All This Talk of 'Morals'

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

I think most atheists have known some decent Christian people, though, so I doubt he wants to make that argument. Which means that Christianity doesn't necessarily make people pricks, and he could have been a decent person as a Christian if he had approached it differently.

Agreed, regardless of colour, creed, sexuality,faith or anything else, people will always be people

[freedomfromforum]

---

I don't think he's saying that at all, John. I think he means:


It's his experience.

---

Um sorry, atheism is not a moral code, it is merely a statement of position on one subject. If atheists forget that we are part of evolution, and not above it, we can and will do the very horrible things we accuse religion of doing. There is only one species and all of us are capable of the full range of human actions, good or bad.

I never suggested that atheism is a moral code - I know it is not. I'm pointing out that 'morals' exist WITHOUT codes, BECAUSE of evolution.

[Sword of Christ]

Morality doesn't exist because of evolution, not human morality anyway seeing our behavior isn't geared toward individual genetic survival particularly. It's based more on genuine compassion for others.

[freedomfromforum]

In short, my ‘morals’ have improved exponentially since I have identified myself as atheist.

If you're being good for the sake it because you feel like it and you're not "trying to impress God" then you're ironically closer to the Christian ideal of what you should ought to be doing. Perhaps God though atheism would do you some good.

"Should" and "ought" according to whom? Because as far as I can tell. I'm the one dictating my 'morals' now, and not god who is a divisive prick.

---

Morality doesn't exist because of evolution..

Support for this claim please.

[rexbeccarox]

I'm about to fuck up my own moral code and beat up a couple of Christians. Goddamn. Why is it that you people have to be so negative all the time? Is being good for the sake of being good so threatening to your religion that you have to shit on a perfectly nice story?

[freedomfromforum]

I'm about to fuck up my own moral code and beat up a couple of Christians. Goddamn. Why is it that you people have to be so negative all the time? Is being good for the sake of being good so threatening to your religion that you have to shit on a perfectly nice story?

Yup, it's all they have to cling to. Although, my posts are a bit provocative in matters concerning the lunacy of theists.

I wonder if he does that on purpose?

[John V]

I'm about to fuck up my own moral code and beat up a couple of Christians. Goddamn. Why is it that you people have to be so negative all the time? Is being good for the sake of being good so threatening to your religion that you have to shit on a perfectly nice story?

Oh please, he's the one who had to take a shot at religion instead of just saying he's treating people better lately.

[freedomfromforum]

I'm about to fuck up my own moral code and beat up a couple of Christians. Goddamn. Why is it that you people have to be so negative all the time? Is being good for the sake of being good so threatening to your religion that you have to shit on a perfectly nice story?

Oh please, he's the one who had to take a shot at religion instead of just saying he's treating people better lately.

I was multi-tasking by reporting both.

[Brian37]

Morality doesn't exist because of evolution, not human morality anyway seeing our behavior isn't geared toward individual genetic survival particularly. It's based more on genuine compassion for others.

Dude, compassion and empathy exist outside your pet god claim. Get a clue, every good thing and bad thing we do to each other and for each other is a product of evolution.

Hate to burst your bubble but cruelty does work to get to the point of reproduction.

Evolution isn't about good or bad winning, just making offspring.

The good side of evolution is that we are capable of compassion. The bad side is that you ignore the reality that evolution doesn't care how we get there.

[Sword of Christ]

"Should" and "ought" according to whom? Because as far as I can tell. I'm the one dictating my 'morals' now, and not god who is a divisive prick.

If you decided that killing and eating babies was moral would that then be morality equivalent to the current opinion you now have? You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word. At most it's just a social fashion and a trend and whatever people decide is moral will be moral.

Support for this claim please.

If you want to say it would be evolutionary disadvantageous how about if you stick to eating handicapped children from birth so maintaining the genetic strength within the overall gene pool? From a purely objective evolutionary stance this would be beneficial. However you still know it's wrong.