atheism is a (religious position)

[blü 2]

possibly #1 - as being an indication of man's self inflicted absurdities

Yes, spiritual traits and inclinations is what dictate man's actions.

Your use of the word 'spiritual' is ambiguous here. If by 'spiritual' you mean 'of or deriving from the supernatural' then it's simply untrue. 'Spiritual traits and inclinations' arise from human nature and human acculturation.

He is fighting with his pride when it comes to telling the truth

My immediate reaction to this statement is that you're describing a trait very common in certain kinds of populist US Protestant religion.

This is wisdom and the spirit both discerning and eliciting these actions. Not pure intellect and rationale.

You keep confusing human emotions with 'the spirit' ─ which is the product of acculturation and human emotions.

we all did not evolve from one biological source.

The evidence certainly points to one biological source. Possibly you may find >this< helpful.

 

[PureX]

You believe atheists have no absolute moral code? Why?

My code is practical and consequence oriented. Your code is capricious, and its reasoning and ends often baffling.

That's not entirely true. Those ancient moral codes were based mostly on practicality in their time. It's just that times have changed. So some of those codes are outdated and unnecessary, now. And some are actually counter-productive. But apparently some people feel they really need to be told how to think and how to behave as opposed to accepting the responsibility of figuring it out for themselves. It is what it is, I guess.

I think that back in the day people had no concept of ethics, so they were unable to establish moral and immoral behavior accordingly. So their leaders had to do it for them. But now days most people do have a concept of ethics, and can determine their own ethical imperatives, and therefor their own moral standards of behavior. So are in less need of some moral authority doing it for them.

 

[blü 2]

That's not entirely true. Those ancient moral codes were based mostly on practicality in their time. It's just that times have changed. So some of those codes are outdated and unnecessary, now. And some are actually counter-productive. But apparently some people feel they really need to be told how to think and how to behave as opposed to accepting the responsibility of figuring it out for themselves. It is what it is, I guess.

I think that back in the day people had no concept of ethics, so they were unable to establish moral and immoral behavior accordingly. So their leaders had to do it for them. But now days most people do have a concept of ethics, and can determine their own ethical imperatives, and therefor their own moral standards of behavior. So are in less need of some moral authority doing it for them.

I may have mentioned this to you before, and I've mentioned it more generally often enough, but research shows humans are born with evolved moral tendencies, which you'll notice are appropriate for living in groups and getting the benefits of cooperation. These are child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ to which we can add an evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. You'll notice potential conflicts built in, such as like of fairness vs respect for authority, or being loyal to a local group or ingroup at the expense of society / the larger group, and so on, but so it goes.

Very nearly everyone has a basic set of moral tools built in. Acculturation, life experience and personality (eg leader / follower / easily led) then come into it.

 

[PureX]

I may have mentioned this to you before, and I've mentioned it more generally often enough, but research shows humans are born with evolved moral tendencies, which you'll notice are appropriate for living in groups and getting the benefits of cooperation. These are child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ to which we can add an evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. You'll notice potential conflicts built in, such as like of fairness vs respect for authority, or being loyal to a local group or ingroup at the expense of society / the larger group, and so on, but so it goes.

Very nearly everyone has a basic set of moral tools built in. Acculturation, life experience and personality (eg leader / follower / easily led) then come into it.

Dumb animals can be seen to behave "morally" according to what we think is moral behavior by imposing our ethical standards on them. But they are not doing this for ethical reasons. They are doing it because it's what their genetic codes tell them to do. They act on instinct, not ethics.

Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to recognize themselves behaving this way or that, and therefor are able to evaluate that behavior according to some ethical standard if they care to. And then to change that behavior accordingly. We have transcended our animal nature, or we can do so if we choose. We aren't just dumb animals anymore. And with that new possibility comes a new responsibility that we are still in the process of realizing and accepting.

 

[blü 2]

Dumb animals can be seen to behave "morally" according to what we think is moral behavior by imposing our ethical standards on them. But they are not doing this for ethical reasons. They are doing it because it's what their genetic codes tell them to do. They act on instinct, not ethics.

And experience, especially if they're social animals. No doubt you'll have seen videos of meerkats assuming lookout duty for the others of their group; young chimps learning by not just watching but by being shown; dolphins cooperating in the learnt behavior of driving schools of fish into the shallows; and so on. The main difference with genus Homo is our opposable thumbs and (among the apes) larger brains, and with H sap sap, our upright 'hands-free' stance and elaborated language. Studies of how the human genome produces the human brain compared to how the genus Pan genome produces the chimp or bonobo brain have helped us start to pinpoint how and perhaps why we differ from them.

Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to recognize themselves behaving this way or that, and therefor are able to evaluate that behavior according to some ethical standard if they care to.

An ethical standard whose starting point will be the evolved moral tendencies I mentioned, but for the social rules, these will differ with the tribe and will be more learnt than instinctive.

And then to change that behavior accordingly. We have transcended our animal nature, or we can do so if we choose.

And invade Ukraine, or vote for Trump ─ yeah, ya gotta love those humans! But every day people who are believers and people who aren't believers do really really decent and difficult things, and people who are believers and people who aren't believers betray, undermine, assault, thieve from, others. We haven't outgrown our tribal nature ─ sport is to war as porn is to sex, as Jonathan Haidt put it.

 

[Valjean]

Dumb animals can be seen to behave "morally" according to what we think is moral behavior by imposing our ethical standards on them. But they are not doing this for ethical reasons. They are doing it because it's what their genetic codes tell them to do. They act on instinct, not ethics.

That's the whole point. Basic human ethics are instinctive; genetically programmed.

Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to recognize themselves behaving this way or that, and therefor are able to evaluate that behavior according to some ethical standard if they care to. And then to change that behavior accordingly. We have transcended our animal nature, or we can do so if we choose. We aren't just dumb animals anymore. And with that new possibility comes a new responsibility that we are still in the process of realizing and accepting.

And in addition to our instinctive ethics, we're able to evaluate consequences and formulate abstract principles to measure our actions against. No religious rule book is needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please tell me that I have called atheists like yourself 'oblivious', in previous posts. I know that I did, I just wanted to emphasize it.

You're immoral, for sure. And, you haven't a clue of the consequences of thought crimes, promiscuity and drugs.
Shameful.

Ah yes, another empty and rude dismissal of my post in its entirety. Wouldn't want to think to hard, eh?

Thought crimes are garbage. You might want to live under some totalitarian regime where such things are considered crimes, but I don't. And I see absolutely no evidence for that claim (or any of your claims at all, really). There are no consequences for thought crimes because they are just that ... thoughts. And thoughts only. Actions that harm people are actual crimes.

I see no further reason to continue responding to you, because you'll just blow it off and repeat yourself anyway, and then throw in a lame insult for good measure. Not interested.

I'm not immoral. Maybe you are though. You can speak for yourself, but not for me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try and take things in context, and quite being so shallow and secular minded.

Learn how to be a grown up and have a proper discussion.

These defense mechanisms you keep throwing up are tiresome.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, my pet bird used to give to charity all the time. And, when I feed the squirrels in my backyard, you should see how good they are at sharing, and making sure that each one of them gets an even portion of peanuts. And, when dogs chase cats, they're always so gentle and playful with them, making sure never to hurt them - for why would they, they pose no threat.

It's rather obvious you know next to nothing about animal behaviour.
No worries, many other people study this stuff for a living, and know what they're talking about. Don't mistake your ignorance on the subject for the final word. Some of us have actually taken the time to study up on this stuff in depth.

I'd give you some reading material, but I'm not really interested in doing that for people who would rather wallow in ignorance than read and educate themselves. I see that someone else has already provided examples for you, and you did as I predicted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

DNB you can mock all you want, but SkepticThinker is correct. Other animals do have their own primitive sense of morality, especially chimps. The sense of justice/fairness and empathy are well documented in chimps, and those two are the foundation for ethical reasoning.

Here is an example of a monkey furious at unjust treatment.

Thank you. I remember taking an entire course on this back in my university days. It was super interesting, actually.

 

[PureX]

And experience, especially if they're social animals. No doubt you'll have seen videos of meerkats assuming lookout duty for the others of their group; young chimps learning by not just watching but by being shown; dolphins cooperating in the learnt behavior of driving schools of fish into the shallows; and so on. The main difference with genus Homo is our opposable thumbs and (among the apes) larger brains, and with H sap sap, our upright 'hands-free' stance and elaborated language. Studies of how the human genome produces the human brain compared to how the genus Pan genome produces the chimp or bonobo brain have helped us start to pinpoint how and perhaps why we differ from them.

The meerkat is not performing any sort of social "duty". That's a projected motive on our part. The more skittish-vigilant meerkats survived to spread their skittishness and habitual vigilance to their offspring. And now they are all that way. They are neither aware of it nor are they choosing it. And morality did not develop from this kind of evolutionary process because morality requires imagination to offer us a choice to compare and contrast, and the ability to create a value hierarchy with which to assess the options. Both traits that we humans appear to have had since the dawn of recorded human history. Before words there were images, and imagery requires imagination.

An ethical standard whose starting point will be the evolved moral tendencies I mentioned, but for the social rules, these will differ with the tribe and will be more learnt than instinctive.

Once the brain can imagine options, establishing a value hierarchy soon follows. Which option is better than which? And better for me or better for us? Now we are establishing conceptual morality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Dumb animals can be seen to behave "morally" according to what we think is moral behavior by imposing our ethical standards on them. But they are not doing this for ethical reasons. They are doing it because it's what their genetic codes tell them to do. They act on instinct, not ethics.

Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to recognize themselves behaving this way or that, and therefor are able to evaluate that behavior according to some ethical standard if they care to. And then to change that behavior accordingly. We have transcended our animal nature, or we can do so if we choose. We aren't just dumb animals anymore. And with that new possibility comes a new responsibility that we are still in the process of realizing and accepting.

No such thing as dumb animals - apart from the ones disguised as humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absurd. Birds, cats and dogs all have funky antics when something precipitates it.
Comparing such behaviour as dancing to a sunset with man's liturgies, power invoking, sermons, bible readings, eucharists, icons and prayer beads, is not even in the ballpark.

Heh... I'd say "funky antics" is a very apt description of human religion.

 

[blü 2]

The meerkat is not performing any sort of social "duty". That's a projected motive on our part. The more skittish-vigilant meerkats survived to spread their skittishness and habitual vigilance to their offspring. And now they are all that way. They are neither aware of it nor are they choosing it.

They're as aware of it through instinct, just as we humans are aware of a lot of things through instinct ─ why in certain circumstances we fear the dark, get the creeps, hair 'stand on end' and so on. Why we had bugles and drums to march into old battles, encouraging the group response. We're an animal first, with a bit more space than is usual left over for intellect.

And morality did not develop from this kind of evolutionary process because morality requires imagination to offer us a choice to compare and contrast, and the ability to create a value hierarchy with which to assess the options. Both traits that we humans appear to have had since the dawn of recorded human history. Before words there were images, and imagery requires imagination.

Of course morality is evolved. We behave one way in our own group, and outside that group we behave in other ways, whether the group be family, sports team, place of employment, and so on. And the examples of evolved morality that I gave you are the result of research ─ I outlined one such experiment >here<. If (as I trust is the case) you'd like to know more, I'd suggest Mariano Sigman's book The Secret Life of the Mind (2017) is a very readable place to start. And on first principles as an intelligent and informed human you should keep up to date with the science, both of this kind and more generally ─ Science Daily is a useful and reputable site for the layman like me, for example; and there are others out there.

Once the brain can imagine options, establishing a value hierarchy soon follows. Which option is better than which? And better for me or better for us? Now we are establishing conceptual morality.

Chimps, dolphins, mice, birds, goodness knows how many other critters, can imagine options, can usefully apply trial and error, can devise new ideas ─ I mentioned in a post recently that dolphins have a learnt cooperative behavior for herding schools of fish into the shallows for easier catching, for example. And a few years back there was an article about Australian cockatoos in urban areas where one of them had worked out a procedure to lift the large plastic lid of garbage containers to get at anything edible inside (throwing a lot of garbage out in the process); and how the discovery was quickly copied by neighboring flocks of cockatoos, to the general chagrin of the suburbanites.

Obviously humans are better at being humans than any other species; but we've been so recklessly successful that now we're having to clean our own house. But we're simply a more expensive model of mammal, part of the natural world, not above it like we used to think. Nor would we be the first species to wipe itself out by consuming everything in sight till there was nothing left. We need to smarten up, look after each other, and the health of the planet as a whole, with its millions of species, probably many billions if we count the microorganisms that keep our bodies alive, grow the plants, and so on.

 

[Valjean]

The meerkat is not performing any sort of social "duty". That's a projected motive on our part. The more skittish-vigilant meerkats survived to spread their skittishness and habitual vigilance to their offspring. And now they are all that way. They are neither aware of it nor are they choosing it. And morality did not develop from this kind of evolutionary process because morality requires imagination to offer us a choice to compare and contrast, and the ability to create a value hierarchy with which to assess the options. Both traits that we humans appear to have had since the dawn of recorded human history. Before words there were images, and imagery requires imagination.

Not all morality is learned morality. Unconsciously acquired altruistic behavior is functionally indistinguishable from learned behavior. It does not require imagination or conscious choice.
Coöperative and altruistic behavior is widespread and entirely explainable by natural selection. Our clever, formalized, religious and political injunctions may preserve desired behavior, but desired behavior is often more political than moral.

Once the brain can imagine options, establishing a value hierarchy soon follows. Which option is better than which? And better for me or better for us? Now we are establishing conceptual morality.

Considering our history of exploitation, brutality, religious coercion and war, it would appear religion offers a poor alternative to either inborn or humanistic moral systems.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree that morality is acquired instinctively, but, like most instincts in animals, it requires environmental triggers to work properly. It seems likely that children are genetically predisposed to acquire patterns of behavior from observing adults and copying those patterns. As they mature, it is quite natural to transfer parental authority to a deity or religious doctrine that functions as the continuing source of rationalization over what is right or wrong, good or bad. That may be one reason why so many religious people believe that atheism leads to immoral behavior. Atheists no longer rationalize their sense of right and wrong in terms of a moral authority that is similar to a parent, so they no longer have a legitimate basis for upholding the same values that god-fearing people use religion to rationalize. Hence, they often imagine that atheists can easily abandon the moral code that was never really learned from religion in the first place.

 

[DNB]

We ARE both mammals. and primates. and great apes. We differ only on the species level.

Maybe you are, if you prefer, but I am not

 

[DNB]

On what basis are you calling him immoral? You don't know his private life. You only know what he thinks on religion and related matters.

He just told me what he felt about fornication, lust and hate - did you not read his post?

 

[DNB]

Because some things are just classics. In this case, the humor value is sky high Also because most scientists don't publish videos of their research on YouTube .

Whateveeeeeeeer!

 

[DNB]

No, we look out for family and friends. We support our communities. Our ancestors lived in communal bands -- one for all, and all for one.

Men were killing each other since time began.
Morality is exemplified when there is no vested interest in being moral - charity, altruism, gratuitous abuse, greed, abuse, compassion, ...
You're describing practicality.