I'm with JJPro... as an atheist I'm all for being kind to others, but I'll do it because it's the right thing to do...

Shit... um this shouldn't devolve into atheism vs. Christianity. You got one in Chaos, I responded, call it even?

Anyway more coming later... can't be late to the same class again...

it's the right thing to do

What's your source for a definition of that?

Common sense?

The least common of all...

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it atheism vs. Christianity, by saying "bottom line is...." I only meant bottom line of the answer to smittens' question, that from a Christian perspective the bottom line is etc. etc. and the specific date is nitpicking and missing the true message. It's clear where my beliefs are on this, I was only answering smittens' question, JJPro, not saying you had to believe it.

Haha, toshiro, "Can't we all just get along?" is what Jesus said. :) I was only saying that whether Jesus was real or not he said good things. As a Christian, I am fascinated by Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, etc. teachings. Whether one is true and the others false or not, I believe that following a belief system can make anyone a better person. Unless that belief system is a comet-worshipping cult, or something.

And Lecter, I know where you're going with that. I know it's not what smittens was hoping to end up in this thread but if you mean what I think, I agree that without God there is no right or wrong. Oops, that's taking this into a pretty opinionated direction.... :)

"I agree that without God there is no right or wrong."

Please elaborate.

What standard would you use, then Shadoen? You have to have some sense of good and evil at least, to define right and wrong, which typically means believing in a greater force behind those, which is god/allah/whoever. Otherwise it is a numbers game, cost/benefit analyses, or whatever, but not truly right vs. wrong.

So, people cant live/act based solely on their morals?
Are atheists evil hellspawns who would destroy everything were not for the presence of law and peace keeping organizations such as the police?

Putting breaking the law aside, would a person need to believe in a greater force to see that it would be wrong to kill someone else?

Assuming you're a good person (I dont know you, but I can assume you are), are you good because of fear of punishment from a greater force or because of your morals?

While I'm ultimately going to argue that PC's point is just as empty of meaning as yours, Shadoen, what are "their morals"?

I believe those who commit forceable rape should be tortured to death, probably in a manner that leaves them feeling sexually violated, for example. I believe that to be an extremely moral thing to do. Obviously, if I start snuffing rapists in my free time, however, most people would say I'm committing an immoral act.

Who's right? How can you tell?

I think Chaos was looking more for "What are these morals that we base it on," with the possible implication and eventual conclusion that the "morals" are something based in religion/faith/etc?

Well you're right Chaos, everything is a cost-benefit. No one does something unless it is the best option for *them* personally. That benefit may not be tangible... it's not always "I'll lie/cheat/steal to get the nicer car," (a material-driven cost-benefit decision) but more often it's "I'm going to be nice to this person, because it'll make the world better/karma will help me/they'll be nice to me in the future/plenty of good reasons to be nice" (an "ethical" cost-benefit decision)

I think the problem with people who dismiss atheists as moral-less is that they overestimate the occurrence of the material-driven decisions over the ethical ones. I know in my life (day to day, not VO where I'm mostly a giant dick), by experiencing these decisions for their actual cost and benefits, and not worrying about judgement/sin/etc, that I've been able to see the true, general benefit of making the ethical decisions. I've learned to recognize the truly superior value of the benefits such kindness begets.

And of course whenever someone says "Atheists are all immoral because they don't believe in anything," the classic response is "Well I know a lot more religious people who are less moral than atheists." I subscribe to that belief as well, and I think it has to do a lot with the masking of the real costs and benefits at stake.

Decisions that are to an atheist "Should I tell that guy he dropped his wallet? It would take extra effort to go pick it up and track him down, but the benefit is that he gets his wallet back" are fairly simple. There's the other scenarios to consider, like taking it for yourself, just leaving it, etc, but it's still a relatively simple decision.

Religion is a heavy consideration no matter how you look at it, and if it gets factored into even a simple decision it naturally complicates it. Now someone pious may come out for the better, but personally I think if decisions are boiled down to their simplest level, that is best for everyone... the simpler a scenario the easier it is to determine the true benefits derived from it... IE a new friend! Which leads people to realize the superior returns on ethical decisions.

This may be a bit un-focused, I was typing it up between games of Halo. But I think my main point is: As an atheist, my decisions *are* based solely on cost/benefit analyses, but I learned a long time ago the benefit of being a "moral" person, and how frequently it outweighs what may seem at the time like a material benefit. I think I learned this quickly because I saw decisions simply, without religion to complicate my thoughts

I'm glad you posed the question Chaos, even if we are now off topic... I've heard the "atheists don't have morals" argument a lot and spent a lot of time thinking about why I act kindly when I do. If my ramble is too tough to read, let me know and I'll try to clarify!

By "their morals" I meant socially accepted behavior.

Also, what's right or wrong was not my original point of contention. Rather why people would choose to act so.

To answer your question I'll quote you:
"It depends"

I choose to act the way I do because I want others to treat me the same way, because I don't want to feel guilty / ashamed, because we all tend to benefit from a system of rules, or because I fear the consequences. Eternal damnation is a consequence, and acting out of the desire to avoid it seems no less mundane or secular than the list I provided here.

I'd just like to say that, like Whistler, I believe that rules are good and strictly necessary for a society to exist in any comfortable manner whatsoever (obviously...).

I, personally, do not need any spiritual explanation or justification for my existence, the above, or anything else, however. I can do fine without (worked so far).

Also, I agree with smittens' post, to a large extent.

I guess that's another divide Whistler... I don't consider eternal damnation as an anymore realistic consideration than, in the wallet-returning scenario, I worry that an escaped chetah would hunt me down if I go near the wallet.

Nor do I. I was trying to make the point that the principle of seeking reward / avoiding punishment is in play whether one is following a religion or not.

Oh, "socially accepted behavior" is what determines what's moral. Cool.

So, slavery was a moral institution in the 1830s? Honor killing and female circumcision are moral practices in the cultures that practice them today?

"What's right or wrong was not my original point of contention. Rather why people would choose to act so."

But alright then, I was wrong trying to define what is moral by saying that. Still, on my response to PC, what morals a person has are irrelevant, rather if he'd choose to act based on those morals.

Morality is simply a pretty name for individual or group self interest. (Repost of what I deleted last night because this discussion interests me)

I do not rape women because this would put me in a position where I cannot reproduce, though a part of me wants to. I try to be kind to people and perform various acts of service to the community (platelets every other week) because a part of me believes that it builds social good will towards me. I do not cheat on my wife because doing so would put me in an unpleasant situation.

Can you honestly tell me that the radical Muslims in Al Quida or the Taliban are immoral for the mass murders they cause? Western view would absolutely condemn them. But they believe that they are doing the work of Allah and that their labors are just and that they will be rewarded. Their goal is to advance what they believe to be moral behavior.

A few years ago western society believed slavery was justifiable. It had significant economic importance. Now we are still dealing with the fallout of liberating a group of people that even the most liberal of the time considered to be 3/5 of a man ( because otherwise, it would have given slave states more influence in the federal government)

We are 'moral' for purely selfish reasons. Whether those reasons are individual or group based. Our goal is advancement within the social structure for ourselves and our ideas. Edit: Add whether or not those reasons are rational or not.

Edit2: My point is, that I don't believe that Christianity, atheism, or any other ethical system has control of the so called 'moral compass'. Western culture believes it is more evolved because of its 'enlightened' or liberal ethics. I think its a bit arrogant to believe this. Perhaps 200 years from now we will be judged to be sadistic bastards for putting criminals in concrete and steel cages and for forcing children to learn.

Western morality is based on placing high value on each individual, Arabic / Muslim culture (as one alternative) if I understand it correctly, places a high value on the group. What seems horrific behavior to one group is merely pruning the dead limbs or encouraging a cancer to spread to the other.

Shadoen said:
Putting breaking the law aside, would a person need to believe in a greater force to see that it would be wrong to kill someone else? Assuming you're a good person (I dont know you, but I can assume you are), are you good because of fear of punishment from a greater force or because of your morals?

Interesting. I don’t think any human being is born with morals. They learn them from their environment; which would mean that at least initially, they are dissuaded from behavior either by desire to avoid punishment or by desire to be rewarded (carrot & stick). Eventually those behavior patterns evolve to be their moral code, whether they’ve made a conscious choice about it or not.

I think parenting and religion (any religion) play pivotal roles in the “initial conditions” for people as they develop their sense of morals, or right & wrong. If your religion says “it’s okay to stone young women to death for being out late with a man” then, unless someone challenges your religion, you’ll always think it’s OK to do so.

That’s the key point – I don’t think we can describe something as truly “moral” unless the procedure has been challenged, and upheld. For example, I’m relatively sure that all Muslim women as well as all non-Muslims throughout the world would condemn stoning a young woman for being out past curfew: that’s not moral, even though it’s part of Sharia law. I don’t think the Catholic Church’s imprisonment of Galileo was moral: history proved him right, and eventually the Catholic Church had to retract their dogmatic views. I don’t think slavery was moral: it was eventually outlawed essentially worldwide.

Right now, there’s a lot of press about how Christians are leaving the church in droves to become who-knows-what: atheists, agnostics, deists, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever. They’re leaving because science and culture are telling them that there’s no proof of any of this, that they are silly to believe that some guy 2,000 years ago gave up his life so that we could live forever, that if they can’t touch or feel or taste or hear it with their own senses, it may as well not exist. A lot of that derision is also because Christians are depicted as stupid sheep that follow blindly the “bible is inerrant; my god is better than your god; black and white right & wrong” message, who watch Nascar and would rather go to the Creationist Museum than read a science book. Granted, I’ve known a few people like this.

They were like that because no-one ever challenged them.

Like “Why do you believe that?” or “How come you said that?” I don’t know how many religions can withstand a persistent challenge from science and modern culture without looking stupid and archaic. I have hope that Christianity can, but the process is ongoing.

Back to Smitty’s question about the lost wallet: Would I return it because I fear God’s Wrath? Haha – no. But I would return it because I can empathize and sympathize with the person who’d lost the wallet; I’ve had mine stolen before and it was a huge hassle plus I lost a few hundred bucks. Not wanting anyone else to have to go through that, I’d attempt to find the person and mail it to him/her, maybe call if I can find a number. Do I return the wallet because it makes me feel morally superior? No. Do I return it because I think that there’s some kind of cosmic Karma force that will tip the balance the universe in my favor if I return the wallet? No. I will admit that there’s a bit of “happy feeling” when I do something nice for someone else, like giving a gift or tipping really well or returning a wallet. But I don’t think that’s the reason I do those kinds of things. They just come naturally. I can’t explain it, and it most likely has something to do with my parents and/or my religion offering that early “carrot & stick” guidance that is so low-level that the thought patterns are essentially subconscious.

"I do not rape women because this would put me in a position where I cannot reproduce, though a part of me wants to."

Yeah...a little creepy.