How can an atheist have morals?

[IndependantAce]

It sounds like the OP needs to meet more atheists. I can't think of another atheist I have met that could be described as materialistic. The same can't be said for religious people. Regardless, I don't stereotype them as more interested in their possessions and physical comfort than what is right or wrong. Since when are humans not animals? Morality, like many other things, was co-opted by religion.

I'm saying if one believes the material world is all that exists I don't see how someone can derive universal morals while remaining logically consistent.

And what you’re saying is wrong.

Humans are perfectly capable of developing and adhering to morals and values absent a ‘higher source.’

Morals and values are created by man

How do you know they are not innate?

– what’s confusing for so many is that those moral beliefs and values were created behind the façade of religious doctrine and dogma, creating the illusion that morals and values come from a ‘higher source.’

Understanding and acknowledging this fact is perfectly consistent and logical.

If created by man then I would assume they can easily be changed on a whim, and values and rights have no objective worth; so the moral code of Hitler is no "worse" than that of Ghandi.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Einstein letter calls Bible 'pretty childish'







Einstein letter calls Bible ‘pretty childish’

where is einstein according to your faith?

Batshit is an ISIS Muslim, Einstein was a Jew, so that would put Albert in the pits of hell.

 

[guno]

Einstein letter calls Bible 'pretty childish'







Einstein letter calls Bible ‘pretty childish’

where is einstein according to your faith?

Einstein was a cultural Jew like me, My grandparents knew Doctor Einstein, since when his escaped from Germany, he thought the goyim who believed that christian crap were simple minded. I also have a picture and of me at 3 years old and my grandparents and Dr Einstein

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious belief is subjective and personal – where there is no 'proof' of the existence of a 'higher source.'

Nor is one’s religious belief in of itself is ‘proof.’

And just as religious doctrine and dogma are creations of man, so too are moral values and tenets created by man in the context of that doctrine and dogma.

 

[Igrok_]

Einstein letter calls Bible 'pretty childish'







Einstein letter calls Bible ‘pretty childish’

where is einstein according to your faith?

Einstein was a cultural Jew like me, My grandparents knew Doctor Einstein, since when his escaped from Germany, he thought the goyim who believed that christian crap were simple minded. I also have a picture and of me at 3 years old and my grandparents and Dr Einstein

as i remember, according to jews all people are going to hell?

 

[IndependantAce]

Religious belief is subjective and personal – where there is no 'proof' of the existence of a 'higher source.'

Nor is one’s religious belief in of itself ‘proof.’

There are arguments that man is a naturally spiritual being, as well as arguments that objective morality and truth can be found in non-scientific sources.

And just as religious doctrine and dogma are creations of man, so too are moral values and tenets created by man in the context of that doctrine and dogma.[/QUOTE]
So the Bill of Rights has no inherant worth?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It sounds like the OP needs to meet more atheists. I can't think of another atheist I have met that could be described as materialistic. The same can't be said for religious people. Regardless, I don't stereotype them as more interested in their possessions and physical comfort than what is right or wrong. Since when are humans not animals? Morality, like many other things, was co-opted by religion.

I'm saying if one believes the material world is all that exists I don't see how someone can derive universal morals while remaining logically consistent.

And what you’re saying is wrong.

Humans are perfectly capable of developing and adhering to morals and values absent a ‘higher source.’

Morals and values are created by man

How do you know they are not innate?

– what’s confusing for so many is that those moral beliefs and values were created behind the façade of religious doctrine and dogma, creating the illusion that morals and values come from a ‘higher source.’

Understanding and acknowledging this fact is perfectly consistent and logical.

If created by man then I would assume they can easily be changed on a whim, and values and rights have no objective worth; so the moral code of Hitler is no "worse" than that of Ghandi.

Your thread premise has failed as a result of a number of logical fallacies and poor reasoning.

Hasty Generalization fallacy: the few are not ‘representative’ of an entire class of persons.

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Appeal to Ignorance fallacy: that there is no evidence that ‘god’ as perceived by theists doesn’t exist is not ‘evidence’ of its existence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It sounds like the OP needs to meet more atheists. I can't think of another atheist I have met that could be described as materialistic. The same can't be said for religious people. Regardless, I don't stereotype them as more interested in their possessions and physical comfort than what is right or wrong. Since when are humans not animals? Morality, like many other things, was co-opted by religion.

I'm saying if one believes the material world is all that exists I don't see how someone can derive universal morals while remaining logically consistent.

And what you’re saying is wrong.

Humans are perfectly capable of developing and adhering to morals and values absent a ‘higher source.’

Morals and values are created by man

How do you know they are not innate?

– what’s confusing for so many is that those moral beliefs and values were created behind the façade of religious doctrine and dogma, creating the illusion that morals and values come from a ‘higher source.’

Understanding and acknowledging this fact is perfectly consistent and logical.

If created by man then I would assume they can easily be changed on a whim, and values and rights have no objective worth; so the moral code of Hitler is no "worse" than that of Ghandi.

Your thread premise has failed as a result of a number of logical fallacies and poor reasoning.

Hasty Generalization fallacy: the few are not ‘representative’ of an entire class of persons.

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Appeal to Ignorance fallacy: that there is no evidence that ‘god’ as perceived by theists doesn’t exist is not ‘evidence’ of its existence.

Your thread is an example of the Delusion of Relevance fallacy.

 

[IndependantAce]

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose it's possible for an atheist to believe values come from a higher source than the material world, but to me that just seems logically inconsistent.

 

[Dot Com]

Most atheists I have talked to in this day and age more or less have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal.

This makes me wonder how atheists can logically justify having morals; for example if rape, torture, or murder aided one's own survival or the survival of one's group why should they be off the table?

I'm an atheist and I don't screw people over because its a dick thing to do

Your welcome

 

[Asclepias]

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose it's possible for an atheist to believe values come from a higher source than the material world, but to me that just seems logically inconsistent.

How so? What if they believe values come from spirits or mother nature?

 

[IndependantAce]

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose it's possible for an atheist to believe values come from a higher source than the material world, but to me that just seems logically inconsistent.

How so? What if they believe values come from spirits or mother nature?

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

Most Atheists border on insanity, if not teetering over completely.

And I say this as an agnostic.

Jehovah's Witnesses are less pushy with their proselytizing than Atheists are.

 

[IndependantAce]

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

Most Atheists border on insanity, if not teetering over completely.

And I say this as an agnostic.

Jehovah's Witnesses are less pushy with their proselytizing than Atheists are.

The seem to be vastly over-represented online too

 

[Asclepias]

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose it's possible for an atheist to believe values come from a higher source than the material world, but to me that just seems logically inconsistent.

How so? What if they believe values come from spirits or mother nature?

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

Nope. Atheists dont believe in gods. Mother nature isnt a god.

 

[rightwinger]

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

Most Atheists border on insanity, if not teetering over completely.

And I say this as an agnostic.

Jehovah's Witnesses are less pushy with their proselytizing than Atheists are.

The seem to be vastly over-represented online too

Not nearly as many as the bible thumpers

 

[Coyote]

Most atheists I have talked to in this day and age more or less have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal.

This makes me wonder how atheists can logically justify having morals; for example if rape, torture, or murder aided one's own survival or the survival of one's group why should they be off the table?

I know plenty of materialistic religioius people.

You might not be too familiar with history, but many of our morals and ethics came from non-religious philosophies as well as religious ones.

Makes me wonder what you know about morals.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[IndependantAce]

Straw Man fallacy: you contrive the lie that those free from faith “have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal,” when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

I suppose it's possible for an atheist to believe values come from a higher source than the material world, but to me that just seems logically inconsistent.

How so? What if they believe values come from spirits or mother nature?

That still sounds like a "supernatural" explanation, and an atheist believing in anything supernatural just sounds odd to me.

Most atheists seem to be against supernatural beliefs entirely, not just beliefs in God specifically.

Nope. Atheists dont believe in gods. Mother nature isnt a god.

Sounds like a goddess to me. Isn't nature worship animism, a form of belief?

 

[IndependantAce]

Most atheists I have talked to in this day and age more or less have a strictly materialist view of the world, and typically say that man is no different than an animal.

This makes me wonder how atheists can logically justify having morals; for example if rape, torture, or murder aided one's own survival or the survival of one's group why should they be off the table?

I know plenty of materialistic religioius people.

You might not be too familiar with history, but many of our morals and ethics came from non-religious philosophies as well as religious ones.

Makes me wonder what you know about morals.

Materialism meaning the belief that truth only comes from natural or scientific evidence.