Can atheists tell right from wrong?

However IF THEY WANTED TO rape and pillage, can we say they are "wrong"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure. Most atheist would agree with you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can we say they are wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I said earlier, morality is a Darwinian adaptation to social environments. That is all that needs to be said. The rest is hot air.

 

Prove it

 

Hmm, have you seen the states where atheism is the state religion?

 

Look at any state that has an official state religion.

 

You are so wrong...

Here is one explanation for how an atheist can maintain objective morality:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=452&h=42 viewed 08/31/08 at 4:39 pm EST

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=452&h=42 viewed 08/31/08 at 4:39 pm EST

Norsefire, for real, click on the link and read it - you might broaden your horizons...

 

Yes you can, was covered on the last page.

Of course that does not and will not prevent 'bad' actions and people considering themselves justified in doing them but the minute such actions cause detriment to the community that you are a part of you can say they are objectively wrong, (given the earlier objective facts).

 

How can you say they are wrong if they think they are right? It's like telling someone they are "wrong" if they think a certain color is the prettiest

 

Of course. But these constraints operate at a level underneath what people mean by "morality". People vary in their moralities - whether "eye for an eye" is a fundamental moral principle, for example, and what exactly that means in practice.

Those are probably not Darwinian adaptations. Other evolutionary patterns - such as Lamarck's - are likely to operate in the social milieu of the higher animals, for starters.

No such thing.

They violate my moral principles. How else ?

 

And violating your moral principles is wrong to YOU.

 

I have, any comparison to the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam? In the raping and pillaging?

 

Morality has a control function over behaviour. Behaviour is a Darwinian adaptation.

 

How do you explain most atheists adopting a "moral" position similar to "good" theists? No murder, rape, theft, etc.? Purely on the assumption that they (atheists) are "borrowing" this stance from theists? What about when you were agnostic? You know, last week? Did you have no morals then?

 

Genetics, just as I stated before. It's the same for you and everyone else. There is of course wiggle room, and thats where "people"-influence comes into play.

 

Of course I, and atheists, had morals; my point is, they aren't set-in-stone. Although they probably won't go raping and stealing and murdering, they still CAN without any un-hypocritical action taken against them.

 

I suppose theists' morals are "set-in-stone"? What's your position on contraception? Punishment? Do your views reflect those of theists of both past and present ages? How do you account for the discrepancies in what is considered "moral" by various theist factions?

 

I have children, you are so wrong. We are social animals, without an innate sense of morality we would not survive, we need each others, therefore we must be empowered with an innate ethic of reciprocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Yes we learn the morals of the group, as we grow. But we all start with an innate morality.

 

For what it's worth, here is another link on "innate morality":

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C= viewed 08/31/08 6:15 pm EST

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C= viewed 08/31/08 6:15 pm EST

Maybe there is another explanation besides some mysterious "deity" to explain morals, eh, Norsefire? Perhaps the atheists and theists simply spin the origin of their respective morality differently?