Do atheists have morals?

cornnifer

karma defect wrote:

A person is born blank with the ability to learn to tell right from wrong, one doesn't know it at the start.

i disagree. Certainly there are gray areas, where morality is learned. But the biggies, killing, not taking what doesn't belong to you, etc., these i believe are pretty much instinctual. No one had to teach you that killing is wrong. People would know this whether anyone "taught" them or not.
That being said the question that still begs an answer is if, as a previous poster claimes to believe, these moral imperatives are in our DNA and passed down through generations, how then did they get there to begin with? How did morality evolve?

Jeanie

karma defect wrote:

Have you seen dogma?:D

YES!! Loved it!:D

Jeanie

karma defect wrote:

Do you think that you were born with the knowledge of right and wrong or with an inner voice? I imagined that you meant the second, but then I thought that you might have meant just what you said.

In that case I am a bit surprised. A person is born blank with the ability to learn to tell right from wrong, one doesn't know it at the start.

Babies aren't born blank, if they were they'd all be exactly the same! They have inherited qualities like say hair color from Mum, eye color from Dad etc and if DNA can pass on physical attributes and inherited diseases why then is such a stretch that it can also pass on mental and emotional attributes and morals. I am saying that not all personality attributes are learned. Some are nature (DNA) and some are nurture(what is learned from parents etc). Surely you have noticed that babies have different personalities from the minute they are born?

CorporateWhore

cornnifer wrote:

How did morality evolve?

Based on the tradition of Christianity.

In Muslim countries it is okay to stone a woman for adultery. This is not the tradition of Christian countries. Morality evolves in societies, but it does not evolve in Christianity. What God said was wrong for the apostles is wrong for me.

Jeanie

cornnifer wrote:

i disagree. Certainly there are gray areas, where morality is learned. But the biggies, killing, not taking what doesn't belong to you, etc., these i believe are pretty much instinctual. No one had to teach you that killing is wrong. People would know this whether anyone "taught" them or not.

EXACTLY! It is part of their genetic make up.

cornnifer wrote:

That being said the question that still begs an answer is if, as a previous poster claimes to believe, these moral imperatives are in our DNA and passed down through generations, how then did they get there to begin with? How did morality evolve?

Your cells continue to change, die and reproduce as you grow and age. And your cellular memory is passed in your DNA to your offspring where it is mixed with the DNA and cellular memory of your partner contributing to a completely new mix of DNA. If this new mix of DNA can remember to make you look similar to your great, great Grandma Flo from a hundred years ago why then can't it also pass on part of her moral compass, personality traits, way of laughing, sneezing, world view etc? And YES I think that it exactly Morality evolved through this chain.:) Does that make sense? It's difficult to write everything that you think!;)

sponger

It's natural for followers of religion to assume that atheists must not have any morals. This is because they would not have any morals of their own without said religion. So, while it is discriminatory to think that atheists lack the capacity to lead a moral lifestyle, I can't really blame followers of religion for not knowing any better. And for the time being, I think the world is a better place with religion in it. This is because without it, who knows what kind of behaviors these people would otherwise be resorting to. A fear of god keeps them at least mildly "civil" for now. Eventually, the majority of these "god fearing" people will grow out of it and the world will hopefully be a better place.

CorporateWhore

sponger wrote:

It's natural for followers of religion to assume that atheists must not have any morals. This is because they would not have any morals of their own without said religion. So, while it is discriminatory to think that atheists lack the capacity to lead a moral lifestyle, I can't really blame followers of religion for not knowing any better. And for the time being, I think the world is a better place with religion in it. This is because without it, who knows what kind of behaviors these people would otherwise be resorting to. A fear of god keeps them at least mildly "civil" for now. Eventually, the majority of these "god fearing" people will grow out of it and the world will hopefully be a better place.

You should read more about what Christians really believe regarding morality.

"The natural law, springing from the mind of God, is immutable. Consequently, immoral acts are immoral not simply because God forbids them, but because they are inherently immoral."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism#The_divine_and_reason

Just because God tells us in the Bible that some immoral acts are immoral is not the sole reason they are immoral. There is a natural law, according to Christian belief, that says that certain acts are immoral and we know these acts are immoral without aid from the Bible. Their immorality is inherent.

Therefore, morality is completely tied to the natural law that God has designed for the universe. It operates independently from God's word to mankind, which is why atheists can be moral. They know, based on the way God has created the universe, that certain things are moral and other things are immoral.

There are certain actions that seem inherently immoral. Burning a newborn baby for no possible conceivable reason. Why? It is innocent. It's a cruel death. Why do we believe babies are innocent? Why is that death cruel? These are reactions set in place by a natural law. Our universe was made with this function in mind.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

It's natural for followers of religion to assume that atheists must not have any morals. This is because they would not have any morals of their own without said religion. So, while it is discriminatory to think that atheists lack the capacity to lead a moral lifestyle, I can't really blame followers of religion for not knowing any better. And for the time being, I think the world is a better place with religion in it. This is because without it, who knows what kind of behaviors these people would otherwise be resorting to. A fear of god keeps them at least mildly "civil" for now. Eventually, the majority of these "god fearing" people will grow out of it and the world will hopefully be a better place.

Fear does not equal civil behavior. I think it's quite the opposite.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i attended a roman catholic college prep and had to take 4 years of theology which included the study of every religion. i'm not saying i'm right; i'm stating my opinion based from this education. i'm not a church goer because i know the flaws of the churchs and churchs are run by man. church does not equal God. knowing God is a state of consiousness. anyone who's practiced transendental meditation can understand this much better. i wish i had the words to explain it better but i'm not that good finding the words. i guess that's why religion has always been such a big mystery.

Just to be clear, when I speak of "religion," I mean an organized faith community. Individual spirituality, connecting with some higher consciousness that you may identify as "god," is not what I'm talking about at all. So it sounds to me as if we are not very far apart on our views of religion, if by that we mean an organized church and it's accompanying literature.

Anyway, my guess on morality is that primitive societies with behavior patterns that we would call "moral" gained an evolutionary advantage because of those behaviors and were thus more likely to pass along their genetic material, which would account for why children too young to have absorbed any sort of religious teaching can be seen displaying compassion for others.

cornnifer

CorporateWhore wrote:

Based on the tradition of Christianity.

In Muslim countries it is okay to stone a woman for adultery. This is not the tradition of Christian countries. Morality evolves in societies, but it does not evolve in Christianity. What God said was wrong for the apostles is wrong for me.

Again i have to disagree. In muslim countries, adultery has been determined to be a crime worthy of capital pinishment. Therefore the "killing" has been rationalized out and it is not viewed as such. Capital punishment exists in this nation as well, and crazily enough, many Christians support it (although i don't see how). It simply isn't viewed by those as "killing". The same sick rationalization applies to war.
Furthermore your "Christian tradition" theory ignores the fact that total atheists, with absolutely no faith in God what-so-ever, also know that killing is wrong. As a Christian myself i recognize this and know that i knew killing was wrong long before i ever heard the Gospel.

cornnifer

Jeanie wrote:

EXACTLY! It is part of their genetic make up.


Your cells continue to change, die and reproduce as you grow and age. And your cellular memory is passed in your DNA to your offspring where it is mixed with the DNA and cellular memory of your partner contributing to a completely new mix of DNA. If this new mix of DNA can remember to make you look similar to your great, great Grandma Flo from a hundred years ago why then can't it also pass on part of her moral compass, personality traits, way of laughing, sneezing, world view etc? And YES I think that it exactly Morality evolved through this chain.:) Does that make sense? It's difficult to write everything that you think!;)

in order for it to be pased along, it had to begin somewhere. How did morality evolve? How did it get there to begin with? Maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but it doesn't seem you are addressing that question.

hippiemom

CorporateWhore wrote:

There are certain actions that seem inherently immoral. Burning a newborn baby for no possible conceivable reason. Why? It is innocent. It's a cruel death. Why do we believe babies are innocent? Why is that death cruel? These are reactions set in place by a natural law. Our universe was made with this function in mind.

People who destroyed some percentage of their own offspring would not have passed along their genes at the same rate as people who never did so. It's quite natural that people who do a better job of caring for their children would gain the evolutionary advantage.

sponger

CorporateWhore wrote:

You should read more about what Christians really believe regarding morality.

"The natural law, springing from the mind of God, is immutable. Consequently, immoral acts are immoral not simply because God forbids them, but because they are inherently immoral."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism#The_divine_and_reason

Just because God tells us in the Bible that some immoral acts are immoral is not the sole reason they are immoral. There is a natural law, according to Christian belief, that says that certain acts are immoral and we know these acts are immoral without aid from the Bible. Their immorality is inherent.

Therefore, morality is completely tied to the natural law that God has designed for the universe. It operates independently from God's word to mankind, which is why atheists can be moral. They know, based on the way God has created the universe, that certain things are moral and other things are immoral.

There are certain actions that seem inherently immoral. Burning a newborn baby for no possible conceivable reason. Why? It is innocent. It's a cruel death. Why do we believe babies are innocent? Why is that death cruel? These are reactions set in place by a natural law. Our universe was made with this function in mind.

All that's doing is taking atheism and putting the stamp of "god" on it. It's religion's way of plagiarising. It's like saying, "Secularism makes sense, but only because god created it." For those who don't desire to look deeper into the rationale behind "natural law", it is the end-all argument for religion's patent on morality.

At any rate, your analogy just kind of proves my point that religion, for now, keeps people acting civil until they grow out of their moral training wheels (ie religion).

The act of burning any one person or living thing is cruel, regardless of its age. What makes this cruel is our natural ability to have empathy, not the baby's innocence. There need not be an explanation for it. We as human beings just feel a natural sense of compassion for one another, most notably babies because we instinctively care for our young so as to promote the survival of our species. It has nothing to do with deservingness.

angelica

"The human at birth is not yet socialized into any sort of moral system--it is "preconventional". The human then learns a general moral scheme that represents the basic values of the society it is raised in --it becomes "conventional". And with even further growth, the individual may come to reflect on his or her society and thus gain some modest distance from it, gain a capacity to criticize it or reform it--the indivual is to some degree "postconventional".

Thus, although the actual details and the precise meanings of that developmental sequence are still hotely debated, everybody pretty much agrees that something like those three broad stages do indeed occur, and occur universally.

--Ken Wilber, "A Brief History of Everything"

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"The human at birth is not yet socialized into any sort of moral system--it is "preconventional". The human then learns a general moral scheme that represents the basic values of the society it is raised in --it becomes "conventional". And with even further growth, the individual may come to reflect on his or her society and thus gain some modest distance from it, gain a capacity to criticize it or reform it--the indivual is to some degree "postconventional".

Thus, although the actual details and the precise meanings of that developmental sequence are still hotely debated, everybody pretty much agrees that something like those three broad stages do indeed occur, and occur universally.

--Ken Wilber, "A Brief History of Everything"

Tabula Rasa?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Tabula Rasa?

I don't know enough about Tabula Rasa to comment. I've only heard of it from you, and my very recent wikipedia read does not authorize me to say much on the subject.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Fear does not equal civil behavior. I think it's quite the opposite.

By "civil" I mean good driver's discount kind of civil. Were it not for our fear of the $300 traffic ticket and increased insurance rates, we'd all be doing 100 mph. Religion turns traffic cops into other-worldly, mystical beings who can be resurrected. Atheism reminds us of why that ticket costs $300, not just that it sucks to lose $300.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I don't know enough about Tabula Rasa to comment. I've only heard of it from you, and my very recent wikipedia read does not authorize me to say much on the subject.

There are three theories on newborns. Innate Purity which says that a newborn is innately pure and only does good things. Natural Sin which says that a newborn is innately sinful and Tabular rasa or Blank Slate says a newborn is not inclined in either direction the mind is completely blank.

angelica

sponger wrote:

By "civil" I mean good driver's discount kind of civil. Were it not for our fear of the $300 traffic ticket and increased insurance rates, we'd all be doing 100 mph. Religion turns traffic cops into other-worldly, mystical beings who can be resurrected. Atheism reminds us of why that ticket costs $300, not just that it sucks to lose $300.

:eek:

Not we ALL........... I have a little issue with concern for my own safety, and for those around me that bids me to follow traffic law. I like to call it awareness of the variables involved. Fear and authority don't point the way for me.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There are three theories on newborns. Innate Purity which says that a newborn is innately pure and only does good things. Natural Sin which says that a newborn is innately sinful and Tabular rasa or Blank Slate says a newborn is not inclined in either direction the mind is completely blank.

In what discipline do these theories spring from?