• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From whence do the ethical values of atheists derive?

I was perhaps a bit sloppy in the title of my previous thread, so it got off-track from what I was expecting. As such, I am trying to start over and clarify here.
“Believers” claim that moral authority comes from God and that since atheists “don’t believe in God”, that somehow allows them to simply do whatever they want without respect to ethics.
So my query then becomes from whence do the ethical values of atheists derive if not from God.

I know the answer, of course. This thread is more to provide an education for the theists in this forum, although atheists, like Democrats, have a notoriously rebellious streak in many case and so there may indeed be some debate about the source of ethics.

It comes from the formation of the brain/mind during evolution. For example, empathy provides a bond among whatever group you are forming, family, tribe, etc., which increases the chance of the survival of that group and therefore the individuals within it.
 
I was perhaps a bit sloppy in the title of my previous thread, so it got off-track from what I was expecting. As such, I am trying to start over and clarify here.
“Believers” claim that moral authority comes from God and that since atheists “don’t believe in God”, that somehow allows them to simply do whatever they want without respect to ethics.
So my query then becomes from whence do the ethical values of atheists derive if not from God.

I know the answer, of course. This thread is more to provide an education for the theists in this forum, although atheists, like Democrats, have a notoriously rebellious streak in many case and so there may indeed be some debate about the source of ethics.

Believe it or not it is possible to glean simple and pure wisdom FROM a book such as The Bible if you are searching for a template. What could possibly be wrong with Jesus telling man to "love one's neighbor as oneself"?

There's nothing wrong with pretty much anything in the Ten Commandments either, although some may split hairs on things like adultery and idolatry. But even then, I can't think of a single atheist I know that doesn't agree that boinking your neighbor's wife is a ****ed up thing to do, and one does not NEED a holy commandment to understand that.

I can only speak for me but perhaps a few think it's fair game IF the neighbor treats his wife so badly that he deserves to lose her. Others guffaw at the fact that some churches have made an industry out of posting graven images and multiple dieties, so the command to not do so is already largely ignored.
Maybe God could have said something like "don't confuse spiritual love with idolatry" and it might have been more effective, but that is not a commandment, that's just good advice.
Aside from that, the Ten Commandments are a large scale "Don't Be A Jerk" set of rules, aren't they?

Don't bear false witness, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't fantasize about taking your neighbor's stuff, honor your parents, these would be elemental truths and commandments under any society. Murder, theft, false testimony in court, elder abuse, all of these are actual crimes that can put you in prison, and with good reason.

Even if one does not believe that a figure called Jesus existed at all, the accounts of his life are full of things any rational person would aspire to, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, sacrificing one's worldly desires for the chance to achieve real spiritual enlightenment.
Even cynical types often admit that we are too much a slave to our material things and that some degree of perspective is in order to remind one that excess wealth and devotion to material possessions have the potential to become a form of prison or self-induced exile.
Jesus wants us to prosper but his definition of prosperity starts from a different place than the route taken by jaded oligarchs.
When wealth is achieved through nefarious or bloody and predatory means, that wealth is not a blessing but a curse.

Looking at The Bible through the eyes of an atheist does not dispose of those things in scripture that stand on their own merits. It is the atheist eye that culls the hypocrisies and plumbs the depths of historical revisionism in an attempt to clarify the evidence that appears when it is clear that scripture has been amended to suit financial and political goals.
The Bible is, unfortunately, one of the most abused texts in all of recorded history. Generations of wealthy and powerful potentates have excised parts that were at cross purposes to their politics and added entire sections out of whole cloth while grossly altering the meanings of other sections in service to the same objectives.

But so much of the good in The Bible remains, and it behooves the atheist to preserve it if for no other reason than to acknowledge that which is acknowledged in The Bible, the notion that man is far from perfect and should always aspire to be better.
The Bible is an attempt at a purely ethical construct and if it fails in some areas, it shines in others.
To be mindful of that is to be a good person, atheist or not.
 
Believe it or not it is possible to glean simple and pure wisdom FROM a book such as The Bible if you are searching for a template. What could possibly be wrong with Jesus telling man to "love one's neighbor as oneself"?

There's nothing wrong with pretty much anything in the Ten Commandments either, although some may split hairs on things like adultery and idolatry. But even then, I can't think of a single atheist I know that doesn't agree that boinking your neighbor's wife is a ****ed up thing to do, and one does not NEED a holy commandment to understand that.

I can only speak for me but perhaps a few think it's fair game IF the neighbor treats his wife so badly that he deserves to lose her. Others guffaw at the fact that some churches have made an industry out of posting graven images and multiple dieties, so the command to not do so is already largely ignored.
Maybe God could have said something like "don't confuse spiritual love with idolatry" and it might have been more effective, but that is not a commandment, that's just good advice.
Aside from that, the Ten Commandments are a large scale "Don't Be A Jerk" set of rules, aren't they?

Don't bear false witness, don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't fantasize about taking your neighbor's stuff, honor your parents, these would be elemental truths and commandments under any society. Murder, theft, false testimony in court, elder abuse, all of these are actual crimes that can put you in prison, and with good reason.

Even if one does not believe that a figure called Jesus existed at all, the accounts of his life are full of things any rational person would aspire to, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, sacrificing one's worldly desires for the chance to achieve real spiritual enlightenment.
Even cynical types often admit that we are too much a slave to our material things and that some degree of perspective is in order to remind one that excess wealth and devotion to material possessions have the potential to become a form of prison or self-induced exile.
Jesus wants us to prosper but his definition of prosperity starts from a different place than the route taken by jaded oligarchs.
When wealth is achieved through nefarious or bloody and predatory means, that wealth is not a blessing but a curse.

Looking at The Bible through the eyes of an atheist does not dispose of those things in scripture that stand on their own merits. It is the atheist eye that culls the hypocrisies and plumbs the depths of historical revisionism in an attempt to clarify the evidence that appears when it is clear that scripture has been amended to suit financial and political goals.
The Bible is, unfortunately, one of the most abused texts in all of recorded history. Generations of wealthy and powerful potentates have excised parts that were at cross purposes to their politics and added entire sections out of whole cloth while grossly altering the meanings of other sections in service to the same objectives.

But so much of the good in The Bible remains, and it behooves the atheist to preserve it if for no other reason than to acknowledge that which is acknowledged in The Bible, the notion that man is far from perfect and should always aspire to be better.
The Bible is an attempt at a purely ethical construct and if it fails in some areas, it shines in others.
To be mindful of that is to be a good person, atheist or not.

Good analysis. Although only five of the Ten Commandments have real ethical values, the ones you mentioned. The ones about God, per se, are not based in ethics and the “covet” Commandments sound like someone just ran out of good ideas and tacked on a couple of covets to round the number to 10.
 
Good analysis. Although only five of the Ten Commandments have real ethical values, the ones you mentioned. The ones about God, per se, are not based in ethics and the “covet” Commandments sound like someone just ran out of good ideas and tacked on a couple of covets to round the number to 10.

But nevertheless, I still feel that it is entirely possible to glean and use that of The Bible that clearly stands on its own merits.
The whole reason I chose this thought experiment is for no other reason than the fact that I was raised as a Christian.
I decided to leave organized religion altogether, and then questioned the entire concept of an anthropomorphized God, i.e. some old bearded daddy who lives in the sky.
But despite that I continue to value spirituality and I see the value in achieving spiritual goodness, the moral goodness of heart and soul, and I believe that one need not cast off that which proves itself on its own merits in scripture.
 
But nevertheless, I still feel that it is entirely possible to glean and use that of The Bible that clearly stands on its own merits.
The whole reason I chose this thought experiment is for no other reason than the fact that I was raised as a Christian.
I decided to leave organized religion altogether, and then questioned the entire concept of an anthropomorphized God, i.e. some old bearded daddy who lives in the sky.
But despite that I continue to value spirituality and I see the value in achieving spiritual goodness, the moral goodness of heart and soul, and I believe that one need not cast off that which proves itself on its own merits in scripture.


Or of the ethical tenets of Buddhism, etc etc etc....
 
Let's not forget that "do not rape" and "do not own other people as property" are not found in the ten commandments. It is very important for God to let us know we shouldn't worship the other gods that existed, or worship false idols, but nothing against those heinous and often practiced tactics, especially against conquered people.
 
You're not "born with goodness". :roll:

Goodness is learned. It's taught. It's part of the culture/environment you grow up in. (Hopefully)


"Religious values" have nothing to do with any of this.

Stoning a person to death is a "religious value" to some.
FGM is a "religious value" to some.
Killing gay men is a "religious value" to some.
"Religious values" have everything to do with this. In Western Society, it is "Religious values" that give a moral compass. If the group you run with doesn't have any, you get what we are getting.
 
I was perhaps a bit sloppy in the title of my previous thread, so it got off-track from what I was expecting. As such, I am trying to start over and clarify here.
“Believers” claim that moral authority comes from God and that since atheists “don’t believe in God”, that somehow allows them to simply do whatever they want without respect to ethics.
So my query then becomes from whence do the ethical values of atheists derive if not from God.

I know the answer, of course. This thread is more to provide an education for the theists in this forum, although atheists, like Democrats, have a notoriously rebellious streak in many case and so there may indeed be some debate about the source of ethics.

Atheists tend, in my experience, to have internalized their moral code. They don't seem to need angry gods holding a club over their heads.
 
"Religious values" have everything to do with this. In Western Society, it is "Religious values" that give a moral compass. If the group you run with doesn't have any, you get what we are getting.


Are you saying that atheists don’t have ethical values?
 
Tell us about some of the atheists that’s you have met that would lead you to make such a totally ridiculous statement.

You think you have one?

Are you pro-abortion? Anything else you need to know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Do you **** little holes in the walls of high school gymnasiums after everyone has gone home? It would be nice to know what you’re coming in.

No, I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You think you have one?

Are you pro-abortion? Anything else you need to know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, I'm not pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.
And even if I was, would that mean that all atheists are pro-abortion?
And are there any self-described religious people that are pro-choice? And if they are, does that mean that they don't have any moral or ethical values? And who assigned you as the person to make that determination?
 
More than likely from their parents.
 
No, I'm not pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.
And even if I was, would that mean that all atheists are pro-abortion?
And are there any self-described religious people that are pro-choice? And if they are, does that mean that they don't have any moral or ethical values? And who assigned you as the person to make that determination?
Oh, so you want to call it "pro-choice", even though everyone in the world knows it means "kill the future human". I gotcha.
 
Oh, so you want to call it "pro-choice", even though everyone in the world knows it means "kill the future human". I gotcha.


Just answer the questions:

No, I'm not pro-abortion. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion.
And even if I was, would that mean that all atheists are pro-abortion?
And are there any self-described religious people that are
pro-choice? And if they are, does that mean that they don't have any moral or ethical values? And who assigned you as the person to make that determination?

And I'll add one more: Is a zygote a future human and is it unethical to end the pregnancy at that point?
Also: What are the ethics of bringing an unwanted child into the world?
 
Answers:
Of course you know "someone who is pro-abortion, your party is full of them.
I'm sure there are a very few atheists who are not pro abortion, but they shut up so you will not abuse them.
There are some religious people who are pro-abortion, me being one, but ONLY in the right situation: incest, rape, risk of natural death by mother or child, others....
The same person who assigned you to make the determination you make for yourself.
Yes, and usually yes.

You'll have to resolve your last question with the participants of the pregnancy. It is, however, unethical to become pregnant and hope that someone else will raise the child.
 
There are some religious people who are pro-abortion, me being one, but ONLY in the right situation: incest, rape, risk of natural death by mother or child, others....

In other words, moral relativity. It's okay to "kill" a fetus in some cases but not okay in other cases.
And here I thought that you Christian types didn't engage moral relativity At least that is what I have heard from many religionists through the years.
 
In other words, moral relativity. It's okay to "kill" a fetus in some cases but not okay in other cases.
And here I thought that you Christian types didn't engage moral relativity At least that is what I have heard from many religionists through the years.

No, you didn’t “think”. You need to update your ideas. Only idiots don’t understand when “moral relativity” is appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, you didn’t “think”. You need to update your ideas. Only idiots don’t understand when “moral relativity” is appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Fine. So Christians do engage in moral relativity. The next time that a Christian criticizes an atheist in this forum for moral relativity, and it will happen, I'll refer them to you.
 
No, you didn’t “think”. You need to update your ideas. Only idiots don’t understand when “moral relativity” is appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So killing a fetus in certain situations is okay with you? I just want to make sure that I'm getting it right.
 
So killing a fetus in certain situations is okay with you? I just want to make sure that I'm getting it right.
Well, you certainly adhere to the liberal thought pattern. You don't have anything "right".

You think that killing a fetus is okay on demand?I just want to make sure that I'm getting it right.
 
Fine. So Christians do engage in moral relativity. The next time that a Christian criticizes an atheist in this forum for moral relativity, and it will happen, I'll refer them to you.
Please do. I'll enjoy their stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom