Where do atheists get their morals from?

[Viking]

Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.

You mentioned "memes" as a source of morality.  Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?

Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?

I asked first.  Can you give evidence that memes exist?  I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?

An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.

Uh no. That's tautological.

It seems that in addition to Meme you don't know what the word Tautology means.

[Malthus]

I always feel strange in these threads.  On one hand I feel the need to defend my culture and my religion from Viking's ferocious attacks...on the other I do not really claim or believe the things he is trying to disprove. 

This confuses me as well. You agree with me but keep trying to prove us wrong. Then again you know how I feel when the stalin/hitler was an atheist trope springs up. My attacks are not ferocious, they are analytical and to the point. This is one of the reasons why all atheists sound strident when they are analytical and to the point. When I explain where I get my morals from I am also asserting that you don't get your morals from the bible. Apparently this makes religious people feel apprehensive.

While the Ancient Romans and Greeks did some pretty messed up shit I think they are as much the ancestors of our moral system as Christianity...since in so many ways Christianity carries along alot of their values.  So I would guess the place Atheists get their morals from is the same place Christians got alot of theirs: from Ancient Philosophy.

Again, my main point here is that Ancient Philosophy is an expression of our universal morality. Australian aboriginies and Amerindians had very similar ideas about in-group ethics and morality as we do even today. The "what" questions have the same answers while the "how" questions have different ones. Australian aboriginies diverged from the rest of the planet 40,000 years ago at least, the Amerindians about 20,000 years ago. These people were isolated for 37,500 and 17,500 years respectively before the Axial age and invention of Ancient Philosophy, yet the still share our basic ideas on how to behave. They knew that lying, stealing and murder was wrong; they knew that covetousness was detrimental to group solidarity; they knew that empathy for the feelings and emotions of others was a requirement for cooperating and getting along with them.

Good people will do good things regardless of what their religion is.

The history of religion and religious morality is in lockstep with social evolution, just as one would expect. The major religions are well-placed to add social cohesion to early modern states.

All societies tend to have religious and moral beliefs that are appropriate to them. Members of tribal societies are very moral - to members of their tribe. But can be horrible to people who are not. Similarly, national religions are well-placed to organize early states (the Judaism as revealed in the OT is a good example) but not so good at translating beyond national differences. The great international religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) are good at that - Islam is a perfect example of a religion able to overcome national and tribal distinctions - but they in turn tend to fall prey to splitting up into sectoral units that fight as viciously as nations do.

In anthropology, certain aspects of religion can be seen as an unconcious (or even partly concious) attempt to pull people together into a more expansive grouping able to resist some perceived disaster - through either assimilation of the larger society, as in early Christianity, or through uniting squabbling tribes for conquest, as in Islam. Part of that process is going to be a more expansive, less parochial morality. The end-point is perhaps a universal morality not based on either clan or creed - so far, that has been the preserve of philosophers and mystics. We simply are not there yet - similarly, we do not yet have a real world-government. The evolution of morality and of society tend to go hand-in-hand. 

[Viking]

So if I find one religion that doesn't preach compassion then you'll concede your point?

I'll concede the point when you find a successful religion that preaches anti-compassion to in-group members.

As much as I do not wish to engage in this particular diatribe from Viking, I do wish to point out that one of the central teachings of Christianity was that it taught compassion to out-of-group members.  See the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

This is why I have consistently stressed the nature of in-group morality here. I even referred to it earlier in this thread responding to Solmyr

The funny thing is though, the modern, western morals are almost entirely based on Christian teachings.

The funny thing is though, what you said above is BS.

Theology wise Christianity is pro-slavery, pro-misogyny, pro-homophobia, preaches murder on apostates, opposes work, opposes reason, opposes doubt and accepts the premise of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice.

Modern Christian Teaching is almost entirely based on modern western morals as defined by the moral philosophers of the enlightenment.

Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet, do unto others, giving to charity etc. these are the universals christian theology included. These ideas exist in all other religious and philosophical traditions.

The most significant non-universal idea christianity has transmitted to the west is a jewish one it merely carried along with it. The idea that the individual is in and of itself valuable to god who created the individual in his image. This is unique in religion and is the fundamental idea that modern democracy and the idea of human rights is built upon. Though I must insist that this idea did have it's effect until the enlightenment got it's hands on it.

You can argue if this idea is about extending morality to out-group members or defining all of humanity as in-group members when it comes to morality. The in-group is the "us" the group you identify with and consider yourself a part of. The definition and clarity of who is in the in-group and who is in the out-group and how morality applies is difficult, complex and situational. As the Bedouin proverb goes "me against my brother, with my brother against my neighbor, with my neighbor against my tribe, with my tribe against my country" (or however it is expressed in each case...). Or as the newspaper editor might value a dog bites man story that happened across the street just as much as one about an earthquake killing 100,000 in china (again, you have heard the quote I am misquoting).

Here the issues of passive and active moral duty in each situation depends on the distance or level of in-group-ness. This is a fascinating topic, yes it needs discussing, it is a unique contribution that christianity managed to produce from a throwaway line in the hebrew bible and apparently it is never used as an example of morality by those claiming the bible as the source of their morals.

I think that the idea that morals and ethics are universal (not to be confused with objective) for all humanity is the principle contribution of Christianity to the west and we would not have the enlightenment or modernity without that idea.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps if Hitchens was less concerned about religion poisoning anything and more concerned with tobacco poisoning, him he might still be alive.

You mentioned "memes" as a source of morality.  Perhaps you'd like to show us the proof that memes actually exist?

Proselytizing religions are memes. Perhaps you'd like to show us some proof that you understand the word?

I asked first.  Can you give evidence that memes exist?  I wouldn't be able to understand something that doesn't exist now would I?

An example of an existing meme is sufficient proof for the existence of memes.

Uh no. That's tautological.

It seems that in addition to Meme you don't know what the word Tautology means.

I know what tautological means as well as "conciseness" though it's clear you don't know at least one of these.  Now where is the scientific evidential supporting memes?  Where is the information that "mutates" in memes?  What is the basic form, the "DNA" of a meme?  Can you even disprove the existence of memes?

[garbon]

Where do atheists get their morals from?

God. 

[Viking]

Speaking of religion in general I think it can fill people with a connection to others and perhaps a desire to do good things.  Obviously that is not a universal response to spiritual experiences but it is a pretty common one.  But even in that case one would need a definition of what the good is.  And therefore most religions try to define that, but they obviously are getting that from something because really that is an intellectual exercise.  To determine what actions would benefit people or what at least would not harm them.

Is that not one of the most basic questions of philosophy?  What is the good?  I do not know if those are really natural things since the answers are not always the most intuitive.

This is going to shock you coming from an atheist. Religion is part of our natural morals. This does not mean that God exists, it just means that religion helps make successful societies. Religion is successful and moral because good solutions and behaviors are not natural. Reason, logic, math (including algebra) and language are not natural. Short cut rules of thumb work where long winded tedious explanations defining and measuring all the effects of killing your brother raping his wife and stealing stuff won't.

Parents will know that at some point "because I say so" ends the discussion with the toddler.

[Solmyr]

That's only because Christianity has been the dominant ideology/religion in our culture for the last 1500 years. But if a different religion/ideology replaced it, the outcome would have been similar (or, in many cases, probably better, as in addition to its fair share of humanistic values, Christianity brought a lot of immoral bullshit with it, too) - so this cannot be used as a proof of Christianity's exceptionalism, as some people here are using it.

So you agree with me.

I wasn't claiming Christianity's exceptionalism at any point. Just saying that from the point of view of modern western morality, Christianity was a pretty big defining force, and trying to marginalize its role and equate it with other religions in this context is a fallacy.

[Viking]

That's only because Christianity has been the dominant ideology/religion in our culture for the last 1500 years. But if a different religion/ideology replaced it, the outcome would have been similar (or, in many cases, probably better, as in addition to its fair share of humanistic values, Christianity brought a lot of immoral bullshit with it, too) - so this cannot be used as a proof of Christianity's exceptionalism, as some people here are using it.

So you agree with me.

I wasn't claiming Christianity's exceptionalism at any point. Just saying that from the point of view of modern western morality, Christianity was a pretty big defining force, and trying to marginalize its role and equate it with other religions in this context is a fallacy.

I'd like to point out that without being "made in the image of god" and the choice of the early church fathers to interpret this to mean that all humans have value in and of themselves to god we would not have gotten anywhere near where we are today. Without the idea and value of universality we don't get the west.

[Neil]

There's nothing more dull than an insecure atheist.

[Barrister]

Here the issues of passive and active moral duty in each situation depends on the distance or level of in-group-ness. This is a fascinating topic, yes it needs discussing, it is a unique contribution that christianity managed to produce from a throwaway line in the hebrew bible and apparently it is never used as an example of morality by those claiming the bible as the source of their morals.

As a proposition that Christianity teaches to love all men, Christian and otherwise, I cited the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

It exists in the New Testament, and is amongst the most famous and most cited of Jesus' teachings.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.

Is it possible you are unfamiliar with the story of the Good Samaritan?  If so...

25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;✡Deuteronomy 6:5 and your neighbor as yourself."✡Leviticus 19:18
28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
29 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' 36 Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
37 He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

http://www.ebible.org/web/LUK10.htm#V25

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I think the "good Samaritan" parable is one of the most lucid in the bible. And is likely the most relatable story you can quote today. Most everyone has experienced being the first two folks who were not compassionate enough, or fearful of the trauma they saw; or have helped somebody in that situation, and been a good samaritan. I have done both, walking past someone I barely recognized as "in trouble" due to my own self absorption, and I have also helped people out who were in need of some compassion, and help. In this day and age, lots of folks are "lying beaten, and bloody on the side of the road. If you can muster the strength to help. you are a good person, Christian, Atheist or whatever your -ism.

Personally I'm neither a Christian (or any other religion) nor an Atheist. But I Believe in human beings, and that most of the time, most of us are pretty decent to each other, regardless of our creeds. For me, the afterlife and all these rewards/punishments for how you act in society, are simple codes, that mostly have the right idea. treat your neighbours nicely, don't hurt people, don't steal. All very reasonable things to reinforce through whatever codes your society wants to write down.

where this all breaks apart for me, is all the spiteful, angry interpretations of these codes, that obviously are meant to cause strife (and the need to control said strife) and form pyramid like power structures.

my two cents, anyway.

[The Brain]

Define atheist.

[dps]

This question arose in the terrorism thread where I suggested that muslim radicals in iraq find themselves permitting themselves to do obvious great evil and using their book and god to justify it.

Uhm, not really. 

My question to you in that thread wasn't about where atheists get their morals from.  I was questioning your apparant assumption that WWII-era Norwegians were, in the main, atheists.

[Admiral Yi]

In cohesive cultures morality can come from fear of ostracism independent of religion.

[Viking]

I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about 'a throwaway line in the hebrew bible that is never used'.

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Theologians and Philosophers ran with this one taking the meaning to be that each individual person is individually created with reason, purpose and value to god; a role in his ultimate plan if you want to say it that way. Other religions don't have that. The original line was possibly ripped off from one of the river culture myths about marduk or amon-ra (or some other god) creating man from clay.