Do Athiests have morals?

[Nakosis]

Thank you for the clarification. I was unsure of the exact stance held by modern communists on the subject so that is why I tentatively put "maybe" on the end of that.

I think we all, well maybe not all, I think we should expect equal treatment. To me that means I treat the janitor with the same respect and dignity I treat a nuclear physicist and whatever laws we have should treat them equally. That's what I mean by equality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think we all, well maybe not all, I think we should expect equal treatment. To me that means I treat the janitor with the same respect and dignity I treat a nuclear physicist and whatever laws we have should treat them equally. That's what I mean by equality.

Actually a desire for "fairness" is engrained within us genetically. There has been a semi-recent study with Chimpanzees that shows that they have very very strong feelings about unfairness.

Sign in to read: Chimps reject unfairness to their fellows - life - 12 April 2010 - Control - New Scientist

 

[1robin]

Every society bases its laws on what is perceived to be beneficial for the survival of the society and its population.

ArtieE your nothing if not persistent. Your devotion is worthy of a better cause.

Do you know how small a percentage of any societies laws deals with survival? I spent hours looking through federal law libraries when I used to work in court rooms around the country. Most of what they contain deals with ideas that are not survival related like equality, justice, how powers are enumerated, ethical dilemma's like what companies are considered, mundane traffic laws, tax theory, etc...... I even found a few that covered the history of older laws. I never saw the word evolution or survival in any of them. We even have libraries which cover proper rules governing how we are allowed to exterminate each other in war.

The most generous admission I can possibly make is a tiny portion of our laws might have indirect evolutionary roots but those roots are incidental as we do not look to those roots directly to make law.

And our survival instinct is a result of evolution and natural selection.He acted in a manner he thought would be beneficial for the survival of his society.

This is complex. He in act acted in a manner completely contradictory to the survival of his people. It can be argued that theoretically if practiced from that point on maybe his ideas would have strengthened mankind as a whole at the expense of the weak, but that is very debatable.

He simply thought wrong. If you attack others they will retaliate in self defence and you will end up reducing your chances of survival instead of increasing them. So his behaviour was against evolution and natural selection.

So if he would have won the war (and very insignificant things like where natural resources just happen to be, stupid and mundane tactical decisions like bombing London, unhappy accidents like japan bombing the US, etc.... decided the issue) and forced his views on others he would have been right. If so I rest my case. It was not his evolutionary or even moral stupidity that cost him the war, it was his tactical stupidity and bad luck.

 

[1robin]

Evolution seeks the survival of the species. Evolution in reality doesn't give a crap about the individual. In fact killing off certain individuals would be necessary as it is survival of the fittest. Though this isn't the justification for abortion. The justification for abortion is entirely separate.

I agree but evolution doe snot care about anything including survival. It might select for it but it would not care if al life was wiped out.

I don't think there is anything I can say to evolve your opinion. Its stuck till something life changing happens to you. I will say your research is absolutely dead wrong and I very much encourage you to do research in accredited sources. Even scholarly ones. If you keep going to pro-conservative broken record sites then of course you will find what you are looking for. But it doesn't make it correct.

I did not supply any sites. I have not spent years studying the causes of homosexuality. I spent a few days looking around and found no concrete evidence. You may be right, I am so sick of the subject I really am numb to it.

This isn't part of the debate but I would like to see you have a candid discussion where you simply listen or ask questions without assuming anything with a gay person. I am sure there are people on this site that would be willing to do that. It would be better in person though. But this is an experience I think you could benefit from.

I have never debated a person I knew to be gay that I know. I do have gay friend but we do not sit around and talk about homosexuality. BTW about 50% are dead and were not yet 50 in any case. That just hit me, half of them are dead (about 6), that's weird. My primary arguments are two simplistic statements that have no other possible conclusion. Those cannot be changed, they are known facts. As far as what the cause is I have no firm position, and the rest of whatever would be gained in a discussion is of little interest to me. What is it you want me to learn from this other person? I don't think of them other than as just people who are as imperfect as the rest of us.

True. Typically all things are well till we have a reason to avoid it. So far there isn't a reason to avoid homosexual intercourse if one is homosexual and following precautions. Though alcoholism itself is an addiction. There is sexual addiction but homosexuality and abortion are not "addictions".

The more I try and avoid this debate the more I am drawn into it. Homosexuality is not a hypothetically sanitized behavior. It comes with higher rates of unprotected sex, greater promiscuity, higher rates of sexual violence, men on men being as horrific as possible. Listen I try and avoid these things because to really get into the problems I would have to be graphic and I am just not doing so. It is revolting to me. I would prefer to drop this.

I disagree. I think we can treat everyone equally. On a personal level this will never happen since we intrinsically make assumptions and judgement at all times.But we don't desire that everyone be exactly equal. I don't know who desires that (communists maybe). I desire equal "rights" or "treatment". Inhibiting discrimination. That all can be done easily without god. Hell I am doing it right now. And even if we did put something based on god it doesn't matter which god you chose you are already being discriminatory by the very definition.

I did not say we couldn't treat people equally. I said we have no basis for doing so without God. Nothing in nature is equal. So to have any equality in objective fact we must find it in a transcendent source. However just like morality we can do whatever we want and invent reasons for doing so but those reasons are not that they reflect objective truth.

That even if we were a 100% homosexual society we wouldn't die out. Lack of population problems are irrelevant.

Oh, you mean that with artificial insemination we could survive and all be gay. I am so happy to finally get what you were trying to say that I am not even going to argue with it for now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree but evolution doe snot care about anything including survival. It might select for it but it would not care if al life was wiped out.

Kind of like how electricity doesn't actually care if it kills someone. Evolution is a process not a sentient thing.

I have never debated a person I knew to be gay that I know. I do have gay friend but we do not sit around and talk about homosexuality. BTW about 50% are dead and were not yet 50 in any case. That just hit me, half of them are dead (about 6), that's weird. My primary arguments are two simplistic statements that have no other possible conclusion. Those cannot be changed, they are known facts. As far as what the cause is I have no firm position, and the rest of whatever would be gained in a discussion is of little interest to me. What is it you want me to learn from this other person? I don't think of them other than as just people who are as imperfect as the rest of us.

Two main things is to realize that it is not a choice and that homophobia is an intrinsic to much of the negative you have prescribed to homosexuality.

I did not say we couldn't treat people equally. I said we have no basis for doing so without God. Nothing in nature is equal. So to have any equality in objective fact we must find it in a transcendent source. However just like morality we can do whatever we want and invent reasons for doing so but those reasons are not that they reflect objective truth.

It doesn't have to be an objective truth to be accepted universally. Or to be considered a universal objective through interpersonal reasoning. At this point no god needed. But not everyone is in a civilized country where they have been given the chance to really think about these issues and its why we have so much inequality in the world.

Oh, you mean that with artificial insemination we could survive and all be gay. I am so happy to finally get what you were trying to say that I am not even going to argue with it for now.

Sounds good to me.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you know how small a percentage of any societies laws deals with survival? I spent hours looking through federal law libraries when I used to work in court rooms around the country. Most of what they contain deals with ideas that are not survival related like equality, justice, how powers are enumerated, ethical dilemma's like what companies are considered, mundane traffic laws, tax theory, etc......

Oh dear dear 1robin... all these things are necessary to have a stable and properly functioning society. A stable and properly functioning society has better chances of survival. If I live in a stable and properly functioning society I have better chances of survival. For example the traffic laws are there among other things to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and reduce the number of injuries and deaths in traffic.

So if he would have won the war (and very insignificant things like where natural resources just happen to be, stupid and mundane tactical decisions like bombing London, unhappy accidents like japan bombing the US, etc.... decided the issue) and forced his views on others he would have been right. If so I rest my case. It was not his evolutionary or even moral stupidity that cost him the war, it was his tactical stupidity and bad luck.

It was him going to war in the first place that was wrong. If you want your society and your citizens to survive you don't pick fights with other societies.

 

[ArtieE]

I did not say we couldn't treat people equally. I said we have no basis for doing so without God.

We have a survival instinct. If we treat others like equals and others treat us as equals we are all more likely to survive. Some people don't treat others like equals instinctively and can't even use logic and reason to figure out why it is in their best interest to do so. So we have religion tell them they should treat others as equals.

 

[crossfire]

I did not say we couldn't treat people equally. I said we have no basis for doing so without God. Nothing in nature is equal. So to have any equality in objective fact we must find it in a transcendent source. However just like morality we can do whatever we want and invent reasons for doing so but those reasons are not that they reflect objective truth.

Objective truth for the basis of morality that is compatible with atheism or theism:

From the Kalama sutta:

What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed (or hatred, or delusion) appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, (or hatred, or delusion) this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

<...> (Same passage substitute hatred or delusion for greed)

"What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."​

The sutta goes on to say that doctrines preaching, greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic they may try to apply to it to justify it--so reject those that preach thusly. Doctrines that preach a lack or ending of of greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term benefit, so accept them.

If your mind is overtaken by such things to cause you to commit harmful ill deeds, then that is an objective truth and an objective basis for morality, and requires no god.

 

[ArtieE]

The sutta goes on to say that doctrines preaching, greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic they may try to apply to it to justify it--so reject those that preach thusly. Doctrines that preach a lack or ending of of greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term benefit, so accept them.

We have a survival instinct. Your quote simply explains what is beneficial to survival and what is detrimental. What is sad is that there are people in this world who actually need to have this explained to them. For these people a god is required and provided. Or in this example, the Buddha...

 

[crossfire]

We have a survival instinct. Your quote simply explains what is beneficial to survival and what is detrimental. What is sad is that there are people in this world who actually need to have this explained to them. For these people a god is required and provided. Or in this example, the Buddha...

These things can indeed be difficult to understand--especially if your mind has been overcome by greed, hatred, or delusion. Buddha was a human being, albeit an exceptionally clear-minded one.

 

[Nakosis]

Actually a desire for "fairness" is engrained within us genetically. There has been a semi-recent study with Chimpanzees that shows that they have very very strong feelings about unfairness.

Sign in to read: Chimps reject unfairness to their fellows - life - 12 April 2010 - Control - New Scientist

And among Proctor’s chimps, no responder ever refused an offer, even the many unfair ones. That’s even lessrejection than in Jensen’s study. “Not rejecting unfair offers is puzzling if chimps are really playing the ultimatum game,” says Call. “I see that as a fatal flaw,” adds Jensen. At best, it confirms his original experiment by showing that the responders are insensitive to unfairness and only motivated by getting bananas. At worst, it shows that they didn’t understand the task.

Do chimpanzees care about fairness? The jury’s out – Phenomena

 

[Nakosis]

The sutta goes on to say that doctrines preaching, greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic they may try to apply to it to justify it--so reject those that preach thusly. Doctrines that preach a lack or ending of of greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term benefit, so accept them.

So here a true story of the owner of a company. Realistically he got lucky and was at the right place at the right time. Born in the same year as Gates and Jobs. If you every read the book "Outliers" you'll understand the importance of this. Anyway, he started a company that was marginally successful. About 60 million a year at one time. He practices were to ship bad product, charge excessive fees, let go of people who complained about his unfair practice with regard to customers. Pay his employees as little a possible. Scream, shout and pound on tables whenever anyone disagreed with him. Pays himself as if he were a CEO of a fortune 500 company. Basically a "greedy" self-centered individual.

He's run this business for 35 years. He has nice houses, cars, basically all the money he will ever need. Materialistically his greed has caused him no long term ill effects.

So it is a nice saying, but it is just a saying.

 

[1robin]

Kind of like how electricity doesn't actually care if it kills someone. Evolution is a process not a sentient thing.

Exactly that is why it would much such a poor basis for morality. Not that you had said it should be used.

Two main things is to realize that it is not a choice and that homophobia is an intrinsic to much of the negative you have prescribed to homosexuality.

The 4% of us that are gay create 60% of new aids cases. I do not think the harm between the two is equivalent. I don't know it is a choice or not, that issue has not been settled, you may be right but you cannot know you are. What is certain is that acting on the impulse is a choice.

It doesn't have to be an objective truth to be accepted universally. Or to be considered a universal objective through interpersonal reasoning. At this point no god needed. But not everyone is in a civilized country where they have been given the chance to really think about these issues and its why we have so much inequality in the world.

It does not have to be moral, just, right, or true to be universal. I prefer the former and care not for the latter. I agree there is no God necessary for Hitler to have won the war and made his practices universal.

Sounds good to me.

Ok so now for the argument. Even if we can reproduce we would still probably die off if we were all gay because the practice seems to be a magnet for destruction of all types. From sexual violence to STDs. If 4% of us that are gay create 60% of new aids cases if 100% of us were gay we might just explode on the spot.

 

[ArtieE]

He's run this business for 35 years. He has nice houses, cars, basically all the money he will ever need. Materialistically his greed has caused him no long term ill effects.

So it is a nice saying, but it is just a saying.

I suppose the lesson is that if we all behaved like him we would all have nice houses and cars and all the money we'll ever need?

 

[1robin]

Oh dear dear 1robin... all these things are necessary to have a stable and properly functioning society. A stable and properly functioning society has better chances of survival. If I live in a stable and properly functioning society I have better chances of survival.

The most educated nation on earth, and one of the most stable and functional, was Hitler's economic and military powerhouse of about 1940. It had about 4 years of life in it left. Plus your going to have to yet again decide what sort of functionality you want, what sort of stability you prefer.

For example the traffic laws are there among other things to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and reduce the number of injuries and deaths in traffic.It was him going to war in the first place that was wrong. If you want your society and your citizens to survive you don't pick fights with other societies.

Then why have libraries full of rules about war? If survival was actually our legal goal we would have outlawed war thousands of years ago, not systematized it and made it more terrible than ever.

I will ask one last time, find me a single legal text from a single successful society that even claimed we derive our laws directly from evolutionary principles. Most of humanities laws were written long before anyone ever heard of evolution much less what was true of it. In fact discovering evolution did not change legal principles one bit.

 

[1robin]

Objective truth for the basis of morality that is compatible with atheism or theism:

From the Kalama sutta:

What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed (or hatred, or delusion) appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, (or hatred, or delusion) this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

<...> (Same passage substitute hatred or delusion for greed)

"What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."​

The sutta goes on to say that doctrines preaching, greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term harm, no matter how much pretzel logic they may try to apply to it to justify it--so reject those that preach thusly. Doctrines that preach a lack or ending of of greed, hatred, or delusion lead to long term benefit, so accept them.

If your mind is overtaken by such things to cause you to commit harmful ill deeds, then that is an objective truth and an objective basis for morality, and requires no god.

I see all this stuff here but I have no idea what the conclusion is. Let me make a couple of comments and the you can clarify this and provide some kind of conclusion.

1. I did not say objective morality is incompatible with atheism, I said it does not exist within atheism.
2. I don't see anything in what you posted that results in objective morality. Let me post the definition of it and see if you can get it within atheism.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose the lesson is that if we all behaved like him we would all have nice houses and cars and all the money we'll ever need?

If that is all you got out of it.
Do you see greediness as moral or immoral behavior and why?

Civilizations like Rome and the US were built on slavery and control/exploitation of resources, war, etc. War allows economic exploitation.
Survival requires a group to be able to control the resources necessary for survival. The stability of a group is dependent on it's control of resources. As long as it can successfully exploit the resources of other groups, it can survive.

 

[ArtieE]

I will ask one last time, find me a single legal text from a single successful society that even claimed we derive our laws directly from evolutionary principles.

I have no idea what you mean by this demand and "evolutionary principles". Please be more specific.

 

[ArtieE]

1. I did not say objective morality is incompatible with atheism, I said it does not exist within atheism.

Atheism is just an absence of belief in gods. Nothing to do with "objective morality" or any kind of morality. Theism doesn't have anything to do with "objective morality" either. Theism is just a belief in god(s).

2. I don't see anything in what you posted that results in objective morality. Let me post the definition of it and see if you can get it within atheism.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct

Theist or atheist doesn't matter, we both evolved a survival instinct. So nature by way of evolution and natural selection programmed us to see survival as "inherently right by nature" and non-survival "inherently wrong by nature". Which is why we instinctively run out of the way of an oncoming car. We don't run out of the way of an oncoming car because some regulations say we should but do it instinctively because the act is "inherently right by nature." Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule is "inherently right by nature" because it enhances our chances of survival.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The 4% of us that are gay create 60% of new aids cases. I do not think the harm between the two is equivalent. I don't know it is a choice or not, that issue has not been settled, you may be right but you cannot know you are. What is certain is that acting on the impulse is a choice.

I have already blew holes in this argument and you have stated you didn't want to get back into it so I can leave it at this or I can re-hash it again.

It does not have to be moral, just, right, or true to be universal. I prefer the former and care not for the latter. I agree there is no God necessary for Hitler to have won the war and made his practices universal.

True. But our own moral compasses would have eventually shifted back. At least that is my belief. A faith in humanity if you will. But Hitler couldn't actually make his "morality" universal. He could kill anyone who disagreed with him and made it law of the land but even Stalin didn't make his morality universal he made it law. Which are very different things

Ok so now for the argument. Even if we can reproduce we would still probably die off if we were all gay because the practice seems to be a magnet for destruction of all types. From sexual violence to STDs. If 4% of us that are gay create 60% of new aids cases if 100% of us were gay we might just explode on the spot.

Doubtful. Nothing about being gay makes you promiscuous. If you were suddenly gay tomorrow for example that wouldn't make you go out and have unprotected sex with anything with a pair of testicles. There are sociological implications and societal constructs that has led to an unfair setup for this particular demographic. If 100% of our population was homosexual then I doubt they would suffer from the negative aspects that were the actual cause of the high spread of HIV. Also this isn't really part of the argument but as a fun fact roughly 1 in 4 people are immune to the effects of HIV. They can still pass it on but won't show symptoms or highly reduced symptoms. So even for the sake of argument if everyone in the world (strait or not) had HIV we would still survive as evolved beings.