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

[MJ the Skeptical]

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...

[Tonus]

I can empathize and sympathize with others, and I would not want to be killed. I am aware that some people kill themselves, but usually it is because they are in a poor state of mind. Therefore I think it's reasonable to think that people do not want to die, and that being killed is bad from that standpoint.

…so goodness is defined as whatever people want?

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

I think there are two levels; that of the individual, and that of the society or community. A person on his own can use his sense of empathy or sympathy and his life experiences to form opinions on what is good or bad, or right or wrong, and these provide his moral framework. The more isolated he is, the more varied those might be. A society forms laws and cultural attitudes in a similar way, but they do so more via committee. It probably takes longer for a society to determine a set of morals, but those can also be in effect much longer.

Are there any external standards that the individual or society should use to correct and alter their moral framework with?

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.

[Esquilax]

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...

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[Brian37]

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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?

[Rampant.A.I.]

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?

You already know the answer that will be given, and are hoping for the answer you want to hear.

Grow up, Chad. Just because one book is easier to read than a bunch of them doesn't mean that book is all you need.

Actions and behavioral decisions are selected for and become part of a moral code insofar they help the survival of the species.

We understand you have a need for a celestial parent figure directing your morality. Humanity on the whole does not. There are exceptions, and sometimes those exceptions are able to ride to power because of your need for a parental figure to be directed by and subservient to.

This "morality from authority" penchant of yours causes more harm than good.

[Mudhammam]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Atheism, by it's definition, implies that any metaphysical conclusions we come up with must be rooted in comprehended human experience. That's not nothing. That's reality--an offering to people that amounts to the freedom to think and search out one's own truths without fear of always being monitored and judged by a fire-breathing omnipresent mind--which is apparently non-physical, non-spacial, non-temporal, and every other negation of necessary properties that generally qualify an item said to "exist" as a "something." In other words, God as an unidentifiable, incomprehensible abstraction--a thought independent of a thinker--is literally the closest to "nothing" that the human mind can (or rather cannot) conceive.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Must be nice to be delusional.

But in reality it's the other way around. You're selling snake oil (nothing) and we're spreading logic and reason.

[BlackMason]

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?