Why does it seem that there are so many atheists who want to go the exact opposite extreme of religion? Maybe I’m more of a humanist then because I do still have a very strong ethical code that I decided on using logic and a true sense of compassion towards others. Moral judgment can be based on the net positives it can provide for the whole of society. Aren’t we all striving to improve ourselves and our communities? Freedom is a wonderful thing worth fighting for, but if those freedoms are not for the betterment of society then we must question if that particular freedom would be best if regulated instead.
Befor create anything, we need basic things to survive as Water, Food and shelter. Just after that we'll be able to be a group a society and create Politics, Religion, be Christians or be Atheists. We are humans and Moral is another creation of us.
Because I got just one life I will respect and love this life with all heart, and because I know that you just have one life I will respect you and love you with all heart, we are special and we just live once,because this we have to care about all life in this world.
A better question is when did moral ideologies consistently apply in any religion ? Ive yet to see a religious book that did not contradict one or more of its moral preachings let alone the people of those religions who fail consistently in practicing consistent morals.
Personal morals have nothing to do with net positives or whole of society. Morals are simply a self imposed rule book we chose to follow or not for the betterment of our own mental and physical health. To try and espouse some other grand purpose is disingenuous.
Even animals have certain baseline "morals" in that many species have shown completely altruistic behavior. Gorillas saving a toddler falling into their enclosure for example. Dolphins saving sailors. These animals were complete strangers to the humans in question and still provided aid.
Obviously animals do not have the higher functioning (not sure if deluding yourself counts as higher functioning but it requires those parts at least) abilities to create delusions of higher powers. So why are they altruistic in these cases?
Seriously morals require reasoning...
Those same gorillas the males also kill their own young so the mother is in heat for mating again for pleasure.. and the dolphins kill porpoises for sport ....
Yea animal morals thats a funny one
Morals are sociological and fluid. What might appear to be "moral" in one context, may become "immoral" in another. There are "default morals" that we have agreed to as a society and have been driven into us from birth, but it all comes down to things like empathy, courage, and the society that you are in. That is why "morals" are different for every continent, country, state, county, city, faith, denomination, individual church, family and person. No two person's moral code is the same. And there are times when, even when 2 people's moral codes don't match, each person can see and appreciate the other person's position.
That is why it's so funny that xians think that morals come from god. If they did, we would all have the same moral code. But since no two people have the exact same moral code, that code couldn't have possibly come from a single finite source. And that is why saying that Atheists don't have morals because we don't believe in god is a strawman argument.
And humans kill animals for sport.
Exceptions do not an argument make. Saying one amoral behavior negates morality for the entire species negates it for humans as well. The point of my post is that there is some ingrained instinctual urge to do certain "good" and "helpful" actions even in animals and claiming random amoral killing rampages will occur without a deity is ridiculous because such actions don't even require higher level thinking.
Instinct and morals are at odds with one another.
You cant attribute one to the other. An instinct is done without thought, reason, or value simply for survival. Morals are anti survival in many cases. Instinct would tell me to kill competition for food. Morals tell me that it would be just as harmful to myself to murder an innocent person as it would be to kill them. Hence why we dont do it.