Where do atheists get their morality from?

[greneknight]

I really believe CHristians who ask where atheists get their morality from are the stupidest animals on this planet. They are either stupid or they're trying to mock atheists, in which case they are still stupid.

We Christians, as I have always said, live in glass houses. We know we can't get our morality from the Bible because if you read the Bible and follow it, you will out-Hitler Hitler. You'd be the most cruel bastard on earth. In our world today, you'd be behind bars. EVERY CHRISTIAN WHO FOLLOWS BIBLICAL MORALITY WOULD BE BEHIND BARS.

That's how bad the Bible is. So, a decent Christian would never ask where atheists got their morality from because if atheists ask us that same question, we'd blush for shame!!!

Undeceived, please undeceive yourself and have some decency and shame!

[Red Celt]

We know we can't get our morality from the Bible because if you read the Bible and follow it, you will out-Hitler Hitler.

Could that be described as a Self-Godwin?

[greneknight]

We know we can't get our morality from the Bible because if you read the Bible and follow it, you will out-Hitler Hitler.

Could that be described as a Self-Godwin?

What does Self-Godwin mean?

[Cato]

According to the Old Testament God was with Adam and Eve and the Hebrew people since the beginning of time.

Anyone who sincerely believes the OT and accepts that the solar system, let alone humans, has been around since the beginning of time is fucking stupid. People that believe this shit shouldn't be allowed to benefit from science. One way to ensure this would be to drop your naked ass in the middle of the Antarctic Desert so that you can ignore the benefits of human achievement, including morality, and rely solely on the power of your fucking god. Have fun chewing frozen manna.

[Simon Moon]

Could that be described as a Self-Godwin?

What does Self-Godwin mean?

"Godwin's Law".

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[citation needed] The Reductio ad Hitlerum attempts to refute a view because it has been held by Hitler. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or not. Precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

[Undeceived]

In case you hadn't noticed, we are primates too and your assumption that altruism is impossible for atheists is (1) personally insulting, and (2) completely incorrect.

You misunderstood me. Altruism is not impossible for atheists because they are created by God with a moral code like anybody. I argued that altruism would be impossible if humans evolved. Perhaps I should ask you: how does altruism fit with evolution? Be careful in your answer, because many scientists believe true altruism does not fit at all. Take Richard Dawkins:

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising."

Every 'altruistic' action he mentions reflects back to the individual. In other words, I do nice things to 1) get nice things done back, 2) have my or similar genes passed on, 3) receive fame or 4) because am persuaded by other people who do good for the first three reasons. Are not 1) and 3) selfish? Is not 2) narcissistic programming, akin to the ability of a robot? Dawkins means actions appear altruistic, but the gene is inherently selfish. Do you think morals are still morals even if followed for selfish or robotic reasons? If so, your definition of moral is different from a Christian's.

[jonb]

instead of endlessly saying the same things over and over to dumb cristians you may like listening to this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01mk5nk

[genkaus]

Do you think morals are still morals even if followed for selfish or robotic reasons?

Ofcourse. Selfishness is a moral virtue.

If so, your definition of moral is different from a Christian's.

Yeah, right. Like you all aren't just doing it to get into heaven - you know, the ultimate imaginary benefit.

[Undeceived]

Yeah, right. Like you all aren't just doing it to get into heaven - you know, the ultimate imaginary benefit.

That's for each Christian to answer. But the Bible makes it clear: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works." Ephesians 2:8-9

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The bottom line is, we don't know where we get our morality from.

All we do is appeal to phenomena that sounds like it might explain morality, and we confidently declare that we have a source of morality and it is good.

But really, at the end of the day we have no scientific evidence for it. Just call our bluff and watch us squirm.