I don't understand this about the atheists

[CosmicPathos]

I am not an atheist, but we have some very well articulated atheist members here, who will hopefully answer your question in due course.

you kidding me?

We all have a hard-wired concept of what is right and wrong (yes, there are some differences, but on the whole the GOLDEN RULES are very similar for all of us - not matter what religion or none).

hard wired? Where is the neurological, psychological and genetic evidence?

Golden rules? I do not believe in ANY golden rules whatsoever. I am indifferent to being treated kindly or being treated as ****. Hence, I cannot treat others as I'd like to be treated (the so called golden rule) since I do not have any preferences or expectations on how to be treated.

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?

yes, I do. In the absence of God, I am otherwise a radical misanthrope, thanks to human societies and relationships and norms and moralities.
There. Your whole argument stands invalidated.

 

[CosmicPathos]

1. The morals hard wired into our brain.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this. If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So... Are you saying that if there was no God, you'd probably go around robbing banks and killing people? Really?

I would.

Ask yourself, do you ONLY do good because you want Allah's approval and don't want his punishment?

yes, I do. In the absence of God, I am otherwise a radical misanthrope, thanks to human societies and relationships and norms and moralities.
There. Your whole argument stands invalidated.

Then you are a special case. Most of us are not sociopaths.

 

[Independent]

If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

Glib. You could just as easily say the opposite. If there wasn't hard wiring, there wouldn't be anyone except murderers, rapists and paedophiles. And since these groups are very much in the minority, the 'moral' hard wiring idea looks like a better fit with reality.

You are moral in action only because of fear of punishment? That's the only thing that stops you? Then you are not moral in your nature.

Your faith hasn't made you a better person. It just means you're accompanied by a more effective policeman.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Your faith hasn't made you a better person. It just means you're accompanied by a more effective policeman.

I do not want to be a "better" person. I reject your definition of what constitutes a "better person."

 

[CosmicPathos]

Then you are a special case. Most of us are not sociopaths.

argument from absurdity. Argumentum ad populum.

All humans are sociopaths in conditions that would make them so. You would kill a murderer if he tried to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

 

[Logikon]

If what you are saying was right, there would not be any murderers, rapists, and pedophiles among humans.

People from all religions have committted these very crimes. Having a religious background with religious rules have not stopped them.

We athiests have the morals that were hard wired into us. We don't commit crimes because we know right from wrong.

You have implied ( I know I am drawing a long bow) that you would commit crimes except that you are concerned about the punishment of god. That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals.

.

 

[CosmicPathos]

That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals

My morals are different from yours. Who gives you the right to say I have no morals just because I shatter your imposition of your worldviews onto me? Back off boy.

There is no scientific evidence to show that atheists have morals that were hard wired into them. Atheists are as likely if not more to commit fornication/adultery, theft, murder, genocide and rape as any other human being, religious or not.

 

[M.I.A.]

People from all religions have committted these very crimes. Having a religious background with religious rules have not stopped them.

We athiests have the morals that were hard wired into us. We don't commit crimes because we know right from wrong.

You have implied ( I know I am drawing a long bow) that you would commit crimes except that you are concerned about the punishment of god. That implies ( again with the long bow) that you have no morals.

.

i would say you only know the concept of personal right and wrong.

you dont know what happens after, how your action ripples outwards.


and thats the difference.

religious concept is based on an all knowing and powerful god,

he does not often smite the wicked with thunderbolts.

..they end up smiting themselves in most cases.

and others have justification for actions that are beyond our understanding in motivation and knowledge..


i mean its not for a soldier to question a superior.. if he was that questionable then he would not be superior.

at the same time, why would anybody be a soldier in the first place?

murdering, raping and pillaging..

even if it is not done personally.


so where is the morality?

i mean its like giving to the homeless and knowing that most will use money for alcohol.

..i cant turn them away... but there are better people who will simply do more than put money in there hands and walk away...

im not sure its the same with athiests.


the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

he is the judge of those in power and those without any.

and if he elevates you in position it is a test and if he lowers you it is a test.. anything in between and you should count yourself lucky.


morality is probably entirely dependent on situation... presidents and generals are not adverse to collateral damage..

although you and i alike would be.


but even those are under god rather than under morality.


like i said before, in the quran specifically there is a story about moses pbuh meeting a man under guidance.. who does some very questionable things.

it is something that changed my perception of morality, obedience, faith and fear of allah swt.

 

[Independent]

Atheists are as likely if not more to commit fornication/adultery, theft, murder, genocide and rape as any other human being, religious or not.

Wouldn't disagree with this. Atheists also say that we are all more or less likely to commit such crimes, whether or not we are religious. (If there is a statistical difference between atheists and believers in the rate of crime, I've never seen it published and it in fact the data would be very hard to collect.)

That's the point. Morality doesn't come from religion alone, although religion will give it particular tenets and may provide a complete framework.

Although the 'big' crimes like murder, theft and rape are regarded as crimes in almost every culture, religious or otherwise, a whole host of 'lesser' crimes may vary. (eg sex outside marriage is a crime in Islam, but not most western cultures).

All humans are sociopaths in conditions that would make them so. You would kill a murderer if he tried to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him.

No they are not! This is a mis-definition.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war). Of course, everyone but a dedicated pacifist will be prepared to kill under these circumstances.

 

[M.I.A.]

No they are not! This is a mis-definition.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war). Of course, everyone but a dedicated pacifist will be prepared to kill under these circumstances.

kill or be killed is a question of morality or mental stability?

i cant even watch competitive gameshows.. its a similar concept only to a very lesser extent.

how about turning up to a job interview and seeing the other potential candidates?


its just an example that makes you understand how morality works.

 

[Independent]

i would say you only know the concept of personal right and wrong.

you dont know what happens after, how your action ripples outwards.

MIA, Islam as expressed through what you write here is a gentle, empathetic and attractive religion. But what you say might be felt by an atheist too. I have personal morals, but it's obvious to me that many of them are shared very widely. Are these morals god-given, hard-wired or just cultural? What does it matter? The result is the same.

 

[M.I.A.]

morals are based on character.

it is an individual trait.

saying your an athiest or muslim does not change the fact.


sticking by them will give you an indication of your own worth and your worth to people.

i doubt any group is as accepting as you think it is.


it causes problems.

but wherever you are it is like a house of cards.


that is why i believe in a god above my own actions and that is why a fear of god is a paramount concept in religion.

 

[Independent]

morals are based on character.

it is an individual trait.

saying your an athiest or muslim does not change the fact.

I agree! The argument we are disagreeing with here is that, if you remove religion, then morality collapses. It doesn't. The big crimes are still crimes. But the morality of social behaviour (especially sex related) can certainly change.

 

[M.I.A.]

the concept in islam is one of wronging your own soul.

and also that certain aspects of fate.. if not all of it are under the control of a god.

so people that abuse others... sexually or otherwise.. do so at the cost of there own lives.

...those that undergo it, are crafted into the things they become.

i mean you look at murder and what it inspires in the victims families and its just another form of abuse.

society does not collapse.. it just becomes numb to abuses.


as for religion, before a religious state there are religious people.. i would say having religious people is more important than having a religious government.

i would almost go as far as to say having a religious people almost negates the need for government.

except even if we were all muslims, we would all be of differing moral character.


your approaching religion incorrectly in my view.

its not about defining morality.

its about understanding the laws that govern the world.


..or if you want to put it another way, understanding god in the absence of him.

seemingly.


so imagine today you were a muslim and you went out exactly the same as you are and told your friends your a muslim.

told your family.

it would open your eyes to what society really is, how peoples perceptions are not governed by morality.

and the first time you intervened in a conversation due to islam, then you would be on a completely new path.


the same morality and values, correcting somebody else's.

but you could just as easily say your a christian and see the outcome or defend the jews.

there would in your eyes still be no god, but now you would be entirely at the mercy of him..

or the people around you.




this is not the views expressed by muslims, its just an example of how you can put yourself in other peoples shoes.. as a social experiment or learning exercise.


it is so much easier to establish your character on evolution or something similar..

 

[Independent]

people that abuse others... sexually or otherwise.. do so at the cost of there own lives.

...those that undergo it, are crafted into the things they become

I don't know if you have ever read 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoyevsky? In it, the main character, Raskolnikov is the kind of evil atheist that many people here like to believe in. He comes to the conclusion that it would be better for the world (and himself) if he killed a certain moneylender. What happens next is very relevant to this topic but I won't say any more, in case you want to read it.

it would open your eyes to what society really is, how peoples perceptions are not governed by morality.

and the first time you intervened in a conversation due to islam, then you would be on a completely new path.

I don't really follow this?

 

[M.I.A.]

I don't know if you have ever read 'Crime and Punishment' by Dostoyevsky? In it, the main character, Raskolnikov is the kind of evil atheist that many people here like to believe in. He comes to the conclusion that it would be better for the world (and himself) if he killed a certain moneylender. What happens next is very relevant to this topic but I won't say any more, in case you want to read it.

i have not read it,

i guess its a question of personal choice.


i might read it.

I don't really follow this?

yeah its confusing,

most of what iv said does not make sense.

its like trying to explain the actions of a single atom in the universe.

its almost always a part of something bigger.


you would hope it contributes to some useful reaction within its lifetime.. before it is spent and becomes something else.

if you look hard enough you can find the links and equations and rules that govern these reactions.

although still having very little control over them.

but usually there is the option to do or not do...

and you know thats classic you.


so yeah, a belief in a god.

responsible for sustaining and protecting all the people.

and yet leading them all to there own ends.


based on morality?

character?

intent?

obedience?

fear?

circumstance?


but its still just an atom in a constantly moving universe.


its extremely hard to put into words without having all the pieces... i feel a few pieces short of a jigsaw.

 

[Pygoscelis]

the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

That is precisely where religion can get very dangerous.

I agree! The argument we are disagreeing with here is that, if you remove religion, then morality collapses. It doesn't. The big crimes are still crimes.

Not if you believe your deity approves of them.

Once you farm your own sense of right and wrong out, and make it subordinate to what others tell you your God says is right and wrong, you abandon true morality and act merely on obedience. And that is a recipe for atrocity.

This is why I asked the questions I did above, and which I know few religious people will answer, because to do so most will have to admit that they do have an empathic sense independent of their belief in Gods. Except of course for the exceptional cases like our friend CosmicPathos here, who claims to have none, hence the mention of sociopaths.

A sociopath is someone who is murderous under any conditions and in any environment, because he has no empathy at all with other human beings. The life or death of another person is a matter of total indifference to them.

A sociopath is somebody who doesn't feel empathy. It is somebody who therefore only acts on a reward / punishment sense of morality, which is of course not morality at all. These people are not mad killers who will kill under any conditions. They often don't even feel the urge to kill. They just don't feel any guilt in doing so or any moral outrage when others do so. They are often good actors, feigning empathy when it suits them, and sometimes go most of their lives (or their whole lives) unexposed as sociopaths.

When people tell you that laws or obedience to power is all there is stopping them from engaging in unempathic or anti-empathic actions (like killing, raping, stealing, etc) that is a pretty unambiguous admission that they are sociopaths. When religious people sincerely ask how you can have empathic morals without God to demand them of you, that also leans towards being such an admission, and hence the questions I asked above.

I agree with you that we need to distinguish empathic morals from cultural morals. Empathic morals are derived from empathy, and empathy is inborn and universal (with the exception of sociopaths), so all of us will have them, atheists included. Cultural morals, such as sexual taboos and the like, are based on culture, and culture is not inborn, so they will vary widely from culture to culture and religion to religion, etc.

---

 

[CosmicPathos]

What you describe is a 'kill or be killed' situation (such as a war).

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

 

[Independent]

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

Not correct. Sociopaths are fortunately rare. They are not always murderers, but if they are, they behave differently from other murderers. Nor do they necessarily make good soldiers. Mere indifference to killing is far from the only qualification.

Their existence does support the idea that there is brain 'wiring' that is capable of going wrong or being damaged. Perhaps this is also a clue that a capacity for empathy is key to a sense of morality.

Even in a war situation, people's behaviour varies enormously. In most wars, most of the killing is done by a small minority of soldiers who are simply much better at it. Many soldiers went all the way through WW1 and 2 without succeeding in killing anyone.