Athiests and morals

[JoshB]

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

We humans are organisms that from my understanding make groups, depending on one another in some way for survival. The real kicker in that group mentality is our "evolved" thinking. So we humans have created civilizations and cultures, which have cultural norms, mannerisms, and ethics. We have these ethics not for no reason, but to assist cultural progression in many areas.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[Sonclad]

Josh started this topic with an excellent Q, but if I may ask, what is meant by "purpose" Josh? When I think of purpose, I am speaking of a grand story of which my life plays some part; a meta-story that requires a meta-story author/director. I suspect you may mean something else... Yet I fail to see how nature could fulfill that role.

If we are to accept the premise that there is no God, morals can be only relativistic, since no moral lawgiver results in no absolute morals. Would you agree with that?

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?

[Chase200mph]

After reading through some forums, I came across the thought that athiests have no basis for morals and/or ethics whatsoever, and ultimatley have nihilistic beliefs. I disagree.

I myself am an athiest (until proven wrong). I believe that life has a purpose, not because of any divine plan, but because of lifes nature. It is natural for every living creature to progress in life. That fact is generally undisputes (suicide is unnatural). For those organisms that are naturally solitary, they will tend to be more ruthless in their survival in progression. But we are different.

We humans are organisms that from my understanding make groups, depending on one another in some way for survival. The real kicker in that group mentality is our "evolved" thinking. So we humans have created civilizations and cultures, which have cultural norms, mannerisms, and ethics. We have these ethics not for no reason, but to assist cultural progression in many areas.

Think about it. Even the most simple morals like "be good to others" have the intent of making life easier (assisting progression), whether it be for you or someone else.

So in summary, atheists do have ground for their morals. At least I would argue so. Any opposition?LOL…agreed…Morals are a 6 million year old part of evolution promoting the continued existence of the social unit, mankind. What was deemed and or presented as “good� to/for the social structure/group was called morals. The reality of which was nature’s way of insuring the propagation of the species, people with heroic and cowardly tendencies (for example) were very important to the survival of the social unit, if all were hero’s, then their numbers would go down, if they were all cowards, then there was no unity to the social group and their numbers would go down. Keeping the numbers up is key to survival, this is basic science…… the very idea that morals is a god sent or retrieved from the bible is conducive of someone never having read the bible in the first place.

[strike]------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/strike]
"The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

[Mr.Mudslap]

I have always believed that one should do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do not because one wants to avoid Hell or earn Heaven... For instance if I found a wallet on the ground that had a thousand bucks stuffed in it I would immediately look for ID so I could return it, not because I think thats what God would want me to do, it's because if I lost my wallet I would want the person who found it to put aside there own greed and just give it to it's rightful owner. In other words: The reason I (an Athiest) do the right thing is because of empathy.

[grahamsnumber]

The reason I (an Athiest) do the right thing is because of empathy.

I think that the reason you do the "right thing" is often because of empathy, but the reason you have empathy is that you are the genetic descendant of a bunch of beings who had it. It's clearly adaptive in the evolutionary sense to engage in behavior that bond you to your fellow beings. Imagine two populations of beings: one has a preponderance of individuals who engage in cooperative, bonding behavior (the "right thing"), and one has individuals who don't. Which population ends up reproducing more successfully?