what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[max-greece]

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.

I cannot decide if you are simply not getting it or trying to put up a straw-man you can easily knock down.

Why are you talking about empathy in isolation? Why are you ignoring the other genetic traits of reciprocation and a sense of fairness? Why are you equating this directly with breeding success? Why are you ignoring the choice element in implementing empathy in your comparison with the cockroach?

Once again then:

We are intelligent social creatures. We have evolved to strive to work together and this carries biological advantage. The tools we inherit to do this include empathy, reciprocation and a sense of fairness.

From this we have developed societies with complex moral systems - some better, some worse. Societies with deeply flawed rigid moral systems don't survive long term and are replaced. Societies with moral systems that allow development tend to do better. We celebrate those that push the boundaries and force society to confront its "unfairness" (think Wiliiam Wilberforce, Rossa Parks and so on).

Our complex moral systems are unique to us. Our initial drivers (empathy, reciprocation and fairness) are not. We see examples of the drivers in other species (dolphins saving drowning people, elephants helping herds of wildebeest in distress, Stumpy the killer whale etc.)

There is simply no mystery here. Is it that upsetting that God's supposed role has been usurped yet again?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Spot on.

Trival empty rhetoric.

In your opinion.

Not in mine.

Also rich coming from someone that can substantiate their view that morality has been imparted from an external entity with precisely zero evidence.

[Whateverist]

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.

No there are many behaviors which have survival advantage which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality .. the suckling impulse of babies, propensity to pursue fatty and sweet foods, planning cooperative ventures with others, etc.

I don't see why you think you have an advantage here. We point to evolution as giving rise to moral feeling and choices. You point to god. We can just as well ask you whether what god demands is moral because he demands it? Would Abraham have been morally upright to kill his son to please god? If god calls for human sacrifices are those also therefore morally good?

So long as you see something else as underpinning morality one can ask whether morality is anything that a god says it is or which has survival value. But both miss the point.

Morality only has purchase within a society of like minded individuals. If a space ship lands and an alien hops out we wouldn't be justified to assume what counts as decorum for us will overlap what they expect. Likewise there can be subgroups of humans with behavior expectations which don't exactly map our own. What is interesting is that there is as much overlap as there is. You want to say that points to god. I just say that it is because we are more alike than we are different.

You don't have any moral high ground to stand on here, except in your own mind.

[Lek]

Someone on another Atheist chat gave me a 'cheat sheet' which had all the answers to what to say when Christians ask stuff long time ago, but i lost it.

but seems frequently christian people tell me that without god we are all douches and if it wasn't for god there would be no good in mankind - so what do we say again for that?

sometimes i feel like 99% of people are pretty mean and it feels pretty spiritual when someone is nice to me, but i dont agree that without Christianity people are bad cus i know lotta nice people who aren't Christians. and seems to me like people on christian forums are the most mean, they don't use bad words but the things they say are much more mean IMO

It seems kind of strange that you need a cheat sheet to answer questions about why you are a moral person. I think it's something that you should determine for yourself. By the way, if you want to see some mean atheists go back and look at most of the threads that I've posted on.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why are you talking about empathy in isolation? Why are you ignoring the other genetic traits of reciprocation and a sense of fairness? Why are you equating this directly with breeding success?

Maybe because you do. As you also said...

Societies with deeply flawed rigid moral systems don't survive long term and are replaced. Societies with moral systems that allow development tend to do better.

The theory of biological evolution is about, and only about, reproductive advantage. In terms of evolution, empathy, reciprocation, and fairness have only survival value. For other values, like moral or aesthetic values, people must look elsewhere.

We are intelligent social creatures. We have evolved to strive to work together and this carries biological advantage. The tools we inherit to do this include empathy, reciprocation and a sense of fairness.

I agree. Human beings have all these features. Humans also have opposable thumbs, color vision, and walk upright.

From this we have developed societies with complex moral systems - some better, some worse.

By what basis do you determine which moral systems are better or worse? If you say that one is more fair or more just than another, then you are saying that one is morally superior to the other. Doing so either relies of self-reference or an appeal to some meta-morality system (which means the original systems being evaluated were not sufficient). The question remains unanswered. Humans may make rules of behavior but what is it about those rules that makes them moral? Having the capacity to make rules/codes is much different from those codes/rules actually being moral.

The OP asks if there are non-theistic foundations for morality. Looking to evolution fails.

...there are many behaviors which have survival advantage which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality ..

My point exactly. The common feature of all evolved features is that they confer a reproductive advantage. To have an adequate moral theory one needs a way to distinguish those evolved features related to morality from those that are not. And that requires that you have a moral standard already in place that you can use for making such a distinction.

We point to evolution as giving rise to moral feeling and choices.

There is some ambiguity in this statement, but I will try to address what I take it to mean...A wide range of impulses, instincts, dispositions, and abilities contribute to moral choices. A moral system serves as a guide for balancing competing impulses, like current desires versus long-term benefits or emotional responses versus rational reflection. Evolution gives you the underlying considerations, but not the ultimate goal of the moral system nor the best solution for achieving that goal.

Morality only has purchase within a society of like-minded individuals.

More precisely, the implementation of a behavior codes/rules regardless of whether is comes by decree, by social compact, or individual conscience is not grounds for determining whether one system is better or worse than its alternatives.

Personally, I am not fond of “moral systems” because such systems end up being either self-referential or devolve into basic compulsion by force. I see it more as a matter of what someone considers most to be desired and choosing wisely to achieve that desire.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Why are you talking about empathy in isolation? Why are you ignoring the other genetic traits of reciprocation and a sense of fairness? Why are you equating this directly with breeding success?

Maybe because you do. As you also said...

Societies with deeply flawed rigid moral systems don't survive long term and are replaced. Societies with moral systems that allow development tend to do better.

The theory of biological evolution is about, and only about, reproductive advantage. In terms of evolution, empathy, reciprocation, and fairness have only survival value. For other values, like moral or aesthetic values, people must look elsewhere.

You keep droning on with unsupported assertions that no one but you believes, desperately strawmanning and equivocating, and pretend no one notices.

It's pathetic. Support your assertions or stop talking.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your accusations are demonstrably false. I set Max's quotes side by side and showed that my response revealed the inconsistency of his position.

You're a clown. The only reason you're not on my ignore list is because you remind me how easily atheism can warp weak minds.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Your accusations are demonstrably false. I set Max's quotes side by side and showed that my response revealed the inconsistency of his position.

You're a clown. The only reason you're not on my ignore list is because you remind me how easily atheism can warp weak minds.

No problem, I'm content to call Chad out on bullshit and pseudo intellectual garble, while he cowers and hides with "Alpha Male."

In the meantime, let's all take a moment to realize the depth of Chad's sexual repression:

Your accusations are demonstrably false. I set Max's quotes side by side and showed that my response revealed the inconsistency of his position.

Why are you talking about empathy in isolation? Why are you ignoring the other genetic traits of reciprocation and a sense of fairness? Why are you equating this directly with breeding success?

Maybe because you do. As you also said...

Societies with deeply flawed rigid moral systems don't survive long term and are replaced. Societies with moral systems that allow development tend to do better.

The theory of biological evolution is about, and only about, reproductive advantage. In terms of evolution, empathy, reciprocation, and fairness have only survival value. For other values, like moral or aesthetic values, people must look elsewhere.

He actually conflates "Societies with moral systems that allow development tend to do better" with "societies that allow more sexual reproduction."

See if you all can wrap the "warped, weak minds" he accuses you of having around that one.


He also fails evolution 101:

The theory of biological evolution is about, and only about, reproductive advantage.

Sexual selection is a "special case" of natural selection ... Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual's survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

[kılıç_mehmet]

Us...Well, do you actually representative community and a universal declaration regarding "atheist morals" or rather "secular morals" or whatever you call them?
But most morals are merely common sense-based.
I guess you may say that most morals are merely based on common sense, the very basics to allow a society to function.

[Statler Waldorf]

I don't think beauty is absolutely flexible anymore than morality is. In either case, not just anything goes even though there is enormous flexibility in expression. Partly owing to individual differences but also in part because every situation is unique and impacts individuals in a differing ways.

Why cannot anything go? Based upon what you have stated thus far I do not see how you are arriving at this conclusion.

Are you being humorous deliberately?

A skosh.

If moral absolutes is the best a person can do why should I fault them or attempt to change them. It is absolutely there call.

So if they believe that it is absolutely morally good to force you to convert to Islam or else kill you you’d be completely fine with that because morals are relative and they would not actually be doing anything morally wrong?

Surely you're not actually dense enough to call demonstrable evidence of secular people having a better grasp of morality than Christians "babbling out of left field," then turn around and crap out a presuppositional platitude that "Morality ain't possible without no Jesus, mhmhm."

Is this supposed to be an argument?
1. Christians believe that we all live in a Universe where God exists so pointing out that atheists are capable of behaving morally is a waste of time. “God does not have to exist in order for me to do good deeds, I do not even believe in God and I do good deeds all the time” is as silly as saying, “Air does not have to exist in order for me to breathe, I do not even believe in air and I breathe just fine.”
2. Atheists being underrepresented in the prison community is not demonstrable evidence that atheists have a better grasp of morality than anyone else; it is only evidence that atheists are underrepresented in prison. So even if that argument were relevant it’d still fail.

Are you really this stupid?

I do not know, do you get destroyed in debates by stupid people often?

Oh no: You misunderstand. The point was that secular people don't murder, or commit violent crimes, or end up in prison nearly as often as Christians do; and yet you somehow think this doesn't apply to your "Morality comes from God" argument.

It doesn’t apply. Additionally, as I have correctly pointed out a person group being underrepresented in prison does not mean that person group is somehow more moral than the others. That’s a non-sequitur.

It does?! Well, why hasn't it reached the Christians?

All men are incapable of doing anything good without God’s grace. You can thank God for your good deeds.

Really? You don't think the fact that there are more Christians in prison than any other group, or that secular countries boast lower crime rates and decreased violence demonstrates anything?

It doesn’t.

Did you not claim "morality comes from God," and unless you're talking about the God of the Sikahs or the B'hai, your argument falls flat on its face before it even gets out the door.

Morality does come from God. You’re conflating the term morality with a person behaving morally. That’s really funny.

You really think that if a group of people is overrepresented in prisons it means that group of people is more immoral than the others?

Oh, really? Do you have anything to support that claim? No? How about the statistics that clearly show a majority of Christians DO opt out of moral imperatives, and end up in prison?

A majority of Christians end up in prison? You’re saying that over half of the 2.4 billion Christians on Earth have ended up in prison? Those must be some huge prisons. You’re priceless.

I do not buy in to your presuppositions, if you can't support them logically there's no reason to

The fact that you keep committing the red herring fallacy and apparently believe that 1.2 billion Christians alive today have been in prison means you do not care about logic or the facts.

The guy making unsupported assertions is whining about logical fallacies? Referring to the age of the book because the morality contained within was culturally relevant in that day and age, and still contains bronze-age values you like to skim over and pretend aren't there.

Trust me, you’re doing an excellent job supporting my arguments. You cannot present a logically consistent or coherent definition of morality without using God’s existence. It’s clear.
Your fallacious appeals to novelty are just as irrational the second time you made them as they were the first by the way.

Moreover, the ideas you've attempted to claim as unique to Christianity, like The Golden Rule and The 10 Commandments were stolen from other cultures and other traditions.

Also irrelevant and factually incorrect to boot; you’re not batting a very good average.

Put another way: I'm not saying your source material is outdated, I'm saying large parts of it are stolen from are moral traditions far predating Christianity, and the claim "All Morals Come From My God" is farcical. Your God did not invent morality, your God can't even follow basic moral principles as illustrated throughout both of your holy books.

Of course Christianity is founded upon a moral system that predates it, the entire Old Testament of the Bible predates Christ. What scriptures did you think Jesus preached from? I really wish you possessed a better grasp of the facts before you tried to debate such matters.

The clam that all morality comes from God, and ethical behavior cannot exist without God, which you have still failed to support. You made the claim, you must support your claim. This is very basic, why are you having such a hard time with it? Because you believe your God is the source of all morality, therefore everyone should agree with you? That's not special pleading, that's straight-up special Walmart screaming tantrum in line because the guy in front of you won't buy your case of beer and the new Pokemon card set for you.

My claim has been very well supported by your apparent inability to define a logically coherent and consistent morality without using God’s existence. That’s how negative claims work. The claim, “Pigs cannot naturally fly” is supported by the fact that every pig that has tried to fly has failed. I am going to have to start charging you for the lessons in basic rational reasoning.

There's nothing to refute. Thump your bible and howl about all morality originating from God. Until you can support that claim, you're just another noisy, irrational loon.

I am perfectly content with my argument standing un-refuted. I figured you would at the very least muster some sort of portly thought out attempt at refuting it, but I guess I overestimated your abilities.

What is this, fucking amateur hour? You think your unsupported conclusion is fooling anyone but you?

You’ve helped support it, and for that I thank you.

What are the logical premises leading to that conclusion? I've asked you many times to provide them, and yet you have failed utterly to do so. Why is that?

Actually this is the first time you’ve asked for any logical premises. You’ve done a lot of whining but that’s been about it. I am using the same reasoning I use to support the claims that pigs cannot naturally fly and that people cannot breathe without air. I have never seen a pig fly nor have I seen a person breathe without air. I also have never seen any atheist define morality in a logically defensible manner that is consistent with their atheism. Rejecting my claims about morality but accepting the claims about pigs and air would be special pleading.

Because you have nothing but a claim.

A claim as well supported as the claim, “Pigs cannot naturally fly.” So I guess morality can exist without God existing only when pigs fly.

Didn't work out so well for all those Christians in prison, did it.

Depends on when they became Christians doesn’t it? Now you are committing the ad hominem fallacy. Christians could be the worst people on Earth and it still would not change the fact that you need God to exist in order to logically define any act as morally right or wrong. If an adulterer says adultery is wrong it does not change the truth of his claim any. This is very basic level stuff.

Where? What logic? How many times do you need to be asked to support the claim <without God there can be no morality> before it becomes abundantly clear to even you that it's an unsupported assertion, and calling it "logical" without any good reason to support it is circular?

All atheistic attempts at defining morality in a logically consistent and coherent manner have failed horribly so it’s completely logical to conclude that God must exist in order for morality to exist. If you have a way of refuting this argument then by all means present it. We both know you cannot do so.

Answer what? If you can't support your claim, there's nothing to disprove!

My conclusion is well supported by the evidence. I’ll ask again the question you dodged. How do you know what is right and wrong? Simply by what you feel?

It's just you making dumb fucking assertions that aren't connected to reality.

If my argument is not connected to reality then you should be able to define a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality that could exist in a purely material Universe so by all means let’s see it.

Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Yup, that’s called a prophecy. Predicting something will happen in the future is not the same thing as giving a moral commandment.

2 Kings 8:12 - And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

You’re proving my point! Why is Elisha weeping? “Because I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel. You will set on fire their fortresses, and you will kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women.” How can you say the Bible morally condones this when it clearly calls it evil? You’re so small time it’s an embarrassment to atheism and I am beginning to suspect that you’re really a Christian posing as the village atheist on here just to be funny.

2 Kings 15:16 - Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that [were] therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not [to him], therefore he smote [it; and] all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Why did you leave off verses 17 and 18? I think I know! Could it be because it clearly says…

“17 In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem the son of Gadi began to reign over Israel, and he reigned ten years in Samaria. 18 And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.”

So an evil King kills babies and this is supposed to prove what? Again, I wish you were not so Biblically ignorant.

Sucks you can't support your claim, though. You keep on repeating it, and saying it's logical, but can't support it.

Why do I have to support a claim that you beautifully support for me?

Sniveling and backpedaling has no bearing on relevance. If you can't support your argument by anything other than bald assertion, tap out.

If you cannot refute my argument then tap out.

Incorrect, your argument lacks support, and relies on presupposition. The statistics refute the plausibility of such a claim even being advanced.

I do not think the word presupposition means what you think it means. Secondly, your statistics do nothing of the sort. Atheists behave morally because God exists.

What argument? *Squak* "Ain't no morals without God! *Squak!* is not an argument.

That’s not my argument; my argument is that defining a logically consistent and coherent definition of morality is impossible without God. If you disagree then by all means give me one. If you think pigs can fly then by all means show me one. Whining will get you nowhere with me.

Then you don't have a leg to stand on. You have a conclusion that is not supported, by anything other than your personal enthusiastic acceptance of anything apologetics shovels out.

If my argument is unsupported then there should be logically coherent and consistent definitions of morality that do not require that God exists right? Well show me one. This is so simple; it’s embarrassing you have so much difficulty following it.

I've answered this question a couple of times now. In a way, you just have too. Some humans kill, rape and steal. This is exceptional behaviour and therefore not the norm. How many killings, rapes and robberies have you committed? I'm batting zero on that score - I'd expect you are the same.

So normal behavior is what is moral and exceptional behavior is immoral? So homosexuality is immoral?

Genesis? I have to ask at this point - are you actually a YEC? If you are then this conversation just became a bit pointless, however:

Why would it become pointless? You’ll discuss morality with people who believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, and floating axe heads but God forbid they disagree with you on the age of the Earth? That seems rather silly.

Farming started about 10,000 years ago. It requires considerable investment of time and energy and is done in the expectation that the farmer(s) will reap the rewards.

You think humans have been around for 200,000 years but only figured out that they can plant seeds to grow your own food 10,000 years ago?

If your version of humanity were correct they would not have that expectation. They would be murdered and robbed as soon as their crop was ready by bigger stronger individuals. Even if they were foolish enough to have the expectation, wrongly, they would have been murdered and robbed to their surprise. Farming would have died out. To farm would be akin to a death sentence. It didn't. It wasn't. History began.

My version of humanity? My version of humanity is owned by the God who forbids murder and theft so of course farming would have been prosperous. I think you are confusing when I am playing devil’s advocate concerning your espoused definition of morality with my actual definition of morality. It seems like if what you were saying is true that humans could have still stolen and murdered one another for the 190,000 years prior to the advent of farming.

Intra-species murder is VERY rare amongst other species.

I do not believe that is the case at all. Chimps will kill other chimps quite often, lions will kill any cub that was conceived by another male lion, squirrels will cannibalize their own, and so on. Appealing to the animal kingdom for your definition of morality is going to render all acts permissible because we observe all sorts of behaviors in animals.

Rape is also very rare but not as rare. The cooperative instincts apply to the group but when 2 groups come into contact there are 2 choices. Cooperate or war. Of the 2 cooperate appears to work better. In modern parlance cooperation is trade.

This sort of pragmatic approach to morality just is not defensible. If certain behaviors did not provide a purpose we would not observe thriving species engaging in them so all behaviors can be stipulated to be morally good, it completely ignores the intentions of the moral agent, and there is no way to defend how you know that morality is actually defined in this way at all because you’re simply stipulating it to be the case.

This is where, if you are a YEC, we have a problem with further discussion. Religion is a fairly recent phenomenon. Humanity (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) got by without it for about 70,000 years.

According to your timelines humans got by without farming for 190,000 years so now is farming not a valuable practice either? You cannot have it both ways.

This is not to say religion may not carry an evolutionary benefit - strengthening group identity, for example. But as with many evolutionary developments there are good and bad things associated with it. One of these is the strengthening of division between groups.

Now you seem to be appealing to a concept of good and bad that is defined completely differently. I thought that good behaviors were simply those that provided a survival advantage to the species? Then how could religion be bad since it obviously does just this because the vast majority of the organisms who make up the most intelligent species on earth practice religion?

There are many examples of evolutionary change bringing costs. There are also examples of temporary benefit that ultimately become dis-advantageous. I would argue religion is in this category.

How could you argue this when the majority of people practice it? That actually puts not practicing religion in the same category of rare and apparently immoral behaviors as murder, rape, and theft.

I cannot help what you believe. As I have already stated murder, theft and so on are the minority positions.

As are homosexuality and atheism.

My bad - no other species wages war on itself. One species of ant may attack another but not, as far as I know, one of the same species.

I think that’s still factually inaccurate. One colony of ants will fight with another colony who is occupying the same area regardless of species similarities or differences.

Most pack carnivores will wage war with one another…

Lions commit infanticide - true. But this is not a moral issue. I never claimed lions were moral. They work on instinct. Lions only commit infanticide under certain circumstances - when the old male leader of the pride has been replaced by a new one. The new one then kills the remaining off-spring of the old lion and the females respond by immediately coming into season. That way the new lion maximizes his chance of continuing his genetic line. As long as the new alpha male lion is in place no further infanticide will occur.

What? Why did you insist on appealing to what animals do and do not do if none of it has any moral bearing on humans? I am confused. Are you saying that moral imperatives only apply to humans?

I am saying the function of morality, or probably the founding principles of morality (empathy, reciprocation and fairness) are there to maximize the chances of species survival. I doubt you could expand that to "any action" without coming upon exceptions.

This seems to be the naturalistic fallacy; it is fallacious to make normative claims (which is what morality is) by simply pointing to the way things are.

How would you even go about proving that? I'd work on the basis that Stalin killing some 40 million of the Russian people makes the question redundant.

Most Russians today view Stalin as some sort of national hero.

The basic standard is empathy, reciprocation and fairness. How actions compare to those determines whether an act is good or bad. Will there be grey areas? Obviously - its one of the reasons morality varies so much from one culture to another.

Why are those the standards and how do you know that those are the standards?

No - empathy, reciprocation and fairness.

What do you mean by that? A person can have an excellent grasp of empathy and still do horrific things to other people. I highly doubt most rapists would themselves want to be raped. Why should someone reciprocate when they can just take what they want? How are you defining fairness? What’s the standard?

Stalin was a malfunctioning individual by the standard measures (empathy, reciprocation and fairness.) The lesson to learn is how to stop individuals like him coming to power.

A malfunctioning individual who died the most powerful man on Earth? That hardly sounds like a problem for Stalin.

Your justification for God makes him even more useless than I would. How does it benefit anyone that Stalin is punished in the afterlife?

I take comfort in knowing that Stalin got justice for his evil deeds and many of his victims will be glorified in the afterlife. In your world he got off scot-free and his victims died horrible deaths only to become worm food.

Why did God let Stalin be borne in the first place.

So He can be glorified in his ultimate damnation of those who are wicked and in the redemption of those He predestined to give mercy to.

Was Stalin's free will (I am pre-supposing your argument here) worth the lives of 40 million Russians?

The Bible does not teach that we have free will.

“14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”- Romans 9:14-25 (ESV)

I'm going to chime in with my first post. I don't know if it's been mentioned already as I don't have patience to read the whole thread, but I think there is a evolutionary source of morality as well.

For example for a social species such as ours, it is beneficial for our survival if we can be accepted into the social group or tribe or pack or whatever. And so a mechanism has evolved in our brains that make us feel good when we do altruistic acts and feel bad when we do things that that are detrimental to the group.

Traits for behaviors that are harmful to the group (such murder, or greed) will lead you to be excluded from the group and decrease your survival chances. And traits for behaviors that are beneficial to the group (such as sharing food, or looking after someone) will make you more accepted into the group, raising your survival chances of yourself and the group and increasing your chances of passing on your good morality genes you could say. You know what I mean?

Welcome! Yes this has already been mentioned and it’s really just the genetic fallacy. Pointing to the origin of a belief or system of thought does nothing to support or erode the validity or soundness of that belief or system of thought. Not only this but this sort of thinking would render any act done to another society as morally good. Genocide and Antebellum slavery would be morally good acts under this system.

Bur if the Christian doesn't believe in evolution in the first place then this answer isn't going to be much good.

I’ll tend to grant the atheist evolution just for the sake of the argument because as I have pointed out it does not really resolve the problem in the atheist’s conceptual scheme.

It's a simple logical deduction, Stat; what, does the idea that someone might have reasons for being moral frighten you? The question you have to ask when considering moral action is "what would my world look like if everyone was allowed to do this?" And you don't consider it from your perspective alone, because you aren't the only living thing and morality isn't just about what you want, but from the perspective of living beings. Why should inflicting pointless suffering be immoral? Well, because a world in which we allow everyone to inflict pointless suffering is a world that's demonstrably worse off for each individual person. As it stands, most of us at least know somebody who is a victim of crime, imagine that played out in a world where there aren't any restrictions on it.

So now any act that would harm society if every person engaged in it is immoral? Seems to me that you’d have to argue that homosexuality is immoral given your definition of morality since if everyone only practiced homosexuality then the species would die off completely. Choosing not to have children would also be immoral right? Abortion would be immoral because if everyone aborted their children we’d go extinct right? Using birth control would be immoral because if we all did it the species would not be sustainable right? Euthanasia would then also be immoral because if we all chose to be euthanized we’d go extinct as well right? We could really illustrate the absurdity of this definition by pointing out that being a musician, filmmaker, or artist would also be immoral since if everyone had these careers we’d all starve to death. Again, I doubt you even agree with the conclusions of your own arbitrary definition of morality.

The sociopaths and psychopaths that so often get brought up in these discussions, the "what about those people who like hurting people?" folks that you theists think are some clever counter to the idea of context-based ethics, they aren't representative of the entire population, and more importantly, bringing them up misses the point anyway, because I'm not claiming that morality is derived from any one person's enjoyment of a given situation.

They are relevant because your definition of morality is completely arbitrary meaning the sociopath is just as justified in obeying his own arbitrary definition of morality as you are in obeying yours. Just look at this thread, five different atheists have all given five very different definitions of morality. Which one is right?

There are probably people out there who'd take great pleasure from killing people; unfortunately for them, we live in a reality that isn't just some solipsistic fantasy, and their ability to seek out the things they enjoy must necessarily stop when it starts impacting others because that too would effectively hamstring the social landscape we've erected for ourselves.

Why must they stop though? Is this just a might makes right sort of system where you are just going to force them to stop because you think they ought to?

In a sheer potential sense, yes, I suppose so. However, within the system I'm discussing any harm done to a living being is to be avoided, making this a moot point. That said, you probably agree with me: in a binary situation where you have to save one person and let another die, would you save a healthy man, or one in a permanent coma? Would you save ten citizens, or ten life-sentenced prisoners?

Well the first situation would depend on who was who and in the second situation there is a moral distinction between the people involved rather than a sentient or intellectual distinction which seems to be what you are valuing.

I mention that one in particular because I know your next move will be to propose a scenario to me in which we harm a certain group of people to advantage another, as though this will be a problem for what I'm saying. I hope to obviate having to explain yet another element of this system to you.

It’s interesting that you for some unknown reason feel that you should not have to explain a system to me that is completely arbitrary and stipulated. If I am making up a story I am not going to get frustrated if you do not know how it ends. Your system is completely different than the other atheistic systems espoused in this thread and you have not even told me how you know this is how morality is actually defined.

Yes, and what's actually happening when those athletes train is that their muscles are tearing and being replaced by additional muscle tissue; it's not exactly the happiest of things in the world, now is it?

So is it morally wrong for a coach to inflict such pain on his athletes?

And there are Babylonian and Egyptian iterations of the golden rule that seem to predate the old testament by quite a margin.

I am not aware of any, but it does not matter either way.

Did you ask a question? You just said that what I was saying sounded familiar.

“Secondly, you’re assuming that we ought to treat others the way we want to be treated (sounds familiar). Why? I see no basis for this. If someone can inflict pain on others and better their own situation then why not? Who are you to tell them they have to worsen their own situation just so not to inflict pain on others?”- SW

And again, morality isn't about one person's benefit. The fact that I'd have a hard time convincing Stalin to step down from power for the benefit of others isn't a black mark against my reasoning; people can behave immorally, what a shocker! The fact that some people will decide to act immorally for their own personal benefit is no more a rebuttal to what I'm saying as it is a rebuttal of your own moral beliefs; after all, we both live in a world where this happens.

Wait, why isn’t morality about our own personal benefit if God does not exist? You keep asserting that but I see no reason for that actually being the case.

People can be immoral. I know: so what? If the fact that people don't have to follow what I believe to be our moral metrics is a problem for me, then it's equally a problem for you, so I guess that all our ideas of morality must be wrong because not everyone follows them, huh?

No because-unlike your definition of morality-mine would still apply to those who chose not to follow it because it derives from the god who owns everyone. Your definition of morality appears to be nothing more than something you’ve stipulated to be the case which renders it no more authoritative than the morality Joseph Stalin followed.

So, like, do you just seize on the first potential contention you think of, and then stop thinking of what comes next?

Nope.

Because from where I'm sitting, we live in a world that has benefited greatly from international cooperation and communication, and solely detrimented from international conflict. How much of our technology is developed by blended international teams? How much have we all gained from sharing our knowledge? All this stuff stops if we start sealing our borders and preying off of others.

You said that morality was what was best at the societal level not the world level. Why do you keep changing the definition? You really do not think that whites in America benefited from the slave trade in the 18th and 19th Century? Then why were so many willing to fight an entire war in order to keep their slaves?

Slavery is another one of those things that gets brought up a lot in these debates, and again the response is simple: self determination is an important concept for humans, both logically in terms of how it aids us in finding fulfillment in our lives, which in turn gives us a greater chance of being of benefit to the group, and psychologically. Additionally, slavery is bad for the slaves from numerous angles, and once again, morality isn't just about you, and it isn't limited to just one group or another.

I thought you said morality was what was best for the society, now all of the sudden that’s not the case?

Everyone participates in morality in some small way. It doesn't just stop at our doorstep. Why is this so difficult?

It’s not difficult it’s just meaningless because it has no authority over anyone else. If someone disagrees with you then their definition of morality is just as justified as yours since they are both arbitrary.

Nope. Moving on.

It’s not arbitrary? Then how do you know that your definition of morality is correct and all the other atheists in this forum’s definitions are wrong?

That really depends on what you mean by moral imperative, Stat; I've already discussed the benefits, both personal and social, to following these moral metrics. If that's not enough, if you're looking for some externally derived force that should make us follow them, then there isn't one, and it's you that's begging the question by expecting that one should exist.

You’re saying people should adhere to your definition of morality because of the possible benefits? Wouldn’t that make them selfish which is apparently a bad thing? Additionally, given this view of morality how would it be anything more than eating healthy, brushing your teeth, going to school, and having good grammar? These all have possible benefits as well. I am sorry but I think there is a big difference between someone who eats junk food and someone who rapes women. There seems to be acts that are immoral (rape) and acts that are only harmful to our quality of life but are not actually immoral (eating Twinkies).

As to your second point, the answer is no, because morality is inherently contextual and I could not possibly account for every scenario one might dream up. Broad, blanket generalizations aren't very helpful here.

Then how do you determine whether any particular act is morally good or evil?

Because morality isn't just about the individual, Stat.

Why not? That is what I want to know. Why is your definition of morality more correct than someone whose definition of morality is whatever is best for them as an individual?

As to all this transcendent law giver nonsense, I find that a little hilarious; you're presenting Stalin to me as though his opinion differing from mine is a problem for me, and then to show how your system is better you appeal to... someone else's opinions.

No, I am appealing to a transcendent law giver who owns everyone and who is also infallible. You’re appealing to arbitrary definitions created by fallible humans who own nobody but themselves.

It doesn't matter how magic that someone is, that's what you're doing. And so my question to you is, if god told you to become the next Stalin, would it be moral for you to do that?

It’d be impossible for God to tell me this because that is contrary to His moral character so it’s a nonsensical hypothetical.

Because we have a survival drive as a species that compels us to set up our descendants to survive?

That’s the naturalistic fallacy; you cannot derive normative statements from the purely descriptive.

Because we love our children and would like them to live in a better world?

Not everyone has children and not everyone loves their children.

Because we're naturally empathetic beings due to our evolutionary path as social animals?

This is the naturalistic fallacy again.

Do you also not ever eat food because it may or may not taste good? Uncertain does not equal meaningless, Stat.

I am not following that analogy at all. You’re saying that people ought to sacrifice their well-being for potential humans in the future and I want to know where you get the authority and justification for such an imperative.

Because helping people leads to real, objective benefits in our lives, according to criteria determined by our existence as biological entities that exist in an externally derived, objective world!

Why should someone care about what benefits other people’s lives? This seems more like a system of recommendations than an actual system of morality.

If I shake you while you're asleep, you'll wake up; your sense of touch is still active. If I make a loud noise, you'll wake up; your sense of hearing is still active. If I shine a bright light in your eyes, you'll wake up; your sense of sight is still active. etc etc.

Not according to the actual definition of the word sentient, when I am unconscious I am not sentient. You’re not allowed to redefine the English language my friend.

Additionally, as I mentioned previously, there's a reasonable expectation that you'll return to full consciousness at a later time, and so your existence as a sentient entity has at most been suspended, not completely stopped. We're still capable of applying moral metrics to that person because in time they'll return to consciousness and have to deal with the repercussions of things done to them while they were asleep.

If you shot me in the head while I was sleeping I do not believe there is a reasonable expectation that I will return to consciousness; is this act still morally wrong? Additionally, as I pointed out many victims of date rape are completely unaware that anything ever happened to them; is this act morally wrong or is it just no harm no foul in your system?

Having broken a social contract and gotten away with it, it's possible they may do so again.

Possible sure, and they may or may not get caught the next time but what if they never do? Was it still wrong the first time?

Sure, you can opt out, but if you try to do so by negatively impacting other people they'll want to stop you, as it's in the best interests of everyone to do so.

That’s really not opting out of the contract if it is still binding then right?

And there's no "who," involved in what does into the contract, it's a system that changes and hopefully improves over time as we learn more and make mistakes.

Then how do we know what is in the contract and how does it change?

Your system of morality also seems to not take intent into account. If I intend to kill someone but my actions end up actually saving that person’s life should I be condemned or commended?

Studies even show empathy is part of human nature from birth.

As is deceit, so is lying now morally good?

I would ask them why other animals have morality. They will proceed to deny other animals have any, even when given evidence.

They don't want an answer to where you get morality, as long as the answer coming out of your mouth is "from gawd." It couldn't possibly be an evolved trait in social species...

What other animals have morality?

It cannot be an evolved trait because you cannot logically derive normative systems of behavior simply from descriptions about the way things are.

I suppose that --barring a lot of context-- most individuals would consider getting what they want as a good thing.

I can think of a lot of instances where people wanted things that you and I both agree were immoral.

I don't know if there are any in particular that they should use, but I think that it can be beneficial for a community or society to examine others to see if there are ways to improve their own laws, customs, morals, and/or ethics.

Is it morally wrong for one society to exploit another?

That's what irritates me about having this conversation with Stat: for all the disagreements we have I don't think he's stupid, and so this grinding, step-by-step explanation of how one can reason out the benefits of behaving in certain morally acceptable ways is just torturous. It stopped feeling like an actual conversation and more like an exercise of picking holes and ignoring obvious things a few posts back.

I don't believe I genuinely need to explain that if everyone could just murder all the time, our society would probably feel that hurt, to a person who's actually thinking about this stuff.

You really think that if a Christian does not find your particular definition of morality logically defensible the Christian does not have a reason for believing murder is wrong? Non-sequiturs abound. I am simply asking you to justify a godless definition of morality; so far I do not believe your pragmatic approach adds up.

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.

You’re sounding very religious. Morality is a normative system of behavior; you cannot derive it from descriptions of evolutionary behavior.

…we're spreading logic and reason.

...by committing the naturalistic fallacy? So you are spreading logic and reason by being illogical?

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?

Bingo! He wants to know exactly what to think in order to be part of the free-thinker’s club.

What god?

YHWH.

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.

Why do humans torture, rape, steal from, kill, and lie to other humans? Hard wiring?

Us...Well, do you actually representative community and a universal declaration regarding "atheist morals" or rather "secular morals" or whatever you call them?
But most morals are merely common sense-based.
I guess you may say that most morals are merely based on common sense, the very basics to allow a society to function.

Did you know that appealing to common sense is a logical fallacy?