Can an atheist tell me where you get your morals from?

You've heard the saying that common sense isn't common, I'd assume.
What, exactly is common sense?

That depends on what exactly you are asking: If you are asking what thought process led us to our morals, then with some of us it was conscious study of moral philosophy. But with most of us it was just adopted from whatever culture we happen to be a part of. If you are asking what principles we follow, then most atheists seem to follow utilitarian morality. But I think that virtue ethics is better because it is closer to the moral intuitions and deliberations that we all have. If you mean The reason why an atheist would want to be moral, its because no one wants to think of themselves as a jerk, but you can only lie to yourself so much and still believe in those lies. So you have to do good things to get a positive self-image at a certain point. If you are asking how its possible for morality to emerge in a world with no God, then the answer is in Game Theory. Humans are social animals. To survive, we need to live in groups and cooperate with each other. To do that, we need some way to credibly commit to look out for each other even when it isn't in our own immediate best interests. So we evolved mechanisms in our brains that deactivate our individual self-interest and focus us on the interests of others.

Common sense based on one's culture.
Your morals come from interactions with your family and peers. I don't believe you need them spell out, for you to know what is good or bad.

You can attend church every sunday, and still have shitty morals due to having shitty parents.

Don't overcomplicate things, Dr. Peterson.

I asked exactly what I asked.
Where do you get your morals from?
Everybody else has managed to interpret the question perfectly well. You are the only one that can't make sense of a simple question, and feel the need to "explore more metaphysical dimensions".

Attached: 2flenm.jpg (500x625, 82K)

So primarily from the household, and some innate sense of good and bad?

I don't think we're too far from common ground.

societal pressures and the need for self preservation

There are different morals among Christians or any other faith too.

To say that there is nothing common between them seems off too, there are many commonalities. Truth/honesty, nonviolence/consent, etc.

Now many atheists do make moral errors, often motivated by atheism itself. Or rather by the mistaken belief that a given moral standard is justified only by a holy book, when all such moral standards are subject to logical analysis as well. For instance many atheists become sexual degenerates, mistakenly believing that the Christian prohibition of fornication is an arbitrary restriction unique to the religion. You could say that what they fail to realize is that religion does not exist in a vacuum, and that the moral teachings of religions can and should be thoroughly examined for their usefulness, rather than tossed aside carelessly, as most of them turn out to be quite useful to guiding behavior. Sexual degeneracy, has many negative consequences in a purely temporal context, ignoring the opinions of God and consequences in the afterlife.

They don't have any and Allah will purify their souls in the boiling pits of hell.

But again, there is no set code innate to either of those. Sometimes self-preservation would require working as a team, and sometimes self-preservation might take a more brutal route. In any case, the outcome is only limited by the rationalization behind it, especially on the brutal end of things.

I could, by use of your definition, murder anyone I wanted as long as I produced a good enough rationalization--and managed to escape societal pressures. In other words; it's starting to look like something for an intelligent psychopath.

I get mine from based Sam Harris

the internet, thai papier-mâché forums exclusively

You make a good point, which I think I can counter in a fairly fair way.
Let's distinguish between the belief system and any institutions. An institution will always be tainted by a human's interpretation of a certain abstract idea.

What I'm getting is that it is the usefulness of the morals that would compel atheists on-masse (over time--I'd assume) to adopt the morals, rather than a stated standard from heaven?

I'm primarily running off: "You could say that what they fail to realize is that religion does not exist in a vacuum, and that the moral teachings of religions can and should be thoroughly examined for their usefulness, rather than tossed aside carelessly, as most of them turn out to be quite useful to guiding behavior."

Well I mean, I guess he's effectively your God then

Were you not able to understand his answer to your question? Are you retarded? While his answer was needlessly complicated and drawn out, he does give an answer. I suggest you reread the post and quit being a disingenuous faggot.

>where you get your morals from?

what are morals??
how do I get some?
are they free?

"While his answer was needlessly complicated and drawn out, he does give an answer"

Then I suggest he make it concise. I have read longer answers than his. I suggest you read my conversation with the other dude here:
You'll see that I'm reading a fair amount of text. Now fuck off, because you're clearly the disingenuous faggot.

1. The things God said to do/not do
2. Read the bible
3. Yes

If religion is such a solid basis for morals then how come most people haven't even read their holy books and every holy book has multiple interpretations for different moral standards. Not to mention that people don't even follow religious morality. If God has objective moral truths then how come he gives it through vague books in dead languages that can be misinterpreted in an infinite number of ways? Secular humanism is the base for most people's ethical standard unless they're a religious extremist.

If religion is such a solid basis for morals then how come most people haven't even read their holy books and every holy book has multiple interpretations for different moral standards? If God has objective moral truths then how come he gives it through vague books in dead languages that can be misinterpreted in an infinite number of ways? Secular humanism is the base for most people's ethical standard unless they're a religious extremist.

>when you thinks what you said was so good you decided to post it twice

so if someone were trying to kill you, it would be immoral to defend yourself even if the outcome results in the death of the assailant? this is a boomer tier thread

It’s genetic

Attached: 77A97695-2A92-43EC-B2A5-58DDB8B96152.png (750x1334, 916K)

The current topic of today is "where did you get your morals from?"
Not "why do most Christians, Muslims, etc." not read their holy books.

We are talking about where atheists/christians get their morals from. It's abstract. We're not complaining about lazy people. If you want to complain, go away.

How does that answer your question?

So we can't do anything about it, in other words?

OK, serious answer.
Mother
Father
Uncle
School Teachers
Church

I don't want to go to jail for doing evil thing.

gottem

That poses a good question.

Look at Africa for example. The primitives believe in vodoo as much as they imagine themselves to believe in god and the bible. China warps taoism into their semitic religion when they aren't evading the government for believing in it. Many Christians I know are basically Christians for jews as well it seems truly self defeating and twisted in purpose.

It's crazy how easily warped the religion is. It's amazing it got as far as it did. Either the bible isn't self sufficient or god decided white men must put it upon themselves to civilize the entire planet. x to doubt.

I guess the reason I say any of this on topic is because morals clearly aren't being passed around by the bible. Where does anyone get their morals from? I do however think they clearly exist.

Yeah I'll let you two go on your rabit hole tangent and start theorizing as if anyone gave a shit.

The rest of us are staying on topic.

natural law

Attached: joy.jpg (529x413, 38K)

Morals=/=ethics
Moral depends on society, Ethics is for yourself. If you ask for my ethics, I get them from empathy
He should live among de 44%

Attached: No, you move.jpg (1024x3204, 469K)

Usefulness is not the only aim, there is also aesthetic satisfaction involved.

This is not an established moral theory I’m just working out my own thoughts here: Morality is a synthesis of practical, consequential, cause and effect analysis on the one hand, and aesthetic values. So for instance I think we transmit the aesthetic values more effectively between our families and close friends than we transmit the practical side of morality. Because everybody wants to learn from experience, they don’t want to be told they can’t have their cake and eat it to. It is more effective, in contrast, to mold their values, physical fitness, humility, respect for elders, work ethic, temperance, and so on. You need to provide role models for them that exemplify these values. Most importantly you need to be a role model, but you also want as much cultural and social capital as you can get, which is why churches are so great

The transmission of aesthetic values from parents to kids breaks down rather quickly if you look at music being more of a peer-related phenomenon--but that's beside the point.

You're pointing at external phenomenon such as a church, or parents--which I hold to be true to some degree.

Where you aren't answering the question is where the morals actually come from. A father has his morals from somewhere. If we keep saying "from his father" it becomes a "turtles all the way down" argument.

the NAP

People claiming "society" or "nature" are brainlets. Society is constrained by religious traditions, and "natural law" is a concise but explicit reference to "law of nature's God." Learn some goddamn history, you mouthbreathing faggots.

lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/organizing/laws-of-nature-and-natures-god/

Where do the innate structures come from? What if my innate structures are "immoral"?

DUDE WE ONLY GOT ONE LIFE NOW BE A GOOD BOY CUZ THERES NO CONSEQUENCES FOR ANYTHING

Empathy and The Golden Rule

Good answer.

We both agree that there are people in this world currently that violate the NAP. What does the NAP teach us about them?

Seeing as the golden rule is a rule, it must have come from somewhere. That is the question. We also know there are empathy deficient people in this world.

Your question will probably coincide with For future reference, if you're interested in keeping up.

Empathy.

I have a hard time taking anyone with an LGBTQ flag on Jow Forums/pol seriously.
I hope you have enough empathy to understand.

Yeah, the golden rule comes from every single individual being able to come up on their own with "uhhhh if I do bad thing to other person maybe they can do bad thing to me I don't want that", it happens naturally at around the age of 4. We all needed this realization evolutionarily because not only we are social animals (there are other ones), we are also the apex predator, meaning the biggest danger to ourselves has been ourselves for a very long time. The ones that didn't get the golden rule because of defect or trauma got expelled and died, that's why this basic moral is universal among humans. The ones deficient in it today are called immoral or amoral. Their rise has been allowed by the recent social standard of not expelling autismos from society to fend off for themselves.

I know plenty of people that do not play by the golden rule. Many of them are in positions of power. Many of them are not at all kicked out of friend circles.

You are wrong.

>he gets his morals from a book

You don't read, I take it?

i dont have any morals i just dont want to go to prison and be raped by niggers.

You refuted nothing I said.

Carrying the golden rule and playing by it are different things. Those individuals you mention most likely realize the way they behave is morally wrong, they are just not being punished by others because it has become less common to do so and/or they are able to drawn out repent either naturally with their personality (low neuroticism) or via their lifestyle (obsessing over money for instance). This corresponds to the golden rule being corrupted (by modern society), not non-existant. Still, they wouldn't kill someone.

I get my morals from a Catholic education. But i'm an atheist

How do I know that fucking children is wrong? Not from the bible that's for fucking sure.

You need to understand that there's nothing recent about bad people.

In fact, we keep seeing this "recent" rise throughout history. Psychos have always existed.

Second, there's no basic moral universe that is common among humans. A lot of civilizations kill their babies because volcanoes tell them to--Or science. The rationalization and thin veneer that people use for their psychopathic tendencies varies.

not from Jews, that's for sure

Attached: 1548269571313.png (602x941, 1013K)

To the question who do you don't take your morals from it's them

Can a memeflag tell me where they get their faggotry from

Do you enjoy wasting your own time and every body else's time by posting something that's not an argument?

Here's a good look at the type of mind we are currently discussing. There is absolutely no reason for him to do this, yet he does this.

This faggotry?
Probably somewhere in the ballpark of the atheist community.

Attached: 1479671577336.jpg (768x1024, 237K)

I would say they are innate. As a theist. But that's because we are created in the image of god.

seeing as this thread is nothing but a bunch of semitic semen slurpers patting themselves on the back because "muh morals", yes, I enjoy wasting your time like you waste bandwidth posting this shit. do the world a favor and suck start a shotgun, kike wannabe

Attached: 1530982596106.jpg (600x600, 138K)

Nobody was patting anybody on the back. You don't enjoy this either. I understand you're having a toddler tantrum. Is this a habitual thing?

>Nobody was patting anybody on the back.
every little lie makes baby Jeebus cry

Are you saying unless you have skydaddy you're going to start killing people?

Are you a psycho?

Good thing baby Jesus is dead. I'm betting my soul on it.

OP I don't know how to tell you this, but atheists commit far less crimes
Atheists have fewer abortions, fewer divorces

And if you think our laws are based on the religious laws in the Bible you're just retarded. It couldn't be further from the truth, this is secular law. If it was the religious laws of the past we would be sacrificing animals and shit

Nope. Would you?

I'll accept truth at all costs. Gimme the sources for this

>wealthier people are significantly less likely to believe in god
pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/belief-in-god/by/income-distribution/

>religious people are more likely to be violent, get a divorce, and have unprotected sex
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

Attached: 1535456554994.jpg (477x640, 49K)

Maths. Game Theory.
The morality you get from religion largely matches up with game theory played out in a social setting.
Which is slightly unsettling but interesting from an atheist perspective. The bible records real stuff.

By my Mom and Dad, and from Christianity. Now, I may not believe 100% in a God anymore, nor 100% in my parents, but that foundation brought me through puberty and into a stable and wholesome adulthood, free of drugs and worldliness. Likewise, I am raising my little boy in Christianity too. And you know, I’m starting to feel something there again.

Attached: 7686FFC5-E578-4319-A761-82DF5AC1BF48.jpg (1092x1795, 914K)

Attached: Chris Langan's answer to If you are not accountable after death, you can do whatever you want t (775x739, 127K)

> cunning

Religious people more violent:
I can't find any of the primary sources in these articles. It's quite ironic, as the article itself is complaining about the same thing. Are you sure they're not just writing these for money? People do that quite a lot.

The links I find on their site just link back to their own site, with explanations for toddlers that are easily impressed by shenanigans. You believe just about anything, don't you?

Attached: 1479751467276.jpg (311x400, 21K)

I just want everybody to see the immense stupidity of this man, and how he completely wasted my time with an article that has no primary statistic sources for his argument.

Look at what he linked me: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

That may as well be an article from buzzfeed, with the shitty links on "this is what happiness is" and "dealing with domestic violence"

You fucking assclowns need to get your shit together. You can't believe anything you read. Atheists on masse are about as gullible as your average CNN viewer.

Attached: neilthegrasstriessome.jpg (1024x768, 101K)

I'm starting to think that atheists are the true NPC's. It all goes back to atheism. All they understand is social pressure.

After decades of Dawkins and his gang labeling themselves "brights", the atheists just began believing in it. It's even at the point where they think "science" means truth. They are literally this fucking stupid. They will believe just about anything from men in white coats.

Empathy, humanity, the Golden rule.
It's something so fundamental that many religions include it and anyone who's not litterally a retarded autist that can't comprehend other people can get it.
If you you wouldn't want something done to you then you should understand others feeling the same and respect that.
That's a basic rule of thumb but it's not too hard to go into more nuance with utilitarianism and Kant. Heck, there's always been overlap with the religion and secular philosophy and many philosophers came out of churches.

You often see "common sense" logic like this based on feelings and complete ignorance of how nature actually works. See "alpha/pack leader" pseudo psychology that has been extended throughout the animal kingdom and even human society even though the original behavior was very specific and only brought about by unnatural conditions.
Nature is ruthless, it's a cold uncaring bitch but animals that solely look after themselves don't survive as a species. Looking after your mate, your offspring, your group all increase your ability to pass on your genes. Even outside of species we see cooperation in the wild like small animals that are tolerated by extremely aggressive animals in exchange for help with parasites and cleaning.

I have a feeling if something is right or wrong. Do you lack this skill?

It's sad when people make cases that the only way they will behave is if they are threatened with imaginary hell.

>void of justice

As an atheist I try not to treat anyone the way I wouldn't want to be treated.

As an atheist I realize humanity is the only thing we have standing in the way of entropy and us being extinguished as a species which should make us all humanists.

I believe human life has intrinsic value derived from two sources:

1) Objective bulwark against entropy and chaos and death.
2) Devaluing human life runs counter to those empathic survival traits that got us this far.

2) Is why I'm anti-abortion for example.

Rationalizing why atheists are devils is a waste of your time. Instead of assuming someone who doesn't share your worldview is automatically evil you should try talking to them like they are a human being, an individual, and not a robot programmed by the bible or media.

>Sociopaths are rewarded

The problem is if your only basis for not being a sociopath is an imaginary man in the sky and an imaginary punishment system, these are easily debunked for most people.

You should consider teaching people to respect the rights and humanity of others without imaginary sticks and carrots. If people viewed each other as they actually are - unique and irreplaceable lives in the vast eternal void, this might be more feasible. Religion works against its own interest in this way by promising people a do over later with easier rules. There is no do-over, there is no reward, there is only the harm or the help you cause here and now in the thread of your own life to make life a heaven or hell for others around you right now.

That said, I'll generally side with religious people these days on most issues, because sadly people are too dumb to behave without the carrot and stick system.

Dude, your autism really shines when you completely miss that is joking.

Did I mention how atheists have higher rates of autism?

My moral comes from empathy. I don't want to hurt people. It's a natural and evolution thing
If atheist were so degenerate : why we don't see them more often in prison ? Why most of the scientific community is atheist ? (You know the guys who actually create vaccins, cures and the PC you use)
Why more you country is atheist more it is peacefull and happy ?
> Muh China
Confusionism is not atheism
Why religious countries are shitholes ?

>Implying morals isn't natural

Real talk, that's the core beneath all the conciousness behaviors, like how pleasure and happiness are just chemicals at their core.
Animals that can get along can gain an advantage and propagate, anti-social fellow-destructive ones don't, these behaviors get selected for.

There's no such thing as objective morality, there's just learned behaviors that emerge as a consequence of our genetics, evolution and social influences.

There's different "morals" all around the world and there always has been and the success of those societies kinds of acts like a selection pressure for the moral system.

Religion came later in the behavioral evolution chain of events and is just an attempt to codify those behaviors which it does in a kind of round about, but very inconsistent way.

Attached: 11.png (750x1416, 243K)

where do you get your morals from? I hope it's not the bible because that shit is fucking retarded. you ever eat shellfish bro? how about pork?

They aren't. Morals are a completely abstract concept. It's not at all natural.

You wouldn't say mathematics are natural. Surely, you are not at the intellectual level of a toddler, are you?

Finding a thing inside another thing does not mean they are the same thing.

If anti-social behaviors are not selected for, why do they exist in the first place?

I'd like to first establish that nature is amoral, neither good or evil, and that humanity has been part of nature for the longest time. We can then pinpoint the birth of morality, of perceived good and evil, to the acquisition of conscience by man (or one of its ancestors), more specifically to the conscience that other human beings exist, our actions can affect them and they experience reality equally to you. That's all that's needed for the golden rule to become engrained in a person, these are easy connections.

This doesn't mean, however, that at that point a complex moral system was born: a cave man would probably murder and rape multiple people in his lifetime, just like any other animal does, unimpeded, without learning; but not without consequences, for he would suffer from deep seated terror and trauma, after all he is, at some level, cognizant of the golden rule. Morality was born, for it affected us, but we could not yet comprehend it, so we lived in a state of savagery.

[1/2]

After millenia of social interaction, personal reflection and refinement of our communication skills, we invented formal moral systems. First it was tradition, passed orally, in child rearing, myths and rituals; then it was written, the 10 commandments, the bible, other religious texts, these are all such. They function as catalysts of the whole process that took us from savagery to civilization, the passing down of human experiences accumulated throughout generations, the observations of which behaviors go against and which align with the golden rule. Like I said, humans are social creatures and apex predator, so the success of our societies is really dependent on our apacity to conduct the process above. Sure, bizarre moral systems have popped here and there in small islands in the world, but all the world's greatest religions share big common ground, alligned with the golden rule. Now, for the greatest manifestation of this process, the rule of law as modeled in liberal democracies, just look how widespread it has become in a couple centuries. It's a testment to its alignment to the golden rule and the benefical effects it has on the societies that adopt it.

Moral systems, law and religion, are our greatest civilizational achievement, but they are just a catalyst to a process. It always implies a certain level of authoritarianism, for our own good. Each one of us doesn't have to go through the unecessary suffering of moral experimentation, but in turn, it's shut up and obey. Specially because some of the more ancient moralities may be difficult to layout logically, because they are not the resulting process of any single mind, so there's a possibility they can't be explained by single mind reasoning (similar to how sometimes we can't comprehend the ways of artificial intelligence). But turns out one of the founding values of modern societies is liberty, so we, modern humans, are free to test the boundaries of morality, at our own peril.

If there is no objective morality, then you can't make a statement on it at all, aside from "I have this whacky thought in my head."

You understand what objective means, right?
It's an object outside of your head. If there is no object on the outside, we're just talking about whatever we believe on the inside, which would be highly disinteresting to me.

Also, several objective moralities could exist at the same time. I don't see the point you are trying to make there.

And we can see that you're the one being inconsistent. And even by your own philosophy (that there's no such thing as objective morals) we could easily understand how that could be an incoherent mess. There would be billions of different moralities. That would suck, indeed. Best stick to 1, right?

common sense is common
some sayings are just retarded

go to 99% of the world and people treat each other with respect
some cherry picked stats or .webms doesnt change anything

those who disagree with this have probably never left their hometown
i've been to 5 continents. people were ALWAYS respectful.

Heck, have you seen the prosperity gospel of southern mega churches?
These millionaires scoop out a wall Mart sized building to pack in as many followers as possible along with extensive tele-preaching and use jesus' name to preach nearly the opposite of his teachings. It's not the meek that will inherit the earth, it's the rich. It's not the rich that will have a harder time entering the gates than a camel passing through a needle head, it's the rich who are chosen and on the fast-track to salvation. This life isn't merely a test full of trials and no promise for physical reward but for which you'll be rewarded in the afterlife, God will make you a millionaire tomorrow if you just keep sending me money! It has just about gotten as bad if not worse than the era of the church selling indulgences.