The morals of an atheist

Options
Vedderlution_Baby
Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
edited June 2007 in A Moving Train
So, I've had this argument used against me twice.

"But with an atheist, what stops them from killing another person?Or stealing? They don't have morals. Why would they?"

One of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and unfounded comments I've had the unfortunate luck to be around and hear.

Has any other atheist around here had their morals questioned with this argument? Why do people come up with this shit? And how can they really believe that?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567…12

Comments

  • wavesonwheels
    wavesonwheels Posts: 101
    humans are animals and like most animals there is no need to kill each other

    do earthworms not kill other earthworms because of a earthworms god?
    do sharks not kill other sharks because their shark god finds that immoral while eating seals is permissible??

    simple rule of thumb... if you are talking to someone who believes in god or other crazy supernatural fuckers that live in the sky... you are talking to an idiot
    no time this time to feign reluctance
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Yes, the animal world at work http://shoutfile.com/v/zHmbg7HJ/Amateur_Planet_Earth

    There is another video about a bird named Mo that took care of a little kitten and they became best friends.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtqesaWU4w

    I'm sure all these animals worship the Christian God. NOT!

    Point their ignorance over to http://www.oxytocin.org that explains the chemical basis for altruism and morality.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • chopitdown
    chopitdown Posts: 2,222
    wavesonwheels wrote:

    simple rule of thumb... if you are talking to someone who believes in god or other crazy supernatural fuckers that live in the sky... you are talking to an idiot

    can i play the generalization game too?
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    chopitdown wrote:
    can i play the generalization game too?

    Why is that a generalization?

    Sounds like a marker in the sand statement.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    So, I've had this argument used against me twice.

    "But with an atheist, what stops them from killing another person?Or stealing? They don't have morals. Why would they?"

    One of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and unfounded comments I've had the unfortunate luck to be around and hear.

    Has any other atheist around here had their morals questioned with this argument? Why do people come up with this shit? And how can they really believe that?

    Well, this argument raged in philosophical circles, around the time of Immanuel Kant. Kant came up with a deontological ethical concept called the categorical imperative. It sparked fraught debate in its time. Do read this Wikipedia link, because it covers a lot of the ground of this sort of discussion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

    Cheers.
  • chopitdown
    chopitdown Posts: 2,222
    gue_barium wrote:
    Why is that a generalization?

    Sounds like a marker in the sand statement.

    are you really asking why "if you are talking to someone who believes in god or other crazy supernatural fuckers that live in the sky... you are talking to an idiot" is a generalization????

    I don't really know why that's so hard to imagine that it is
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Ahnimus wrote:
    explains the chemical basis for altruism and morality.
    I prefer, "proposes to explain a chemical basis for altruism and morality." Nothing's that certain. ;)
  • chopitdown
    chopitdown Posts: 2,222
    Humans hard-wired to be generous
    WASHINGTON, May 28 (UPI) -- A study by government scientists in Washington indicates humans are hard-wired to be unselfish.

    Neuroscientists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health say experiments they conducted have led them to conclude unselfishness is not a matter of morality, The Washington Post reports.

    Rather, the two say altruism is something that makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

    Grafman and Moll have been scanning the brains of volunteers who were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.

    They are among scientists across the United States using imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.

    The results are showing many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, opening up a new window on what it means to be good.
    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/05/28/humans_hardwired_to_be_generous/3792/
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    I prefer, "proposes to explain a chemical basis for altruism and morality." Nothing's that certain. ;)

    Actually, they've used excitatory and inhibitory chemicals to stimulate or inhibit the particular receptors and observed the predicted outcome in behavior. That's causality. ;)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    chopitdown wrote:
    Humans hard-wired to be generous
    WASHINGTON, May 28 (UPI) -- A study by government scientists in Washington indicates humans are hard-wired to be unselfish.

    Neuroscientists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health say experiments they conducted have led them to conclude unselfishness is not a matter of morality, The Washington Post reports.

    Rather, the two say altruism is something that makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

    Grafman and Moll have been scanning the brains of volunteers who were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.

    They are among scientists across the United States using imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.

    The results are showing many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, opening up a new window on what it means to be good.
    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/05/28/humans_hardwired_to_be_generous/3792/

    No, this is the article I mentioned above. It mentions absolutely nothing about the science. The science is much more complex than is let on here. In-fact, the difference from brain to brain, may mean that morality is hard-wired differently into each individual brain. That is a more accurate assertion of the facts. Not that they mention "universal morality" in the article, but that's what most people's brains would confabulate from reading that article.

    It does "light-up" the limbic system as well. Altruism is selfish.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Actually, they've used excitatory and inhibitory chemicals to stimulate or inhibit the particular receptors and observed the predicted outcome in behavior. That's causality. ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0

    That's what we call Nihilism right?

    It does us no good to say that we cannot obtain knowledge. We simply must say that all knowledge is provisional, and potentially flawed, and as such, the best method for obtaining knowledge is one of strict guidelines, like science. Science is the best knowledge we have.

    Science says, there is no universal morality, observation of reality says this also.

    Imagination and fantasy say there is.

    Which form is a better method of obtaining knowledge? One is highly provisional and based on other knowledge, and the other is just a matter of confabulation.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    chopitdown wrote:
    are you really asking why "if you are talking to someone who believes in god or other crazy supernatural fuckers that live in the sky... you are talking to an idiot" is a generalization????

    I don't really know why that's so hard to imagine that it is

    It's (the statement) just saying, "I rely on myself", I don't understand what you're talkng about, nor do I need to."
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That's what we call Nihilism right?

    It does us no good to say that we cannot obtain knowledge. We simply must say that all knowledge is provisional, and potentially flawed, and as such, the best method for obtaining knowledge is one of strict guidelines, like science. Science is the best knowledge we have.

    Science says, there is no universal morality, observation of reality says this also.

    Imagination and fantasy say there is.

    Which form is a better method of obtaining knowledge? One is highly provisional and based on other knowledge, and the other is just a matter of confabulation.

    Do you ever get laid?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Ahnimus wrote:
    That's what we call Nihilism right?

    It does us no good to say that we cannot obtain knowledge. We simply must say that all knowledge is provisional, and potentially flawed, and as such, the best method for obtaining knowledge is one of strict guidelines, like science. Science is the best knowledge we have.

    Science says, there is no universal morality, observation of reality says this also.

    Imagination and fantasy say there is.

    Which form is a better method of obtaining knowledge? One is highly provisional and based on other knowledge, and the other is just a matter of confabulation.

    Well, you'd be arguing with the late Jacob Bronowski on that one. You should check out the whole lecture, if you can. It's not on Google Video anymore, unfortunately. It's called "Knowledge or Certainty", from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man. Other episodes from the series are still up.

    Here are a couple of Wiki links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man

    And a little link, with synopses of each episode of The Ascent of Man:

    http://www.tvfactual.co.uk/ascent_of_man.htm
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    cars....
    clean water....

    Heck, other countries and civilizations do. In fact, all countries and civilizations did, at one time.

    And we and the animals survived.

    So let's take away government influence and AK47's.

    We'd have religious influence and spears.

    Let's take away religious influence and weapons.

    *gasp*

    Why, we'd be equal to animals!!
    Feels Good Inc.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Bu2 wrote:
    cars....
    clean water....

    Heck, other countries and civilizations do. In fact, all countries and civilizations did, at one time.

    And we and the animals survived.

    So let's take away government influence and AK47's.

    We'd have religious influence and spears.

    Let's take away religious influence and weapons.

    *gasp*

    Why, we'd be equal to animals!!

    mmm...the evolution of "civil" civilization is ... a bit more subtle than that, but it has always included the aspect of survival.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    We're all in it to survive, aren't we?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    Do you ever get laid?

    Yea, I just make sure I don't say the true things people don't want to hear. I'm working on a list. ;)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Well, you'd be arguing with the late Jacob Bronowski on that one. You should check out the whole lecture, if you can. It's not on Google Video anymore, unfortunately. It's called "Knowledge or Certainty", from the 1973 BBC series The Ascent of Man. Other episodes from the series are still up.

    Here are a couple of Wiki links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man

    And a little link, with synopses of each episode of The Ascent of Man:

    http://www.tvfactual.co.uk/ascent_of_man.htm

    Einstein and Bronowski can go at it in heaven.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire

Categories