Atheists.... do you have any morals? If so, how do you define them.

[QUOTE="Cerussite"]Why buy it off of eBay when you could steal it (off of eBay)? CrimzonTide

Ah, so the title changed and asked a different question. My morals are mostly based off of common sense and what society has taught me what is "right and wrong."

"Why is it wrong to murder someone? Because they are entitled to their life as much as I am."

No religion in that.
foxhound_fox

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?

I didn't rewrite. I simply fixed my grammer, and further expounded on the question posed. I didn't change the original question, which was clear in the unchanged first paragraph. Nice try though.

rimnet00

I would have written, "Athiests, what defines your morals?" Your basically asking the same question, without an insulting insinuation that athiests don't have morals to begin with.

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?Choga

Um, yes I have morals. I don't need a book to tell me what's right and what's wrong.Lobster_Ear

Good answer. There's no need to follow these outer doctrines of an organised religion to intuitively know what is right and wrong. Religious authorities had corrupted Christianity long ago to maintain control over the general population using fear. I wouldn't be suprised if science was inspired by God.

I wonder how many among you championing "common sense" as the root of morality end up being a replica of Christian morality stripped of its mythology.CptJSparrow

For real. I'm actually getting a kick out of the responses that suggest it's "common sense". Then again, I imagine this question may be asking too much, as it's partially philosophical.

I am an atheist. So how do I define what is Morally right and wrong. Well I use the what's best for society argument. You see, you learn very early that humans are able to succeed do to the combined effort of a human society. So I say to myself, Man1 killed Man2, Man2 contributed to society, Man1 took away from society, and so Man1 must be punished.

dlp21

[QUOTE="Choga"]Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?foxhound_fox

How does being born morally justify that they are entitled to life?

[QUOTE="Choga"]Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?foxhound_fox

They were born by chance. That does not entitle them to life. Traditionally, if you continued to live, it meant you had worthy genes and were well adapted. Now-a-days everyone has a "right" to live because their all loving God has granted it to them. Bologna.

Why is it that we trumpet the Christian morals....the same ones that say to stone the sinners, and those who enable the sinners(side not only 4 of the 10 commandments are actually laws), the Christian morals that say it is right to sell your daughter, and hold them so high. The same Christian morals that fuel the witch hunts, the renqusistion, the crusades, the destruction of knowledge(they burned the library at Alexandria), has fought tooth and nail to prevent science from progressing, and when they fail triumph it as a gift from God.

Why don't we trumpet the morals of other religions, pacifist religions.

Anything that doesn't harm anyone else in any way or involve stealing. And please don't tell me this derived from religion cause I'm a hardcore atheist. Plus, pre-Westernization, the East didn't have any Christianity and they had a society and not just murderous packs of marauders running around.AlternatingCaps

Harm in what way? Please define elaborate on the term "harm" in context with what you are trying to say. Physical harm? Mental harm? Economic Harm?

Stealing in what way? Intellectual theft? Physical theft? etc?

I'm an atheist and I have morals, it's not like Christianity invented the conscience.

EDIT: Spelling

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Ah, so the title changed and asked a different question. My morals are mostly based off of common sense and what society has taught me what is "right and wrong."

"Why is it wrong to murder someone? Because they are entitled to their life as much as I am."

No religion in that.
Choga

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?

Agree atheist doesnt mean moral less

I'm not an atheist, but I don't base my morals on religion.

I believe that as long as we live, we should respect and love each other, and that way we shall be loved and respected too. :)

PickGlove243

Anything that doesn't harm anyone else in any way or involve stealing. And please don't tell me this derived from religion cause I'm a hardcore atheist. Plus, pre-Westernization, the East didn't have any Christianity and they had a society and not just murderous packs of marauders running around.AlternatingCaps

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Choga"]Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?rimnet00

How does being born morally justify that they are entitled to life?

[QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Ah, so the title changed and asked a different question. My morals are mostly based off of common sense and what society has taught me what is "right and wrong."

"Why is it wrong to murder someone? Because they are entitled to their life as much as I am."

No religion in that.
CptJSparrow

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?

This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Ah, so the title changed and asked a different question. My morals are mostly based off of common sense and what society has taught me what is "right and wrong."

"Why is it wrong to murder someone? Because they are entitled to their life as much as I am."

No religion in that.
Choga

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?

This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Choga"]Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?SolidSnake35

How does being born morally justify that they are entitled to life?

So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.

This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society. Choga

[QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Choga"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Ah, so the title changed and asked a different question. My morals are mostly based off of common sense and what society has taught me what is "right and wrong."

"Why is it wrong to murder someone? Because they are entitled to their life as much as I am."

No religion in that.
CptJSparrow

Are people really entitled to life? Who/what gives them this "right"?

This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society.

So it is basically derived from cowardice. The fear that someone else might take your life.

So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.rimnet00

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]There is no 'right,' and I thought that I implied that in saying that it is for the benefit of the person considering it 'right'; it does not make sense for an atheist to adhere to metaphysical foundations of morality. Those who are given the death penalty are seen to have merited this because humans have a will to revenge.Choga

So it is basically derived from cowardice. The fear that someone else might take your life.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.SolidSnake35

yeah like if I had to kill some dude that was going to kill 100 kids, I'd do it. Would bible thumpers kill the guy(not being mean, just wondering)

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.SolidSnake35

yeah like if I had to kill some dude that was going to kill 100 kids, I'd do it. Would bible thumpers kill the guy(not being mean, just wondering)mikel222222

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.mikel222222

yeah like if I had to kill some dude that was going to kill 100 kids, I'd do it. Would bible thumpers kill the guy(not being mean, just wondering)

[QUOTE="Choga"]This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society. foxhound_fox

Semantics. Call them whatever you want...untermensch, filth, leeches, w/e. The point is, faulty genes are being allowed to remain in the gene pool these days, all because people have a "right" to life. And evolution is not always an upwards path. In a world were people live only to go to their meaningless deskjobs to file papers, and go to the mall to shop for plastic trinkets, then the most well-adapted to these conditions will be the "elite". However this world of shopping malls and desk jobs is an illusion; it is man-made and about as natural as McDonald's.

[QUOTE="mikel222222"]yeah like if I had to kill some dude that was going to kill 100 kids, I'd do it. Would bible thumpers kill the guy(not being mean, just wondering)foxhound_fox

What if the bomb was attached to his heart, and the only way to stop the bomb was to stop his heart? and you only had a spear? HMMMMM?!

[QUOTE="Choga"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]There is no 'right,' and I thought that I implied that in saying that it is for the benefit of the person considering it 'right'; it does not make sense for an atheist to adhere to metaphysical foundations of morality. Those who are given the death penalty are seen to have merited this because humans have a will to revenge.CptJSparrow

So it is basically derived from cowardice. The fear that someone else might take your life.

The will to live is not cowardice, but to invent the fallacy that dictates humans have a "right" to live is cowardice. It is the fear of confrontation and struggle.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.CptJSparrow

READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST

I'm not trying to be mean. I just don't understand what Atheists base their morals off of. What defines your moral code? I imagine it varies from person to person, however, I am really interested in what you have to say. Now, for those of you might take my question as being offensive - I'm not trying to be. I'm being 100% serious when asking this question.

This question isn't synonymous with "Are Atheists bad people?". Please take the question for what it is.

Just jumping ahead. In order to properly define your morality, you would also have to define what you believe to be as "morally good" and what is "morally bad" -- or in other words, "morally right" or "morally wrong". As, simply saying "My moral code is to be good", would create a situation where the definition of "good" is subjective.

rimnet00

Even though i'm an atheist, I get most of my morals from Jesus Christ. He was a great man and teacher. I just simply don't believe in God. =)

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.SolidSnake35

You said -- "Things should be left alone unless there is a reason to intervene. As such, being born gives you the right to live. Unless, of course, you can think of a reason to end life once it begins."

So, if a person's death would result in benefiting you, you feel that it's morally acceptable intervene in their life and take their life.

What if the bomb was attached to his heart, and the only way to stop the bomb was to stop his heart? and you only had a spear? HMMMMM?!mikel222222

Semantics. Call them whatever you want...untermensch, filth, leeches, w/e. The point is, faulty genes are being allowed to remain in the gene pool these days, all because people have a "right" to life. And evolution is not always an upwards path. In a world were people live only to go to their meaningless deskjobs to file papers, and go to the mall to shop for plastic trinkets, then the most well-adapted to these conditions will be the "elite". However this world of shopping malls and desk jobs is an illusion; it is man-made and about as natural as McDonald's. Choga

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Choga"]This does not grant anyone the "right" to life. "Right" implies that some sort of divine, or supernatural force/being entitled humans with the right to life. When humans start to believe that everyone is entitled to life, then even the filth are allowed to live...something which was unheard of previous to modern society. Choga

Semantics. Call them whatever you want...untermensch, filth, leeches, w/e. The point is, faulty genes are being allowed to remain in the gene pool these days, all because people have a "right" to life. And evolution is not always an upwards path. In a world were people live only to go to their meaningless deskjobs to file papers, and go to the mall to shop for plastic trinkets, then the most well-adapted to these conditions will be the "elite". However this world of shopping malls and desk jobs is an illusion; it is man-made and about as natural as McDonald's.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="rimnet00"]So, it's morally acceptable for you to take someone's life, if it benefits you.rimnet00

You said -- "Things should be left alone unless there is a reason to intervene. As such, being born gives you the right to live. Unless, of course, you can think of a reason to end life once it begins."

So, if a person's death would result in benefiting you, you feel that it's morally acceptable intervene in their life and take their life.

Why is it that we trumpet the Christian morals....the same ones that say to stone the sinners, and those who enable the sinners(side not only 4 of the 10 commandments are actually laws), the Christian morals that say it is right to sell your daughter, and hold them so high. The same Christian morals that fuel the witch hunts, the renqusistion, the crusades, the destruction of knowledge(they burned the library at Alexandria), has fought tooth and nail to prevent science from progressing, and when they fail triumph it as a gift from God.

Why don't we trumpet the morals of other religions, pacifist religions.

dlp21

Tell me what one of the ten commandments say to do what you've just described. Religion doesn't cause war, people's ignorance does. I find it ironic that you say the Christian morals tell us to stone the sinners, when Jesus himself said "Let the first who has not sinned, cast the first stone".

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] I would not consider the will to live to be cowardice -- it is derived from the will to preserve yourself, which requires a degree of audacity.Choga

The will to live is not cowardice, but to invent the fallacy that dictates humans have a "right" to live is cowardice. It is the fear of confrontation and struggle.

you dont kill, you dont harm others, etc. i think that's the general morality for anyone with a sane mind, with or without religion. so what's your point, tc?rowzzr

Natural selection has and will continue to filter out the bad genes. Those not fit to live will die.foxhound_fox

Except that's not true, the most fit do not live anymore...well they do, but so do all those who would have died a century ago. You see medical advancements have allowed weak people to live which depletes the gene pool.