Where do atheists get their morality from?

[greneknight]

Notice something? Vinny changed the subject. Vinny, are you a real atheist. Would you blaspheme God? You can ignore Sauron and the Pied Piper of Hamelin. I suggest you target your abusive blasphemy on ONLY "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit". If you are a true atheist, blasphemy shouldn't be a problem.

I'll do it on two conditions.

I'm positive some of you are right about Vinny. He's a Christian. Why would an atheist need two conditions before bla[/size]spheming God? Vinny speaks like a believer and acts like a believer. What speaks like a believer and acts like a believer but claims not to be a believer? A lying believer. But actually, Vinny hasn't really said he's an atheist, has he?

[liam]

By helping the crippled members of your group and nursing them back to health , you are ensuring the survival of alot of genes of which you would share. This is still natural seletion and alot of the pack animals do this ( i certainly know Wolves feed and care for thier injured)

yup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

is this linked to intraracial sympathy over interracial sympathy, i.e human life > animal life?

[Haydn2]

By helping the crippled members of your group and nursing them back to health , you are ensuring the survival of alot of genes of which you would share. This is still natural seletion and alot of the pack animals do this ( i certainly know Wolves feed and care for thier injured)

yup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

is this linked to intraracial sympathy over interracial sympathy, i.e human life > animal life?

Not just linked , this is actually what i am saying.
Be it human life > animal life , but even My tribe > your tribe ,
my family > your family .
Each taking a step further in importance as more genes are involved.

[Red Celt]

But you're still not getting it right on reciprocity. Because it's easy to talk about where reciprocal moral norms work, and the people it protects: conscious, self-aware moral agents.

See... I threw the word "reciprocity" at you, hoping that you'd understand what I meant. Instead, you seemed to have fallen back on an established understanding in your own mind.

Take the word reciprocity... and now allow for the fact that we're social animals. It isn't a one-on-one relationship between two moral agents. It is a societal relationship. No man is an island; each moral agent has interests above and beyond their own self. I won't murder your child/granny/partner if you don't murder mine.

My main objection with your claim is that, somehow, atheists have this huge problem (the lack of objective morality) that we should be seriously concerned about. Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 100,000 - 250,000 years (give or take, based on whichever expert you're relying on). Religion has been around for... how long? A fraction of that time.

Prior to religion, a whole lot of atheists managed perfectly well in the absence of objective morality. As social animals, morality evolved with us (and our predecessors, far back into other species of human).

When the big bang happened, "right" and "wrong" weren't created. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is a developmental process of social animals. And, as societies change, the concept of "right" and "wrong" also changes. Things that we deem immoral were far from it in antiquity.

This isn't a problem. This is evolution.

[ib.me.ub]

Not just linked , this is actually what i am saying.
Be it human life > animal life , but even My tribe > your tribe ,
my family > your family .

Each taking a step further in importance as more genes are involved.

You would hope that some humans have intellectually evolved past that point, if only in theory.

[Haydn2]

Not just linked , this is actually what i am saying.
Be it human life > animal life , but even My tribe > your tribe ,
my family > your family .

Each taking a step further in importance as more genes are involved.

You would hope that some humans have intellectually evolved past that point, if only in theory.

What do you mean intellectually evolved past that point . Why would that happen?
Our evolution intellectually was integral to our continuation and as a by-product that comes with such intelligence , is us questioning the root of our morality . Would it be disappointing if morality is just another instinct of survival? Not for me , i couldn't care less.

[DeistPaladin]

I will slow my rate of posting on these forums. Much to the relief of the administration of these fora and the atheists who have become so troubled by my presence, whether for good reasons or bad.

Remember to practice what your Lord Jesus taught you in Luke 10:10

'...go into its streets and say, "Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you!"'

From the Brick Testament http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_lif...10-11.html

[downbeatplumb]

Most of your post seemed well reasoned, I don't disagree with most of what you said. I do have a problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, in part because they are ad hoc, but also because watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other. A lot of social animals get along fine with very little indications of benevolence toward each other so why should we think such benevolence is evolved in humans?

---

When western scrub jays encounter a dead bird, they call out to one another and stop foraging.

The jays then often fly down to the dead body and gather around it, scientists have discovered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19421217

You were saying....

[Anomalocaris]

How far does everyone think "Vinny"'s blingy shades will go up his ass?

[Atom]

Well, I have discovered who looks after straw supply and constructions around here. In principle I have responses I should make to Vinny but the posts are seven pages back and other people seem to have covered off his obtuseness fairly well.

---

It appears that stephenmills1000 has disappeared, perhaps not wanting to answer the questions I raised in the last few paragraphs here.

Are you now the person with whom to speak, Atom? If so, would you mind taking up those questions on stephenmills behalf?

I suspect he went to sleep and attended Church. hock:

---

Most of your post seemed well reasoned, I don't disagree with most of what you said. I do have a problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, in part because they are ad hoc, but also because watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other. A lot of social animals get along fine with very little indications of benevolence toward each other so why should we think such benevolence is evolved in humans?

---

When western scrub jays encounter a dead bird, they call out to one another and stop foraging.

The jays then often fly down to the dead body and gather around it, scientists have discovered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19421217

You were saying....

Maybe the Jays like eating maggots or flies. What do you think they were doing?