19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

which ones  aren't? 

How should I know? It's  your argument about dislocation and fairness and whatever moral decisions are. I've tried to understand it, but there's that rapid tectonic motion problem again.  

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How should I know? It's  your argument about dislocation and fairness and whatever moral decisions are. I've tried to understand it, but there's that rapid tectonic motion problem again.  

All I'm arguing is that we're all humans, each one of us is subject to hormones and other chemicals, none of which is in our control and we're taught according to the society in which were spawned.

The dislocation of fairness from a witch hunt/mob rule, based on a rumour (or as seen on a screen from a parallax)...

On 10/20/2024 at 8:17 PM, LuckyR said:

If you want to change the subject to why we're morally superior, your theory sounds reasonable, to be honest. But you've lost the previous argument. 

But you're trying to change it to 'the value of piety', to which I say "whatever floats your boat", because it's no excuse or clarion call to the army of the righteously indignantly, touched...  

Can you be more specific about my lost argument, please...  

On 10/10/2024 at 4:28 PM, Night FM said:

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law.

I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).

It can be personal morality. I for one accept and embrace the teaching of Jesus Christ, I do not accept the bible as an origin. I believe firmly in evolution as it is objectively provable. Perhaps they use religion as a moral source rather than believing it literally.

On 4/30/2025 at 9:42 AM, Sohan Lalwani said:

It can be personal morality. I for one accept and embrace the teaching of Jesus Christ, I do not accept the bible as an origin. I believe firmly in evolution as it is objectively provable. Perhaps they use religion as a moral source rather than believing it literally.

Exactly. Everyone uses a set of personal codes of behavior to assist with decision making. Those are moral codes. Most don't come from a religion, in religious folks, but some do. In the case of atheists, none come from a relious source, BUT the funny thing is, the moral codes of atheists are commonly identical to those of religious folk who DO cite religion as their source. For example, a religous person may cite the Ten Commandments as the source of their moral stand against murder. Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments, yet commonly are morally against murder.

2 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly. Everyone uses a set of personal codes of behavior to assist with decision making. Those are moral codes. Most don't come from a religion, in religious folks, but some do. In the case of atheists, none come from a relious source, BUT the funny thing is, the moral codes of atheists are commonly identical to those of religious folk who DO cite religion as their source. For example, a religous person may cite the Ten Commandments as the source of their moral stand against murder. Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments, yet commonly are morally against murder.

Surely the point about the Ten Commandments is that they are an example of a society formulating a body of law.

Law is a systematising of your codes of behaviour, designed to enable a society to function smoothly and fairly, with agreed ways of settling disputes. This is also one of the (several) functions of religion in society. It is no accident, surely, that historically many societies have had religious laws and looked to religious leaders for dispute resolution. So when religious people say they get their morality from their religion, that's a bit naïve: their religion codifies the moral principles of the society, principles that were probably in large part already in implicit use before religion codified them.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

So when religious people say they get their morality from their religion, that's a bit naïve: their religion codifies the moral principles of the society, principles that were probably in large part already in implicit use before religion codified them.

I think reasonable people, theistic and atheistic agree with this. Ancient societies had codes of conduct and ethics otherwise they would not have survived, certainly not long enough to establish settlements, towns.

Co-ordinated and co-operative enough to leave archaeology.

Society and ethical behaviour would have had to have been there when humans were hunter gatherers, populations of ancestral humans, populations of evolving primates struggling to survive.

That is was societal animals have evolved to do, co-operative, work together and look after each other.

Extant primates exhibit these behaviours today with no written rules or holy books.

So Evolution, societal behaviours, societies, social evolution, codification, rites, rituals and religion.

For the record I am an atheist and I get my morals from all sorts of sources today including my primate Evolutionary past.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

For the record I am an atheist and I get my morals from all sorts of sources today including my primate Evolutionary past.

Indeed, as long as it seems to be fair...

Although modern tech culture does seem to muddy the waters somewhat...

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, as long as it seems to be fair...

Although modern tech culture does seem to muddy the waters somewhat...

To make an important point, atheism is not necessarily a pathway to a moral existence.

If I pushed that too hard then I would be the same as the theists who claim that unbelievers have no moral compass.

I will try and honest as I can though and claim that we, atheists, have a better chance at walking that path!

This will probably earn me a down vote but please challenge me first if you can.

I have my reasons, better to be honest than search for upvotes right?

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

I will try and honest as I can though and claim that we, atheists, have a better chance at walking that path!

Then you don't understand Nietzche.

56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then you don't understand Nietzche.

No idea, I have never read him.

5 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

No idea, I have never read him.

He was quite ambitious...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

He was quite ambitious...

I read his bio. Do I need him? For this discussion? I have read Hitchens, he is more contemporary.

Anyway I can certainly state my case as an atheist without Nietzsche, he is not part of my story.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

I read his bio. Do I need him? For this discussion? I have read Hitchens, he is more contemporary.

Anyway I can certainly state my case as an atheist without Nietzsche, he is not part of my story.

I think he is the “God is dead”( oh and by the way Zeig Heil) man, isn’t he?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I think he is the “God is dead”( oh and by the way Zeig Heil) man, isn’t he?

Yes, I thought that was Kant but a quick Google says Nietzsche.

Zeig Heil? I thought that was reserved for the Furher?

Gaps in my knowledge include philosophy/philosophers, Greek mythology, poetry and English literature including Shakespeare.

Basically I am ashamed to shower with other Englishmen.

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Gaps in my knowledge include philosophy/philosophers, Greek mythology, poetry and English literature including Shakespeare.

Basically I am ashamed to shower with other Englishmen.

And we're expected to believe that's because of these cultural gaps? 😁

Seriously, Nietzsche had some of his ideas appropriated and distorted by the Nazis, especially the whole Übermensch thing. Nietzsche was in actuality opposed to Nazi ideas and antisemitism. His concept of the superman was a nuanced metaphor about man's social and cognitive evolution which has nothing to do with the Nazi spin later put on it.

Edited June 29Jun 29 by TheVat

Anyway back on track.

My morality came from.

Mother. Upbringing, environment. 1966-present.

School. Teachers, friends 1971-83

Priests, nuns, heavily connected to my school.

Parishioners. 1970-1981

College, monks. 1983-85

University 1986- present, students I am still friends with.

I realised I was an atheist after all of that, 1990.

I am still learning.

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

And we're expected to believe that's because of these cultural gaps? 😁

Hey, I'm bearing my godless soul here!

Oxbridge showers are out of bounds but I would go down a storm at Loughborough.

Actually not there either for other reasons.

Anyway back to the OP, I doubt many people would have a totally different story than mine regarding moral learning if they are Gen x UK.

13 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly. Everyone uses a set of personal codes of behavior to assist with decision making. Those are moral codes. Most don't come from a religion, in religious folks, but some do. In the case of atheists, none come from a relious source, BUT the funny thing is, the moral codes of atheists are commonly identical to those of religious folk who DO cite religion as their source. For example, a religous person may cite the Ten Commandments as the source of their moral stand against murder. Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments, yet commonly are morally against murder.

Glad to hear you agree! You made some some good points on a “common morality” +1

13 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly. Everyone uses a set of personal codes of behavior to assist with decision making. Those are moral codes. Most don't come from a religion, in religious folks, but some do. In the case of atheists, none come from a relious source, BUT the funny thing is, the moral codes of atheists are commonly identical to those of religious folk who DO cite religion as their source. For example, a religous person may cite the Ten Commandments as the source of their moral stand against murder. Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments, yet commonly are morally against murder.

I don't understand why that's "funny". The default for humans is not murdering each other, and that predates all religions. Same with stealing, you aren't supposed to take things that aren't yours. We didn't need Abraham's god to tell us this.

There is an awful lot of evidence that we survived our prehistory just fine without the 10C. Perhaps the moral codes of the early atheists were copied by Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't understand why that's "funny". The default for humans is not murdering each other, and that predates all religions. Same with stealing, you aren't supposed to take things that aren't yours. We didn't need Abraham's god to tell us this.

There is an awful lot of evidence that we survived our prehistory just fine without the 10C. Perhaps the moral codes of the early atheists were copied by Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam?

I think you two are agreeing, and also agreeing with me. Religions are (were) one way of expressing and formalising moral codes that already existed in more or less inchoate form in the societies in question.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I think you two are agreeing, and also agreeing with me. Religions are (were) one way of expressing and formalising moral codes that already existed in more or less inchoate form in the societies in question.

I agree with that, but LuckyR claimed atheists were copying religious morality, so I'm not sure we're all in agreement.

17 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly. Everyone uses a set of personal codes of behavior to assist with decision making. Those are moral codes. Most don't come from a religion, in religious folks, but some do. In the case of atheists, none come from a relious source, BUT the funny thing is, the moral codes of atheists are commonly identical to those of religious folk who DO cite religion as their source. For example, a religous person may cite the Ten Commandments as the source of their moral stand against murder. Atheists don't follow the Ten Commandments, yet commonly are morally against murder.

But if the religious folks knew for sure that there was no supreme being and no eternal damnation, would their behavior change? How much of the behavior is driven by fear of divine judgement/punishment?

11 hours ago, swansont said:

How much of the behavior is driven by fear of divine judgement/punishment?

I would say not much, judging by how often seemingly a large plurality (if not most) of them violate a host of the tenets of their faiths on a regular basis right now...

Edited June 30Jun 30 by npts2020
clarification

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I agree with that, but LuckyR claimed atheists were copying religious morality, so I'm not sure we're all in agreement.

Oh I read his comment as making the opposite point: that the moral code of atheists owes nothing to religion but comes out the same. Anyway, maybe he’ll be back to clear it up.

Edited June 30Jun 30 by exchemist

5 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I would say not much, judging by how often seemingly a large plurality (if not most) of them violate a host of the tenets of their faiths on a regular basis right now...

It’s the ones that don’t that I was talking about