are references to god, the Christian god.
Funny that.

Christ came to fulfil and end the 'law'. Referring to Old Testament law is irrelevant.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."—Romans 10:4.

But the commandments - which are old testament laws - stay do they?
No contradiction there then.

 

[Gadarene]

In short, Hitler was his own god, and anyone who opposed his self appointed mandate, was cut down viciously. Like I have said earlier, this is what happens when you do away with the Judeo-Christian ethic. As soon as ethics become relativistic, the slippery slope to tyranny ensues. It's inevitable!

Utter nonsense.

If the ethics aren't relativistic and yet mandate tyranny, then it is just as inevitable.

 

[Theofane]

Would you also say that when you are asked questions like this, there is an assumption that because you are humanist you act in a selfish way, only caring about yourself or caring about your own self interest alone?

As a Christian, I am always amazed by other Christians that insist that we follow laws of the bible "because that is what God wants." It is all very logical. We shouldn't lie because it breaks trust in the person that you deceive and then makes the victim become less able to trust people in general. You don't commit adultery because it will cause distrust, if not divorce, in your marriage.

There is a reason. I think that saying, "well, I follow it because the bible tells me to" is a childish way of interpreting the bible.

I mean, would you really feel love for a spouse that said, "You know, I would be sleeping with him/her but won't ONLY because we are married and you don't want me to"?

Would that make you feel loved?

So, I can't imagine it would make God feel loved, that you are obeying, not because it is the right thing to do, but because you have to.

I think what makes the relationship with God gratifying on His end is that we obey His Word because we want to, not because we have to. Obeying God is a work, but a work without faith is a dead work. It fails to please Him.

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Darwin's theory of evolution suggests that those animals best suited to their environments will on average survive and reproduce more than those who are less suited.
It is clear from the fossil record that the biggest predators are no longer alive today like Megalodon, Allosaurus etc) so clearly the biggest and most powerful do not prosper.

Being biggest is not a requirement to survive and dominate. Being powerful is! The Rothschild family dynasty are small in number but more powerful than any on earth. They believe with every cell of their body, that they have a right to dominate (and they do) because they are more evolved than the rest of us.

If you truly belief that morals can only come from the bible, why do the Chinese not kill each other at random?

While they might not kill each other at random, the killing under Mao was very systematic and large!

Why was ancient Egypt a flourishing state with great technological advances if there was nothing to stop them killing, raping and destroying at will?

Technological advances do not denote morality. The Egyptians were tyrants!

Ask yourself why Hitler hated the Jews, and it is because he believed they were directly responsible for the death of Jesus, as did the Roman Catholic church.

That's not why Hitler hated the Jews. Hitler was NOT a Christian. He was an occultist of the darkest variety!

But you must also conside the idea that if god gave us a moral centre in our brain, why did he feel the need to write any commandments?

Because without them we end up in endless argument over whose brain is saying what. The written 'law' is there so there can be no argument.

So show me where democracy, freedom and self-determination are in the bible.
Equal rights for all human beings, where is that in the bible.

Read the book of Acts. The believers sold what they had and distributed to the poor. It was made VERY clear that ALL were equal in the eyes of God and thus in the early church.

The one thing that all these despots have in common is that they were communists, and that is more likely to be their driving force in their horrific tyranical reins.
I must however point out that I am not a historian, nor would I wish to read up on these people.

Yes, communists whose moral code was their own. As many Russian Christians have pointed out, the Russian Revolution could not have happened without the massive promotion of atheism.

Mathew 10:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

Maybe not total carnage, but it is not peace and love...

The Bible needs to be read as a whole to get the message. The context Jesus was talking about was that in choosing to follow Him, many would experience alienation from family and friends.

Maybe you can explain to us why there has been a dominant elite class ruling European nations for centuries, long before Darwin wrote his book...

Darwin did not invent "survival of the fittest"

If Hitler was so influenced by Darwin, can you provide a quote from Mein Kamp where he states this?
Surely somewhere he would have written about how great Darwin or his theory was, if he based his life's work on it?
What you actually find are references to god, the Christian god.
Funny that.

Hitler was influenced by Theosophy, Neitzche, Schopenhaur, Deitrich Eckhart, and many others. All held to the belief that man was evolving and that some men were evolving faster than others. These men had a 'god given' (read, self appointed) right to dominate the rest of us. Funnily enough, this belief is still very popular in various circles. Have a read of Barbara Marx Hubbard.

 

[Theofane]

Utter nonsense.

If the ethics aren't relativistic and yet mandate tyranny, then it is just as inevitable.

I think spiritualwarrior77 makes a valid observation about moral relavatism. Don't be so quick to say "Utter nonsense."

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

Barbara Marx Hubbard in her book The Revelation: Our Crisis Is a Birth (The Book of Co-Creation).
She is not a lone voice. She speaks for MANY!!!

" There have always been `defective seeds'. In the past they were permitted to die a "natural death" their (sic) bodies were recycled to a new life and their souls reincarnated in bodies capable of receiving signals from the higher self...We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow; something must be done before the whole body is destroyed....'" (168).

"Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human ... the human who is an inheritor of godlike powers...the destructive `one fourth must be eliminated' from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. It is a case of the destruction of the whole planet, or the elimination of the ego-driven godless one-fourth who, at this time of planetary birth, can, if allowed to live on to reproduce their defective disconnection, destroy forever the opportunity of Homo sapiens to become Homo universalis, heirs of God." (169)

"We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God. We do this for the sake of the world ... The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity...We will use whatever means we must to make this act of destruction as quick and painless as possible to the one half of the world who are capable of evolving. To the degree that those of you with the eyes to see and ears to hear use that capacity, the selection process will be quick." (170)
“Fortunately, you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death." (171)

 

[Gadarene]

I think spiritualwarrior77 makes a valid observation about moral relavatism. Don't be so quick to say "Utter nonsense."

I will, because it is utter nonsense. Relativism is not the only way to tyranny. Arguably, it is the way away from it.

Actually, the notion that a means of governance where only one person's opinion flies could arise from an increasing diversity in permissible opinion is more and more laughable the more I think of it.

And what is heaven but a dictatorship? An autocracy?

 

[hoppimike]

I was an atheist for 11 years, now an agnostic

Atheists... really make up their own morality. So, my upbringing might help me judge moral decisions (my parents, etc) and then I'll look at a situation and work out whether making a certain decision will harm anyone directly or indirectly. If no-one is harmed by something, I'll usually conclude it's ok.

I also don't like to eat meat very much, as I care about animals a lot.

As for things like the environment, I also care about that greatly because it affects all of us, plus of course this is a beautiful planet I think and I don't want to contribute to spoiling it >.<

So yeah... that's how I determine my morality when I'm atheist

Right now I'm undecided on my religious standing, so things become a bit more complicated as I become unsure what system of morality I want to follow!

But yeah, hope that helps ^^

 

[Dave Ellis]

I was an atheist for 11 years, now an agnostic

Atheists... really make up their own morality. So, my upbringing might help me judge moral decisions (my parents, etc) and then I'll look at a situation and work out whether making a certain decision will harm anyone directly or indirectly. If no-one is harmed by something, I'll usually conclude it's ok.

I also don't like to eat meat very much, as I care about animals a lot.

As for things like the environment, I also care about that greatly because it affects all of us, plus of course this is a beautiful planet I think and I don't want to contribute to spoiling it >.<

So yeah... that's how I determine my morality when I'm atheist

Right now I'm undecided on my religious standing, so things become a bit more complicated as I become unsure what system of morality I want to follow!

But yeah, hope that helps ^^

Agnostics generally are Atheists. The two are not mutually exclusive though, they deal with completely different subjects.

Going by what you have written, you are still an Atheist... you don't hold a positive belief that a God exists.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Barbara Marx Hubbard isn't talking about murdering Christians if that's what you are getting out of that. The destructive element = hate, anger, nationalism, religious bigotry, war mongering etc.. I can't agree with some of the statements she made there (sounds like some of the apocalyptic stuff you would find in the book of Revelation) but she isn't advocating some cleansing of the world of Christians. She can be a rather strange character but she isn't some evil maniac. I was just reading one of her books a few days ago. She probably isn't what you think she is.

 

[variant]

No it doesn't have anything to say about morality. This doesn't mean it won't be used for such purposes. The 'struggle' for survival eventually produces Mein Kamf (my struggle).

That seems misguided.

Humans depend on society to thrive.

Morality is free to be nothing more than the feelings that band us together in society and recognise each others rights, and thus furthers our "struggle".

Evolutionary theory would predict an intelligent and social creature to be required to have morality.

 

[variant]

I will, because it is utter nonsense. Relativism is not the only way to tyranny. Arguably, it is the way away from it.

It makes little sense that a relativist would ever want to put power in the hands of very few and make their word law over everyone. For what purpose would the relativist do such a thing if everyone's views are equally valid?

 

[Gadarene]

It makes little sense that a relativist would ever want to put power in the hands of very few and make their word law over everyone. For what purpose would the relativist do such a thing if everyone's views are equally valid?

Precisely.

I'd also argue that relativism doesn't stop you from stopping tyranny, it just makes the case that there isn't necessarily an objective yardstick for judging behaviour. No one culture or religion's view is the right one, say. Thus the usual theistic response to any notion of subjectivity is observed in this thread - throw up one's hands and presume that the godless heathens will resort to the worst possible thing they can think of.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion it's a rather bigoted way of thinking, actually.

 

[variant]

Thus the usual theistic response to any notion of subjectivity is observed in this thread - throw up one's hands and presume that the godless heathens will resort to the worst possible thing they can think of.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion it's a rather bigoted way of thinking, actually.

Subjective realities require people to think for themselves and be very careful in their analysis and have the worst possible problem of not offering concrete answers. More intellectual effort for less emotioal pay off than you get with "concrete" religious answers.

Of course religious people don't like the conclusion, it grates against every fiber of their worst metaphysical fears.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My posting at post #14 gives more info about where I understand Hitler as coming from. He was an occultist, very much influenced by Theosophy which taught that humanity was evolving through seven 'root races'. The Aryan race was the fifth (the Atlanteans the fourth). It was (and is) based on the theory of evolution and used it to justify racism and genocide.

Cameron and Comfort dissing Darwin - YouTube
8:29

Theosophy's 'root race' theories could not exist without the theory of evolution. It teaches (as does the New Age) that humanity is evolving spiritually toward 'god-hood'. Theosophy would not have become so popular without Darwin.

In answer to your question... yes, everything he did was based on the theory of evolution.

But Theosophy is not Evolution. There are plenty of so-called New Age beliefs that adapt evolutionary thinking into their spiritual teachings. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, does not make the same claims as New Age believers.