(May 20, 2014 at 4:26 pm)BlackMason Wrote: The question posed by the OP does raise some cause for concern. I don't know who you are but it's kinda strange that you'd have a cheat sheet. To me atheism represents freedom. When you allude to specific things that must be said to certain questions, isn't that a lot like religion all over again?

Perhaps I misunderstand the direction of your post. Are you looking for canned material that mirrors your beliefs that is articulated more eloquently than you can?

Good points.

But this kind of thinking is not new to the OP. His reasons for claiming he is an atheist have been suspect from his first posts here.

As you point out, he is trying to replace on set of dogmatic, doctrine based beliefs with (what he believes) are another.

Statler Wrote:

Rampant Wrote:Quote:
I don't buy into your presuppositional bullshit, from your 2000-year-old tradition that has no claim to general ethics nor morality other than what they've stolen from other extant cultures.

Whether or not you buy into it is irrelevant, people do not get to simply opt out of the moral imperative contained in God’s commandments. Secondly, making an appeal to the age of the book is also logically fallacious.

What god?

I get my morals from my empathy and my compassion for my fellow man.

I believe that man has a biological and evolutionary imperative to help one another.

I believe that man evolved his sense of family and empathy as part of our survival in a harsh world. Had all humans been sociopathic loners, we'd have died off many millennia ago. Only by sticking together and forming communities did we overcome the myriad of obstacles. Therefore, compassion and empathy are hard wired in most people.

That is where I feel we get our morals from.

(May 18, 2014 at 11:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 18, 2014 at 8:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Our morality is in our evolution. "Atheist" is a position, not a moral code. Labels do not automatically make an individual bad or good. Our species has always had the capability of cruelty and compassion. Where do we get our morality? Evolution.

So I"ll ask the question again...Are some behavioral dispositions and actions moral because they evolved or did they evolve because they are moral?

Funny - that question is usually aimed at God isn't it? For example:

"Are some behavioural dispositions and actions moral because God says so or does God comply with a higher morality?"

(May 21, 2014 at 9:02 am)Kuribo Wrote: I get my morals from my empathy and my compassion for my fellow man.

I believe that man has a biological and evolutionary imperative to help one another.

I believe that man evolved his sense of family and empathy as part of our survival in a harsh world. Had all humans been sociopathic loners, we'd have died off many millennia ago. Only by sticking together and forming communities did we overcome the myriad of obstacles. Therefore, compassion and empathy are hard wired in most people.

That is where I feel we get our morals from.

That's really just another way of saying "might makes right."

So I guess when cockroaches scurry into dark corners they are acting as moral agents? After all an evolved adaptation is an adaptation. What is the difference between human empathy and the cockroaches instinct to flee?

(May 21, 2014 at 9:02 am)Kuribo Wrote: I get my morals from my empathy and my compassion for my fellow man.

I believe that man has a biological and evolutionary imperative to help one another.

I believe that man evolved his sense of family and empathy as part of our survival in a harsh world. Had all humans been sociopathic loners, we'd have died off many millennia ago. Only by sticking together and forming communities did we overcome the myriad of obstacles. Therefore, compassion and empathy are hard wired in most people.

That is where I feel we get our morals from.

Spot on.

(May 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 9:02 am)Kuribo Wrote: I get my morals from my empathy and my compassion for my fellow man.

I believe that man has a biological and evolutionary imperative to help one another.

I believe that man evolved his sense of family and empathy as part of our survival in a harsh world. Had all humans been sociopathic loners, we'd have died off many millennia ago. Only by sticking together and forming communities did we overcome the myriad of obstacles. Therefore, compassion and empathy are hard wired in most people.

That is where I feel we get our morals from.

That's really just another way of saying "might makes right."

So I guess when cockroaches scurry into dark corners they are acting as moral agents? After all an evolved adaptation is an adaptation. What is the difference between human empathy and the cockroaches instinct to flee?

Actually it's the opposite of might makes right, because sociopathy is seen as abnormal and requiring control.

The cockroach comparison is an insipid equivocation, as no one has claimed cockroaches have developed society complex enough to require moral codes, and the only reason to make such a comparison would be out of a knee-jerk reaction.

A moral code is not the same thing as an instinct. There seems to be an instinctual impression of right and wrong, but finer distinctions seem to be cultural.

You're also conflating moral agents with empathy, congratulations on the strawman.

(May 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The cockroach comparison is an insipid equivocation, as no one has claimed cockroaches have developed society complex enough to require moral codes.

You are wrong. The atheist claim being presented is that morality is a product of evolution. When pressed to explain the response is usually that the adaptation of our species is a disposition to empathy which gives us a reproductive advantage. Where is the morality in that? Sure we form complex social structures. That also is an evolved ability.

The "morality evolved" response is trivial. What it is basically saying is that any behavior that confers a reproductive advantage to the species as a whole is moral by definition. My point is that the same can be said about cockroach survival instincts.Very often, in fact most of the time, moral behaviors require that someone go against their natural instincts. In other words, a person must also apply reason, defer to authorities, or otherwise appeal to something beyond the evolutionary mandates of human nature. Thus evolved dispositions cannot serve as an adequate foundation for morality.

---

(May 21, 2014 at 5:31 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 9:02 am)Kuribo Wrote: I get my morals from my empathy and my compassion for my fellow man..I believe that man has a biological and evolutionary imperative to help one another.....g communities did we overcome the myriad of obstacles. Therefore, compassion and empathy are hard wired in most people.

Spot on.

Trival empty rhetoric.

(May 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The cockroach comparison is an insipid equivocation, as no one has claimed cockroaches have developed society complex enough to require moral codes.

You are wrong. The atheist claim being presented is that morality is a product of evolution. When pressed to explain the response is usually that the adaptation of our species is a disposition to empathy which gives us a reproductive advantage. Where is the morality in that? Sure we form complex social structures. That also is an evolved ability.

You keep getting stuck on the phrase "Evolved Ability." Being able to piss standing up is an evolved ability. If you can't differentiate between types of behavior and believe that is a moral display of empathy, I don't know what to tell you, other than to try doing it up a pole.

You also ignored the earlier explanation to repeat the same question:

(May 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: A moral code is not the same thing as an instinct. There seems to be an instinctual impression of right and wrong, but finer distinctions seem to be cultural.

You're also conflating moral agents with empathy, congratulations on the strawman.

Reproductive advantages are not the only advantages a species can have. Cooperation benefits bipedal, relatively weak and hairless tribal creatures that would otherwise die before reproducing without help from others. And as such, tribal behavior is a basic part of human nature.

Native American tribes, even in times of war between tribes, would trade food and supplies needed to survive. If you cannot see where any inherent morality exists there, or why a basic sense of empathy is evolutionarily advantageous, again, I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to be able to grasp "moral code," "moral behavior," "empathy," or "ethics" without an appeal to authority.

Our closest relatives display moral behavior. So do other animals.

(May 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The The "morality evolved" response is trivial. What it is basically saying is that any behavior that confers a reproductive advantage to the species as a whole is moral by definition. My point is that the same can be said about cockroach survival instincts.Very often, in fact most of the time, moral behaviors require that someone go against their natural instincts. In other words, a person must also apply reason, defer to authorities, or otherwise appeal to something beyond the evolutionary mandates of human nature. Thus evolved dispositions cannot serve as an adequate foundation for morality.

I don't know why I'm surprised, but you don't understand the basics of what's being proposed, or are pretending not to so you can continue to straw man it. There is no need to defer to authorities, or point to a parent figure. The social group recognizes the difference between immoral action and moral action. We have laws written because of this, among other factors, laws of a city, county, state, and country do not exist a priori floating in space that must be appealed to.

Codifying moral codes agreed upon by the majority of the social group works to the advantage of the species. We do not have the same morality as we would in a feudal state, and the laws reflect this. We do not live by the morality laid out in the bible, because it is outdated and barbaric. Pretty strange, considering it was supposed to be divinely inspired.

(May 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

---

(May 21, 2014 at 1:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That's really just another way of saying "might makes right."

So I guess when cockroaches scurry into dark corners they are acting as moral agents? After all an evolved adaptation is an adaptation. What is the difference between human empathy and the cockroaches instinct to flee?

Actually it's the opposite of might makes right, because sociopathy is seen as abnormal and requiring control.

The cockroach comparison is an insipid equivocation, as no one has claimed cockroaches have developed society complex enough to require moral codes, and the only reason to make such a comparison would be out of a knee-jerk reaction.

---

A moral code is not the same thing as an instinct. There seems to be an instinctual impression of right and wrong, but finer distinctions seem to be cultural.

You're also conflating moral agents with empathy, congratulations on the strawman.

Not all human societies have the same or similar moral codes. However, all time passes and the world becomes more integrated the vast majority of people are coming together based on common values (except for Repubs).