Where does the atheist/humanist get their morality from?

[Archaeopteryx]

Yahweh aka Jehovah. The Bible.


See above.


Good questions and not easily answered. Good point on the issue of slavery.

I should say, I am not in any way calling for a theocracy. I believe in freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. I believe in freedom full-stop, but when those freedoms bring teenage pregnancy, inappropriate contentography, abortion, the breakdown in the family and violence in the media (to name a few) then they aren't really freedoms are they!

The finer points can be debated but the above points I mentioned should not. They are a result of the shifting sands of relativism which always heads in the direction of decay.

You just specified that your particular conception of God and your Scriptures should determine what is right and what is wrong. And then you say that this point is not debatable? Of course it is debatable! Would you accept, as "non-debatable", another person's claim that their holy book is the measure of morality? No. You would most certainly contest their claim.

You don't need to be a Christian to see this or to agree that Christian values are the most likely to produce a harmonious society.

I do not agree with that at all. What counts as "Christian values" depends on what particular strand of Christianity you adhere to and its attendent interpretation of Scripture. Following the previous example, according to some, the preservation of slavery was a "Christian value". Thankfully, most people no longer regard it as such. When you say "Christian values will produce a harmonious society", one must ask "Whose Christian values? Yours? Or that of some other group of Christians with a different interpretation of Scripture?"

 

[Eudaimonist]

No holy book?... that leaves us solely with the conscience and no way to determine who's conscience is more correct.

Holy books don't solve the problem. They don't determine whose conscience is correct because it's still a matter of conscience which holy book is morally correct.

You demonstrate this by saying that the Koran is "bloodthirsty" and therefore wrong, as if you are greater than Allah! That's your conscience at work.

And you are ignoring great works of ethics that are not holy books, such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Where does the atheist/humanist get their morality from?

Wondering...

Basically, we have to think for ourselves. And, yes, I understand how this can be perceived as inconvenience.

 

[KCfromNC]

Social Darwinism is the inevitable result of the Theory (incorrect I might add) of Evolution.

Then surely you have copious evidence that most professional biologists are social Darwinists. Let's see it, otherwise I have to conclude you're just making this stuff up. Or, at the very least, if none of the professionals in a field agree with your interpretation of it, I have to conclude that you're way out of your league.

 

[KCfromNC]

Theosophy's 'root race' theories could not exist without the theory of evolution.

Which is why there's no evidence of anti-semitism prior to the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.

I guess someone's going for the Große Lüge approach

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Holy books don't solve the problem. They don't determine whose conscience is correct because it's still a matter of conscience which holy book is morally correct.

You demonstrate this by saying that the Koran is "bloodthirsty" and therefore wrong, as if you are greater than Allah! That's your conscience at work.

And you are ignoring great works of ethics that are not holy books, such as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What's more, holy books demand that you take their moral claims on faith. "God commands it. Therefore, it is right. Take my word on it." (Note: this isn't necessarily true of all moral claims made in all holy books. Other reasons for the morality of an action are sometimes considered.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which is why there's no evidence of anti-semitism prior to the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.

I guess someone's going for the Große Lüge approach

It seems like a Kent Hovind approach. Hovind frequently emphasises the point that Darwinism is a driving force of racism and how the "survival of the fittest" supposedly inspired Hitler. What he neglects to mention, however, is that racism predates the ToE, and that racist attitudes throughout history were by no means exclusive to atheists.

 

[mzungu]

Creationists remind me of this: "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE; YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED". Well no thanks; I don't want to become a Borg!

 

[selfinflikted]

It seems like a Kent Hovind approach. Hovind frequently emphasises the point that Darwinism is a driving force of racism and how the "survival of the fittest" supposedly inspired Hitler. What he neglects to mention, however, is that racism predates the ToE, and that racist attitudes throughout history were by no means exclusive to atheists.

And further, this misapplication of the phrase "survival of the fittest" is really starting to grate on my nerves. That phrase does not mean, "I am bigger, stronger, richer, better-looking than you therefore the smaller, weaker, poor uglies will be crushed underfoot!" It simply means, those members of a species who are "fit" enough to survive long enough to reproduce, will.

 

[keith99]

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.

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)?

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.

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

And just where did the idea that the Jews were vermin come from?

It was something driven by the Christain Church for centuries.

There was little new in what Hitler did other than bringing German effeciency and organization into the mix.

The Nazi treatment of Jews is a rather poor choice of an example.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Bertrand Russell is from one of the foremost Illuminati bloodline families... the notorious Russell family.

So was he predicting that might happen or was he actually advocating it? Pointing out that bad things are on the horizon doesn't imply support for the said things.

Translation: play off opposing sides against each other and direct the outcome. Divide and conquer is another way to put

If he thought that way (and I doubt it) he wouldn't be a socialist though. Socialists support an egalitarian society. If a person is pretending to support socialism for other ends ,like increasing the power of the capitalist class(!), than they are just pretending to be a socialist and are not one in actual fact.

 

[Genersis]

Evolution contains such a simple idea that anyone can understand:
Those best adapted to survive. Will be more likely to survive, and thus reproduce.

It's amazing how far people will twist that to try and paint the theory of evolution in a bad light.

Some going as far as to say it instigates the killing of the weak, when it does no such thing.

 

[mzungu]

"Fittest" does not necessarily mean strongest nor healthiest. Many Africans suffer from a genetic form of sickle celled anaemia. The reason is simple: Malarial parasites (Plasmodium) cannot easily attack sickle shaped red blood cells, thus anyone suffering from this type of anaemia is more likely to be resistant or immune to malaria. This in turn allows the anaemic person to survive and pass on his genes to his offspring. So we can see that in this case an ailment which in most cases is not life threatening is an advantage and people who suffer from this disease are fittest to survive their environment.

 

[NailsII]

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

I would go so far as to suggest that even un-itelligent socail animals need some form of morality to be able to form and maintain a social structure.
Even being a parent (as opposed to laying a load of eggs and buggering off, so to speak) is a path of moral form.

The moral code of the day is taught to youth, then as the person ages they seek to find the reasons for what they already hold as a moral code. Those of a religious bent may justify their morality by picking out things from their scripture of choice, while atheists may instead turn to the works of Jung or Kant.

I must confess I have read very little Jung or Kant.
I don't think that you need to read to be able to form moral judgements.

You don't need to be a Christian to see this or to agree that Christian values are the most likely to produce a harmonious society.

Is there a reson then, why America - which claims to be around 80% Christian - is not the country with the lowest crime in the world?
There are plenty of Christian countires in Africa for example, and they are far from harmonious.

 

[quatona]

Is there a reson then, why America - which claims to be around 80% Christian - is not the country with the lowest crime in the world?
There are plenty of Christian countires in Africa for example, and they are far from harmonious.

That´s an easy one: They aren´t true Christians.

 

[mzungu]

That´s an easy one: They aren´t true Christians.

No wonder the Bible belt keeps getting pummelled by tornadoes and hurricanes

 

[Ken-1122]

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

I learned from those who came before me, and those around me.

Who gets to decide this for society?

Society decides for themselves; I am a part of society.

What's makes your morality more moral than mine?

I’m not aware of your morality but if it goes against the golden rule, social order, and what I consider is best for society, it would be my opinion that mine is better than yours.

Where does the conscience come from?

It has always been a part of me.

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?

Society

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

Can you list a society under “humanism”? BTW the Golden Rule remains as strong as ever as well

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

No. Domination by a “dictatorial elite” sounds more like Christianity to me; wouldn’t you agree?

Ken

 

[spiritualwarrior77]

No. Domination by a “dictatorial elite” sounds more like Christianity to me; wouldn’t you agree?

Ken

Could you point out for me, Ken, where in the New Testament a "dictatorial elite" is encouraged?!

Galatians 3:27 "All baptised in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek,slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Acts 4:32 "And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them."

 

[plindboe]

This is a question for atheists and humanists...

No, that was 8 questions.

Where do you get your ideas about what is right and what is wrong from?

Same place you and everyone else gets their morals from; society, upbringing, empathy, discourse, contemplation, research, evidence and reasoning.

People have different upbringing though, live in different communities, have different degrees of empathy and reasoning capabilities, so that is why we can't all agree.

Who gets to decide this for society?

We all do. Society has shaped us, but we also have the ability to improve it for future generations.

What's makes your morality more moral than mine?

Wether mine is better would depend on what your moral views are. I judge moral actions based on what benefit and harm they have in society. If you cause deliberate, unnecessary harm, I'm more moral than you.

Where does the conscience come from?

We evolved to be a highly social animal, and empathy and a conscience are integral parts of this. Kin selection and policing can also help to explain part of this. But it's a complicated question to answer, and I doubt anyone has a full, satisfactory answer. And no, "God-did-it" isn't satisfactory either.

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

I do. Just as you decide that yours is correct. The next step is to have a discussion and try to come to an agreement. Perhaps you can convince me that on a certain point you are correct, and I will amend my views.

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

I, and people like me, who oppose tyranny, will stop them.

Though my first effort would be to try to explain to them how they have misunderstood the phrase "survival of the fittest". Fitness in evolution has to do with number of viable offspring. If anyone truly wanted to live by that phrase, they would try to have as many children as they possibly could.

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

It's the other way around. Our societies have improved greatly due to humanistic efforts. We've outlawed slavery, even though it's promoted in the Bible. Genocide is considered the worst of crimes, despite the god of the OT having a fondness for it. Witch burning is long gone, despite being prescribed in the Bible. Read a history book and you will discover how cruel the world was when Christianity was in charge, even though they used the same scripture then as they do now. So obviously morals can't just come from scripture. Humanistic values have dragged Christianity kicking and screaming into the 21th century.

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

No. It would be absurd to suggest that society should be based on a natural science theory. How would one go about building a society on the principles of the theory of gravity? Make laws against balloons and rockets?

Darwinian evolution is based on observations in nature and has nothing to do with building societies. Likewise, just because we observe in nature that some spiders eat their mating partners after copulation, doesn't mean that we should apply it to human society.

Anyway, the theory is about alleles in a gene pool changing in frequency due to natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, genetic drift, gene flow etc. Even if one was insane enough to want to build a society based on that, there'd be no way to do it.

Peter

 

[Dave Ellis]

Could you point out for me, Ken, where in the New Testament a "dictatorial elite" is encouraged?!

Galatians 3:27 "All baptised in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek,slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus."

Acts 4:32 "And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them."

There's more about Christianity than just what's in the Bible.

Millions of Catholics are bound to what the pope says, especially in developing areas like Africa. They honestly believe if they don't do what he says, their souls will burn in hell forever.

The anti-condom efforts of the Pope and Catholic Church are directly responsible for the deaths of Millions from HIV and AIDS. They do this out of fear from the dictatorial elite... not only the Church, but the God they think will eternally punish them.

Many of the evangelical churches in the united states operate the same way. They tell their "flock" what to believe, and what not to believe, and threaten them with eternal torture if they deviate. They persecute non-believers, and live in fear of the institution and the God it teaches about.


I am fully aware that not all churches operate under these premises.... however, the most vocal and most visible ones certainly do.

Any church that indoctrinates people into believing their message, and threatens eternal torture in hell for not believing what they have to say is no different than facing persecution in a communist or fascist state for holding contrary beliefs to the acceptable norm.