BS: The 'moral' Atheist?

Subject: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:38 PM

Morality...

# concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
# ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

In a couple of threads I have seen the word "moral" tossed around but even in context I have no firm idea what the speaker means.

How does a non-believer decide what is right or wrong. Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM

I think the short answer to that is "yes". I think it is definitely possible for either atheists, agnostics, or people of any religion to have....or not have...a strong moral sense and a clear understanding of right and wrong.

I say this because I've seen moral and immoral people in all those general categories. The main question is: can they empathize with and love and respect others? Do they have enough self-esteem to honor themselves and others? If so, they probably have a pretty good sense of morality.

Most morally strong people decide what is right or wrong one of two ways:

1. by following a predetermined set of moral rules (the passive way. Doesn't involve much independent thought)

2. by following the Golden Rule, which is.... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...and also...don't inflict upon others what you would not want inflicted upon you." This means allowing others the same freedom and autonomy and consideration and kindness that you yourself desire. (the active way. Involves much independent thought.)

It's pretty simple really. The active way is definitely a more enlightened path, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Another thing I'd say is...you won't know someone by his or her stated beliefs. You will know them by their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM

Absolutely and positively. In fact, operating independent of rigid moral codes he can have a clearer and truer version of good, right action, and desireable consequences than he sometimes can trying to fit his inherent ethical sense into a code that may or may not be flexible as regards present circumstances.

The notion that morality must be imposed from without is not only counter-productive, it can be harmful. That does not mean that beings cannot get into wayward ways, but the just correction is that which restores his clear sense of ethical choice, not one which gets him to be obedient.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:08 PM

Can non believers in God do good or bad? If so, they must be infallible; Since they are not infallible, as they can make mistakes as other humans, good and bad must exist for Atheists, as with all other humans, including God believers. If good and bad exists, then it should be possible to define them, though the definition may not be uniform, nor without mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:11 PM

"The notion that morality must be imposed from without is not only counter-productive, it can be harmful."

Morality is relative, depending on the Society.

Some societies have had no problem ripping beating hearts out to pacify their magic sky fairies, some have had no moral problem having slaves, some have had no moral problem considering some races of people were no better than animals, and could be murdered with no moral problem... etc. In some cases, these societies were allegedly self claimed to be "Christian" ...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM

Yes, certain moral issues are relative, depending on the society. That is, they are relative in the minds of the people at the time, that's for sure.

We presently seem to have no problem, for instance, sending off our young people to invade other nations and fight wars on other people's land. Excuses are made to justify it. Opposing it is deemed traitorous by some. I can well imagine, however, a society which would not regard any such action as moral, and I would be pretty much in accord with such a viewpoint....in most cases. I might make an occasional exception. Very occasional.

Our business people also seem to have little problem with the idea of destroying vast numbers of living things in pursuit of their short term profits. Again, this might be more stringently questioned in a society with a more sophisticated view of humanity's moral responsibilities toward other forms of life.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM

I'd like to turn the question around and ask any believer:

If you have no capacity to make moral judgments on your own, how do you know God is good?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM

"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".
Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM

I'm not sure that we can put morality and beliefs in the same basket. We can bring up examples for days and find immoral and moral believers, moral athiests and immoral athiests in equal numbers. And what will that prove. That we can count? It will add up to a mental exersize - nothing more.

Of course - some of you might disagree.....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM

"Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?"

You don't annoy me, Jack, and I'm sure you mean to be no more thsn provocative, but this question (were I to be neurotic) seems to imply that non-atheism, which really means God-believerism I suppose, has some kind of default grasp of good and evil. The pat riposte to this, of course, is that goodness, however you define it, does not necessarily emanate from religion. I'd go further and claim that goodness has nothing at all to do with religion. Just like Christmas, goodness has been usurped by religion and claimed as its own. Recently, I attended a funeral at which the vicar pronounced that the deceased had acquired his goodness from his religious upbringing. As it happens, I'd known the deceased person very well and I know that his goodness had derived from no such thing. It was very annoying, but what can you do at funerals! To be slightly more combative (why not... ;-) ), I'd contest that anyone who claims that their "goodness," or "moral code," derives from their religion is actually admitting to a miserable lack of spine (I'd suggest that they kicked away their crutches), and I'd point to myriad atheists who are profoundly steeped in goodness, as much as any Christian/whatever has ever been. We atheists could try harder I suppose, but we are cheerfully disorganised, and long may that be so...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM

Yeats put that last better:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst.
Are full of passionate intensity.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM

This is Wiki, but, consider Kant:

categorical imperative

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:01 PM

I'm a Deist. I don't believe the creator cares one way or the other what I do or don't do. I decide what to do or not do by the Golden Rule.
It's like the basic reason for manners, treat others in a way that makes them want you around.
If you can't figure out what is right or wrong maybe therapy would help.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

and more from Kant...Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals

These issues are discussed in many ways in Philosophy, but a common thread seems to be that it can be shown to be ultimately 'impractical' to allow 'anything'. Fair, decent behavior is, simply, a reasonable way to operate.

Mammy Yokum, Li'l Abner's mom, used to say "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer!"

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:15 PM

"Yeats put that last better:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Thanks for that! That is very good. I'm sure there's a forum somewhere where that can be my signature!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM

There are entire philosophical systems (i.e. Buddhism, Taoism) which do not espouse the existence of an external supreme being. As such, they are not "religions" (per the Western definition of religion as systemized belief in a supreme being) and their followers are, therefor, "atheists". Yet those followers are among the most moral people on the face of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:23 PM

Basically is human morality not based on communal survival? We need other people to survive and thrive, and a suuessful community is in our best interests. For stability and to survive, a community needs an accepted framework of what is right and wrong for the survival and success of that community. This is normally determined and changes by necessicity and discussion. We conform because we see it as in our best interests.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:32 PM

A framework and common understanding of what is right and wrong allows individuals to live in harmony with one another. Since humans are social and rely on each other in a material sense, it is in our best interests to help one another and conform with agreed to norms. Non comformity with important and commomly agreed to rules of behaviour is normally not reinforced (especially in the short term). It should not matter if the community is made up of believers in a God, non believers, or a mixture.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM

Of course an atheist has a sense of right or wrong. Morality came historically before religion, particularly Christianity. Societies had to have a sense of morality to be able to exist. Rules were made up based on moral precepts such as helping each other, protecting the tribe, raising children etc. Religion became a corporation headed by religious CEO's who decided it was up to them to determine morality so to prove the point, they conducted holy wars and burnt people at the stake. They decided to punish people who didn't believe as they wanted them to. Constantine decided that it was prudent to join Christians instead of feeding them to lions. He stepped in front of their parade and impacted upon and changed them often through condign practices. Some of the most hideous immoral acts have been perpetrated throughout history by some religious leaders. Religion has never had a corner on the market of morality.

People aren't perfect but there is a built-in sense of morality in a human society. The Manichean idea of good and evil may become outmoded as we discover dysfunctional behavior as detrimental to the working of a successful society.

Today we are faced with notions of morality dictated by antiquated religious ideologies
that serve no useful purpose in modern society. The CEO's of religion control the institutions, deluding their followers and becoming glaringly inconsistent in their practices and pronouncements. A new enlightened society may find it has no need for these outmoded ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:37 PM

As ever, the problem is what you mean by moral. Both Blair and Dubya thought they were being moral and both invoked God. A million and a quarter innocent Iraqi civilians and a good number of widows and orphans might have demurred, had they had the chance. The pope thinks he's moral in condemning thousands of poor African women to die from AIDS. Pius X11 thought he was being moral in sending a thousand Vatican Jews into the hands of the Nazis and expediting the escape of Nazi war criminals to south America in 1945. The Israelis think they're being moral in imprisoning a million and a half Gazans in deprivation and poverty. Moral isn't a very good word any more. Better to just argue about what's right and what's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM

There is good and bad that doesn't require a belief in a God (but these could have been captured in religious thought and practice). They are not from subjective judgement. Good is what's of benefit to the individual and the community. Bad is what's detrimental to the individual and the community. So, actions that jeopardise the cohesion of a community commonly seen as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM

I suspect some things that happened in history, that we likely now see as bad, using the lens of today, may have been judged as good at the time, because they were believed to be beneficial for the survival of that society, at that time. For example, sacrificing the lives of many people, because the understanding of the time was that the spilling of blood was needed to avert distruction by the Sun (possibly thought to be a God).

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:52 PM

The question I asked was "How does a non-believer decide what is right or wrong?"

No one seems to have addressed that question at all.

How do you personally decide what is right or wrong
How do you decide what is good or evil?
Can there be good and evil?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:58 PM

Unfortunately "Good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", can be associated with preconceptions and subjectivity. If an action is of benefit to one community or group, but be detrimental to another group is it good or bad? Is it good if it is more beneficial to a larger group of people than a smaller? Or,is something good if it only benefits me?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM

From and evolutionary perspective, I suspect something is good if it helps you and your community (society) to surrvive and thrive. From that are agreed to definitions of right and wrong within that community. Something which is bad, is something which is detrimental, or possibly non beneficial to thet community, or society. The definition of your ccommunity or society could be small or large. In today's world, I suspect the society would be large, possibly Global.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

"Good" and "Bad" are subjective terms. But, since we need other people and that is a logical reason to care for others. IMO.it's why the creed of most ways of thought (not just religious) boils down to "the Golden Rule".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:13 PM

'good' according to Utilitarianism

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:25 PM

"Pudding is wrong". We have nothing to tell us if it is true or false, unless we know what is meant, and have an common understanding of, the word "wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:29 PM

What is right,wrong, good and evil?
Pudding is wrong!
:)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:31 PM

Just keep your pudding to yourself mate!
:)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:49 PM

And, baked goods are actually baked bads

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM

Well looks like this topic ran out of steam real quick as usual - it's a real laugh for atheists when they see this hoary old set-up coming...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM

"How do you personally decide what is right or wrong
How do you decide what is good or evil?

To quote my 5 year old son: "With my brain".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:56 PM

Or without it. Individual judgement of rightness and wrongness and the contemplation of optimum futures are innate spiritual attributes, IMHO.


I am sure the materialists will shudder. But we've had this discussion before.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:00 AM

"innate spiritual attributes, IMHO."

Except of course the a-spiritualists disagree ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:48 AM

Hmmmmmm.

I asked this question out of genuine interest not to bait any one. I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong.

If you think its a trap it isn't much of a trap. You have as much right to your beliefs as I do I am sure. But if you say something like magic eight ball or I learned everything I need to know I got from Star Trek, or John Wayne, I promise I'll keep my amusement to myself.

When I was an atheist I took Jesus to be a very wise philosopher and considered his words to be moral guidelines. I can't imagine any of you doing that so I am curious about how you do decide. I know Bill well enough to know that he is a moral person, more so than many Christians that I know. The others I don't know as well but I think you are good men.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM

>>Moral isn't a very good word any more. Better to just argue about what's right and what's wrong.

OK Steve, how do you decide what is right and wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:45 AM

"If you think its a trap it isn't much of a trap"

It's only a trap that the theists set themselves, digging their own hole! For if they have no capacity to make moral judgments on their own, but have to trust some magic invisible sky fairy and do only what they are told, how do they know that their magic invisible sky fairy is 'good'? Believers of different magic invisible sky fairies know that only their 'Fuhrer' is 'good' and that all the others are 'evil'.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM

I think that the best morality is pragmatic and communal, based on works best for the common good of a community and the individuals within it. The Golden Rule, of course, fits these criteria quite well.
When morality is authoritarian and based on obedience to authority, something is lacking.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that the most honest and effective morality is non-theistic and non-authoritarian - and rational. I guess we could call it Jiminy Cricket morality: Always let your conscience be your guide.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM

IMO, the definition of right and wrong for individuals within a society changes. Change is normally slow, but can be rapid.
If parts of the institution do not change with the society, it faces a danger of being marginalized. This may be the case for some religions, as its central influence on member's daily lives is lessoned.

As a tiny society, consider an example from the TV program Survivor (I know, this is entertainment). At the first of the program, the goal is for group survival. Very quickly each group defines for wrong and right behavior, to strengthen the survival of the group. This enhances the chances of survival of each member. Those who do wrong, are often are isolated and face elimination.

When the group's merge, and the goal is changed to individual survival, not group, the definition of right and wrong quickly changes. What was earlier considered wrong, may actually be admired by other members.... often revealed by later discussion in the program.

This is a TV program, but does show interesting examples of the group defining what is right or wrong, based on survival.

When members of a society attempt to rapidly change the definition of what is right or wrong, it could impact harmony. This may impact the perception of survival and could be shunned or opposed. Often it is not just what the change could mean for the group, but what the perception is on what it could mean.

For many years, rules (harmony) within many western societies were based on religion (admit it or not, all members are influenced by that). When a subgroup (for example, atheists) aggressively challenge those rules, it impacts harmony, and established balance (survival of members, so this stimulates concern and opposition. If the boundaries and impact of changes were uncertain, one would expect the concern to be greater. Over time, if the changes were not seen as a danger to harmony, (does not impact sub groups survival) the concern would likely subside.

Again,IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:44 AM

"I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong."

With difficulty and hand-wringing and conscience-plumbing. But one thing's for sure. We don't let anyone with ulterior motives tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM

Atheism is our default state as human beings. We are not born with religion, but we are born with empathy, which is subsequently perverted by having Religion forced upon us resulting in a base and rancid righteousness which excuses all manner of atrocity in the name of a higher (though entirely non-existent) celestial authority. The conceit of Christians believing themselves saved is alarming; it gives them that smug little glow that they are better than the rest of us even thiough, dep down in their empty little hearts, they know they are, in fact, worse. If morality is predicated on grounds as rancid as Religion, then I'll continue on my amoral human path and be glad that if hell there is, it won't be filled with Christians. My choice, however, is not to be believe in a fairy tale Idiot God Ogre who creates our humanity only to damn us for all eternity for making good use of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:12 AM

Thanks Steve, got there before me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:40 AM

I can't imagine any of you doing that so I am curious about how you do decide.

First of all, there is no earthly reason for an atheist to not recognize the wisdom of advices attributed to Jesus, or to Lao-Tze or Gautama, either. What gets into you?

Second of all, the ability to sense ethical courses of action is inherent in any conscious individual, and most of us get training in using it at an early age.

You examine the consequences of a course of action, and weigh the relative merits thereof, and also use a pipe-wrench.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

"I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong."

What Steve Shaw said....and for me, simply because I did spend years getting a degree in Philosophy, I was able to put into semi-formal context what I 'felt'. The "Golden Rule" is a good start...then pragmatism, utilitarianism and stuff like Kant's attempts to show why, at the fundamental levels of abstract thinking, there are logical rules which apply....even as some ignore them for short-term personal reasons.

All this added together leads me to be saddened by, but not totally opposed to, such things as abortion, capital punishment, wars of self-defense and population control. I'd like to live in a world where those things were understood as 'sometimes' needed, but rarely employed. I'd like to live in a world where no one argued FOR such things based on superstition and hearsay and prejudice and false gods like 'honor' and 'homeland' and 'tribe'....and people read and studied the ancient religious texts for perspective & context, instead of for artifical rules interpreted for them by priests with 'agendas'.

I like, when possible, to use humor to shed light on the foibles and prejudices of my fellow humans...like Walt Kelly did in "Pogo", and Berke Breathed did in "Bloom County" and Charles Schultz did in "Peanuts"....and I wish I could remember who coined the line.."If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"

Someone once said that marriage should be a fair, 50-50 balance of give & take...to which a wiser person replied: "Why not a 75-75 arrangement with a 25% overlap to cover the rough areas?"

I kinda like that....I wish countries and politicians, as well as husbands & wives, would take that concept to heart...and not just when rescuing miners....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM

I always thought of marriage as a three way partnership.......two people and the marriage. Basically the same thing but if you don't allow that third entity or overlap I don't know how a marriage survives.....although they do. Has more to do with the happiness thing I guess..............


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:13 AM

Can atheists anything? You see, morality is a form of altruism.

Altruism has been shown to be genetic, or more specifically, a product of genes. We are used to the idea of pack animals, bees, termites, ants etc etc living as a community. Primates also put the community first. Is this religion?   

Is it heckers like.

It is the same phenomenon that causes orgasms. Genes want to reproduce and have situations that engender reproduction, hence lifeforms sometimes work together for the common good whether they think about it or not. Genes, it would appear, are the lifeforms. We are but the hosts.

So, can you have a moral atheist? Yes. We are wired that way. It is this fact that angers God botherers most about Dawkins. He is one of the world's leading lights on genetics, hence the rearguard action as such a learned man is such a powerful enemy of superstition.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:29 AM

Thanks Bill,

That was just what I was looking for.

Steve and Foolestroupe, I didn't know about the hand wringing. I am curious about the hand wringing. Did you study philosophy like Bill? Did you have to look at every aspect of life to come up with a guide for yourself. How much weight did you give to the various outside stakeholders, your family, your community, your country, the world? What I wanted to know is what process your hand wringing entailed.

Joe,

Thank you. It is interesting to see that your morality needs to go beyond its religious base. I have a hard time reconciling a lot of the bible in my moral code. In the Old Testament the genocides led by Joshua and some of the attitudes toward women by St. Paul are notable points of concern.

Amos, I didn't say that Bill and Steve and Foolestroupe COULD not be followers of Jesus' philosophy. What I meant to say was that from what they had written in this forum, that I didn't think that they were. I am pretty sure that none of them were offend by my saying that I did not believe that they could be followed of Jesus, even philosophically. I was talking about them, not people in generally. Certainly I believed it was possible to be Atheist and look to Jesus as a guide because I was and did.

One observation I will make from what I have read on this thread is that it seems much harder work to form one own morals based upon one's own thoughts than on instruction from religion. I imagine that for those with the time and the intellectual energy that is a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM

Steamin,

I didn't ask whether there could be a moral atheist. I asked, given that morality is based on ideas of right and wrong, where an atheist gets morality.


I don't think that animal herd behavior is morality. Unlike termites humans are not born with their behaviors hardwired. Humans have to learn to do what is best for their survival and for their societies.

As long as you are bringing Darwin's principles into the discussion, consider this. In human society, do value systems compete as organisms do in nature where those most suited to the existing environment thrive and those that don't whither and are extinguished?