CDZ A Question For Atheists

[DarkFury]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

Where does general feelings on morals come from? The law and where does one find the base of law? Scripture. If you are an atheist and you feel killing is wrong is that not your scripture?

No, morals come from personal beliefs of "right" and "wrong". While scripture can play a part in making that determination, nothing makes it required.

Morals come from the number of people in agreement. Case in point.

Fifteen years ago a buddy was busted for smoking pot at the Seattle Center and got 18 months. A year ago another buddy got a 100 dollar ticket for the SAME thing.

Morals and sanity are based merely by the group who judges you.
But the law the scripture is based first be it you support it or not. Since moral changes can only come second AFTER scripture EVEN primitive ones.

Thus you need scripture/law FIRST in order to build morals that are later enforced by whatever group. So how can an atheist argue there is no God when one cannot prove where the law came from to start?

Even the feeling that something is wrong is scripture. Primitive law if you choose. How did that group manage to be smarter then us? They were not primitive and in many ways are still far ahead of us. How did they do that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

Where does general feelings on morals come from? The law and where does one find the base of law? Scripture. If you are an atheist and you feel killing is wrong is that not your scripture?

No, morals come from personal beliefs of "right" and "wrong". While scripture can play a part in making that determination, nothing makes it required.

Morals come from the number of people in agreement. Case in point.

Fifteen years ago a buddy was busted for smoking pot at the Seattle Center and got 18 months. A year ago another buddy got a 100 dollar ticket for the SAME thing.

Morals and sanity are based merely by the group who judges you.
But the law the scripture is based first be it you support it or not. Since moral changes can only come second AFTER scripture EVEN primitive ones.

Thus you need scripture/law FIRST in order to build morals that are later enforced by whatever group. So how can an atheist argue there is no God when one cannot prove where the law came from to start?

Even the feeling that something is wrong is scripture. Primitive law if you choose. How did that group manage to be smarter then us? They were not primitive and in many ways are still far ahead of us. How did they do that?

No, ethics are come from "people in agreement". Morals are internal.

The rest of your post concerns morals not at all, and ethics only tangentially. Scripture, Law, Morals and Ethics are all separate, and your argument seems to be based on conflating them.

 

[DarkFury]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

It is a myth that morality is based on scripture. It is also a myth that our laws are based on scripture. There were laws (many of which are still relevant today) that existed long before Mosaic law, and certainly long before the Bible ever existed. The Code of Hammurabi is one example. Morality didn't suddenly appear when anonymous Bedouins decided to write down their traditions. People prefer to be treated with decency and respect. When people started getting together in larger and larger towns, it became necessary to have some kind of law and order so that people can get along and conduct commerce. So morality is whatever society decides works for the safety and betterment of its people. You don't need a bible for that.

But an atheist has NO law book, none. Where did the atheist standards come from? If an atheist says law of the land then it's based on scripture. Pick your book. ANY atheist with morals or values or honor got them somewhere. But NOT from an atheist.
Because they are based on no standard.

 

[Josf]

Actual and accurate measures of whatever created anything is an often secreted idea, let alone an active process.

Criminal man is often inventing the idea that criminal man is the only interpreter of anything worth knowing, including any questions concerning the origin of anything: a power to create.

Scripture is therefore a mixed bag of accurate measures and counterfeit versions of accurate measures with the power of will created into individual life forms empowered to either understand, and reason out, scripture, or fail with obvious consequences.

 

[orogenicman]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

It is a myth that morality is based on scripture. It is also a myth that our laws are based on scripture. There were laws (many of which are still relevant today) that existed long before Mosaic law, and certainly long before the Bible ever existed. The Code of Hammurabi is one example. Morality didn't suddenly appear when anonymous Bedouins decided to write down their traditions. People prefer to be treated with decency and respect. When people started getting together in larger and larger towns, it became necessary to have some kind of law and order so that people can get along and conduct commerce. So morality is whatever society decides works for the safety and betterment of its people. You don't need a bible for that.

But an atheist has NO law book, none. Where did the atheist standards come from? If an atheist says law of the land then it's based on scripture. Pick your book. ANY atheist with morals or values or honor got them somewhere. But NOT from an atheist.
Because they are based on no standard.

What are you talking about? We have the same friggin constitution that you have. And the Constitution is not based on your religious book. Sorry if this concept offends you, but that's the fact, jack. It is rather arrogant foolish of you to presume that morality starts and stops with the Bible.

 

[DarkFury]

Laws really aren't "based on scripture". It's more the other way around. The laws of the community/village/tribe were long established before we invented supernatural beings to ascribe them to.

I would suggest that what you say isn't supportable.

Man has long recognized "supernatural beings", whether they be the god of water, or the God of salvation.

When primitive humans come together into a community, that requires cooperation. And that means ground rules are going to be set down first thing -- where you get to sit, what my job is, who gets to use that hut, what everybody's status is in the pecking order. That has to come first simply to survive and operate as a community. Any heavy ponderations on the nature of the universe is going to come after that.

But scripture and law are the same thing. Cooperation is only the willingness of others to live under the same scripture/law.

"Scripture" and "law" are NOT the same thing, and both are only tangentially related to morals.

Is the Tora not scripture/law for the Jews?
Is the quron not scripture/law for the islamic?
Is the Bible not scripture/law for the Christian?
Are a countries laws not scripture for it's citizens?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

how does not thinking god wrote the bible mean I don't know right from wrong?

seriously, I found a bible that had 4 versions in it, for kicks I wanted to know how long before there was differences. The second word.

so the idea that god wrote the bible and it is still the word of god is utter non-sense

 

[Wuwei]

Secular "morals" provide a strong survival value for each of the more highly developed species. Many experiments have found that monkeys for example have feelings of fairness, feelings about stealing etc. Anyone violating social norms are ostracized from the clan. These social codes did not come from monkeys believing in god; they evolved as a method for keeping the strength and survival of the clan.

There are totally different moral codes within a clan (nation) than there are between clans (nation to nation). Clans, both humans and other primates commit atrocities between clans and have a different moral code for outsiders. We consider it justified to kill those in outside clans who encroach on our territory.

So Chimpanzees don't need the myth of religion to mimic the good and the bad of the moral-human. It's evolution that has dictated both.

 

[DarkFury]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

Where does general feelings on morals come from? The law and where does one find the base of law? Scripture. If you are an atheist and you feel killing is wrong is that not your scripture?

No, morals come from personal beliefs of "right" and "wrong". While scripture can play a part in making that determination, nothing makes it required.

Morals come from the number of people in agreement. Case in point.

Fifteen years ago a buddy was busted for smoking pot at the Seattle Center and got 18 months. A year ago another buddy got a 100 dollar ticket for the SAME thing.

Morals and sanity are based merely by the group who judges you.
But the law the scripture is based first be it you support it or not. Since moral changes can only come second AFTER scripture EVEN primitive ones.

Thus you need scripture/law FIRST in order to build morals that are later enforced by whatever group. So how can an atheist argue there is no God when one cannot prove where the law came from to start?

Even the feeling that something is wrong is scripture. Primitive law if you choose. How did that group manage to be smarter then us? They were not primitive and in many ways are still far ahead of us. How did they do that?

No, ethics are come from "people in agreement". Morals are internal.

The rest of your post concerns morals not at all, and ethics only tangentially. Scripture, Law, Morals and Ethics are all separate, and your argument seems to be based on conflating them.

Ethics are the level at which we live in the populace based on law/scripture of that populace. Which means scripture HAD to come first BEFORE any ethics/morals were made standard by community scripture/law.

 

[orogenicman]

Laws really aren't "based on scripture". It's more the other way around. The laws of the community/village/tribe were long established before we invented supernatural beings to ascribe them to.

I would suggest that what you say isn't supportable.

Man has long recognized "supernatural beings", whether they be the god of water, or the God of salvation.

When primitive humans come together into a community, that requires cooperation. And that means ground rules are going to be set down first thing -- where you get to sit, what my job is, who gets to use that hut, what everybody's status is in the pecking order. That has to come first simply to survive and operate as a community. Any heavy ponderations on the nature of the universe is going to come after that.

But scripture and law are the same thing. Cooperation is only the willingness of others to live under the same scripture/law.

"Scripture" and "law" are NOT the same thing, and both are only tangentially related to morals.

Is the Tora not scripture/law for the Jews?
Is the quron not scripture/law for the islamic?
Is the Bible not scripture/law for the Christian?
Are a countries laws not scripture for it's citizens?

You are precluding the possibility that there is no such thing as secular law or secular morality. Most certainly there is. Moreover:

Religion Doesn t Make People More Moral Study Finds

The moral high ground seems to be a crowded place. A new study suggests that religious people aren't more likely to do good than their nonreligious counterparts. And while they may vehemently disagree with one another at times, liberals and conservatives also tend to be on par when it comes to behaving morally.

Researchers asked 1,252 adults of different religious and political backgrounds in the United States and Canada to record the good and bad deeds they committed, witnessed, learned about or were the target of throughout the day.

The goal of the study was to assess how morality plays out in everyday life for different people, said Dan Wisneski, a professor of psychology at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City, New Jersey, who helped conduct the study during his tenure at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

The study's findings may come as a shock to those who think religious or political affiliation helps dictate a person's understanding of right and wrong.

Wisneski and his fellow researchers found that religious and nonreligious people commit similar numbers of moral acts. The same was found to be true for people on both ends of the political spectrum. And regardless of their political or religious leanings, participants were all found to be more likely to report committing, or being the target of, a moral act rather than an immoral act. They were also much more likely to report having heard about immoral acts rather than moral acts.

However, there were some differences in how people in different groups responded emotionally to so-called "moral phenomena," Wisneski said. For example, religious people reported experiencing more intense self-conscious emotions — such as guilt, embarrassment, and disgust — after committing an immoral act than did nonreligious people. Religious people also reported experiencing a greater sense of pride and gratefulness after committing moral deeds than their nonreligious counterparts.

Liberals and conservatives also tended to think of moral phenomena in different ways. In other words, though they seemed to experience the same amount of moral and immoral acts, they had different ways of talking about these experiences.

"Liberals more often mention moral phenomena related to fairness and honesty," Wisneski said. "Conservatives more often mention moral phenomena related to loyalty and disloyalty or sanctity and degradation."

For three days, participants received five text messages a day that included a link to the study's mobile website, where they could record any moral phenomena that they had experienced in the past hour via their smartphones. On average, participants reported one moral experience per day, Wisneski said.

This approach to studying morality is a far cry from previous studies, most of which have been conducted in a laboratory setting and have focused on studying peoples' responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas, according to Wisneski.

"As far as I know, this is the first study that's used this kind of lived-experience approach to track morality as it's happening," he said.

In the future, Wisneski and his colleagues hope to use their smartphone-enabled approach to study morality in a more nationally representative sample of people, he said. They also think this method could be applied to studying morality in different parts of the world, such as Asia and the Middle East, where religious and political beliefs may have different influences than on people in North America.

The morality study, which was conducted by psychologists at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the University of Cologne, in Germany, and the University of Tilburg, in the Netherlands, was published online today (Sept. 11) in the journal Science.

 

[dblack]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Survival.

Community and cooperation are products of evolution. So is religion.

If the only rule is survival then you do not have a community, you have a murdering clan.

The murdering clans killed themselves off. Those with a healthy respect for mutual benefit survived.

 

[orogenicman]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

Where does general feelings on morals come from? The law and where does one find the base of law? Scripture. If you are an atheist and you feel killing is wrong is that not your scripture?

No, morals come from personal beliefs of "right" and "wrong". While scripture can play a part in making that determination, nothing makes it required.

Morals come from the number of people in agreement. Case in point.

Fifteen years ago a buddy was busted for smoking pot at the Seattle Center and got 18 months. A year ago another buddy got a 100 dollar ticket for the SAME thing.

Morals and sanity are based merely by the group who judges you.
But the law the scripture is based first be it you support it or not. Since moral changes can only come second AFTER scripture EVEN primitive ones.

Thus you need scripture/law FIRST in order to build morals that are later enforced by whatever group. So how can an atheist argue there is no God when one cannot prove where the law came from to start?

Even the feeling that something is wrong is scripture. Primitive law if you choose. How did that group manage to be smarter then us? They were not primitive and in many ways are still far ahead of us. How did they do that?

No, ethics are come from "people in agreement". Morals are internal.

The rest of your post concerns morals not at all, and ethics only tangentially. Scripture, Law, Morals and Ethics are all separate, and your argument seems to be based on conflating them.

Ethics are the level at which we live in the populace based on law/scripture of that populace. Which means scripture HAD to come first BEFORE any ethics/morals were made standard by community scripture/law.

Ethics (also moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. Socrates talked about ethics long before the Bible was ever written.

 

[Tuatara]

Sorry but your morals are not based on scipture. This is a fact

 

[DarkFury]

Secular "morals" provide a strong survival value for each of the more highly developed species. Many experiments have found that monkeys for example have feelings of fairness, feelings about stealing etc. Anyone violating social norms are ostracized from the clan. These social codes did not come from monkeys believing in god; they evolved as a method for keeping the strength and survival of the clan.

There are totally different moral codes within a clan (nation) than there are between clans (nation to nation). Clans, both humans and other primates commit atrocities between clans and have a different moral code for outsiders. We consider it justified to kill those in outside clans who encroach on our territory.

So Chimpanzees don't need the myth of religion to mimic the good and the bad of the moral-human. It's evolution that has dictated both.

But something made you smarter then the chimp. In order to record scripture/law you need to be able to record it which means you had abilities far beyond any being living on earth.

If NOT for our ability to record life on earth no living thing and a lot of dead ones would never have been known. Even cavemen recorded events.

You got ANY atheist recordings from say just 2000 years ago? I have read the Bible/Tora and quron. You got anything from an atheist?

 

[DarkFury]

Sorry but your morals are not based on scipture. This is a fact

And you would argue my morals are based on what?

 

[Wuwei]

But something made you smarter then the chimp. In order to record scripture/law you need to be able to record it which means you had abilities far beyond any being living on earth.

If NOT for our ability to record life on earth no living thing and a lot of dead ones would never have been known. Even cavemen recorded events.

You got ANY atheist recordings from say just 2000 years ago? I have read the Bible/Tora and quron. You got anything from an atheist?

We merely formalized what chimps already instinctively feel, such as deeds, marriage licenses, legal statutes.

 

[Tuatara]

Secular "morals" provide a strong survival value for each of the more highly developed species. Many experiments have found that monkeys for example have feelings of fairness, feelings about stealing etc. Anyone violating social norms are ostracized from the clan. These social codes did not come from monkeys believing in god; they evolved as a method for keeping the strength and survival of the clan.

There are totally different moral codes within a clan (nation) than there are between clans (nation to nation). Clans, both humans and other primates commit atrocities between clans and have a different moral code for outsiders. We consider it justified to kill those in outside clans who encroach on our territory.

So Chimpanzees don't need the myth of religion to mimic the good and the bad of the moral-human. It's evolution that has dictated both.

But something made you smarter then the chimp. In order to record scripture/law you need to be able to record it which means you had abilities far beyond any being living on earth.

If NOT for our ability to record life on earth no living thing and a lot of dead ones would never have been known. Even cavemen recorded events.

You got ANY atheist recordings from say just 2000 years ago? I have read the Bible/Tora and quron. You got anything from an atheist?

Many things are passed down orally. Everything does not need to be written down and when they finally were the moral codes were there long before they were written.

 

[orogenicman]

Sorry but your morals are not based on scipture. This is a fact

And you would argue my morals are based on what?

What your parents, peers, siblings, friends, and society taught you, and what you've learned from life experiences.

 

[Tuatara]

Sorry but your morals are not based on scipture. This is a fact

And you would argue my morals are based on what?

Independent thought of right and wrong which are evolving concepts and a sense of well being for your fellow man. The scriptures promote slavery and genocide. Do you consider these to me moral acts?

 

[Wuwei]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.