Morality is irrelevant to atheism

[Starman]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

 

[fast]

I'm a Christian conservative. I suspect the typical atheist here will argue that morality is born out of the harm principle.

 

[bilby]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

Not quite; I would settle for evidence. Proof is a higher standard, and is reserved for mathematics and alcohol.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion is unrelated to your premise.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

So what? Darwin came up with a really smart idea; but that doesn't make him immune from also having some really dumb ideas. Atheists don't do 'worship', and they don't need the people who come up with a good idea to be perfect and faultless. The basic idea that Darwin published is sound.

Newton believed he could turn lead into gold. He was wrong about that, but that doesn't mean that apples fall upwards.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Unless the majority of humans are Muslim terrorists, then you are simply wrong - it cannot be rationally argued that "one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists". Oh, and anyone can judge anyone. So that's two gross errors in one paragraph.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

Meh. If you don't want to be ridiculed, don't be ridiculous.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

There are some, but not many. I think most of them tend to baulk at the idea of rationalism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

No, they usually claim that 'atheism' MEANS no belief in god. It's a vocabulary thing.

The mistake of conflating atheism with morality and evolution is just a sign of how poor a 'freethinker' you'd make.

 

[Angry Floof]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

I'll direct my comments to whomever I please.

Morality does not come from religion.

If you believe you are no more than a dumb animal who needs magical spooks to keep you in line, then it's no wonder a belief system of punishment and ignorance would appeal to you. How convenient to never have to struggle with your own conscience, or exercise it at all. Easy. (Well, for a mongrel it's a lot easier than thinking for yourself, but atheists tend to not blindly accept a dictator's answer for anything.)

"We are the knowing species." - Daniel Dennett

Do you disagree with that statement? Or are you of the belief that we are, again, just dumb animals needing a sky daddy to punish and scare us into behaving a certain way?

We are perfectly capable (yes, even you) of reason and of empathy and of changing our minds when old beliefs turn out to be false. We also don't have the luxury of blaming a magical bad guy when we get it wrong.

But don't let us disturb your peace of mind in not taking responsibility for what's in your own head and heart.

 

[Daioh]

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Morality is not irrelevant
Morality helps people co-operate and live together and this in turn aids in survival and procreation

Without morality I would expect that for many of us our chances of survivng and procreating would go down

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction

Irrelevant (as has already been pointed out)

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists.

Huh? how do you get that?
In what way would Muslim Terrorists be considered successful in evolutionary terms?

You atheists can't judge them!

Yes....yes we can

No they're just following their successful evolutionary prerogative.

I still don't see how by any evolutionary theory they could be considered "Successful"

 

[Gila Guerilla]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

It is true that morality is irrelevant atheism. So is evolution. Atheism is the state of not being convinced of the existence of any supernatural deities. The use of word proof is misguided. In many cases, we simply aren't convinced of the existence of any god, by what we know. Furthermore, the variations of "God" which have been put forward by various religions seem to be immoral gods, including the Christian one, as well as the Muslim one. If such a god were to exist, it does not seem worthy of praise or adoration.

On the other hand, morality is highly relevant to the vast majority of atheists. Furthermore, I think we would also claim that a moral code is possible for us, without the need for any god to tell us what it ought to entail.

To say that: "If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation count", reveals a lack of understanding of what is claimed for evolution. We have evolved a thinking brain, and we can evaluate that group co-operation, trust, and a social setting for ourselves, is good for our survival. Wanton killing is not a good strategy for survival, and if evolution is true, a propensity to avoid it is likely to have emerged, otherwise we would probably have gone extinct long ago.

I very much doubt that: "Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them", any more than he would have predicted that any other apes would soon become extinct by virtue of their inferiority. If the former statement is true Starman, please provide a link to a valid source.

On: "Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary prerogative", and "Only survival and procreation count" . . .
. . . this reveals a lack of understanding of the current scientific understanding of what evolution implies. Please note that Darwin's own understanding of evolution was rudimentary. We have learned a lot since Darwin's day.
In addition, it seems quite possible to me that some Muslim terrorists are not interested in the survival of humanity, rather than its total destruction, so that the end of days, and the time of final judgement will be fulfilled - which is a religious notion. Also note that suicide bombers appear to think that done in the name of Allah, they will get a special reward in "paradise" - another religious notion, and one which is abhorrent.

The content of the OP is one taken from the point of view of a theist. It does not reflect the views held by atheists in general, and as such is really a straw man proposition.

 

[Bronzeage]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

Why the anger? I have the feeling, if we were sitting face to face, I'd be soaked in saliva.

It's tradition to address responses to the person quoted, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Morality is independent of any religion, although religion always serves to codify the moral code of a society. Religion gets to offer horrible consequences to those who violate the code, which is pretty heady stuff.

Morality can be boiled down to two basic tenets. You can't kill your friends and you can't steal your friends stuff. That's it. The rest is just arguing over the definition of friend, kill, steal, and stuff.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, morality is about as relevant to atheism as proper basting is to canasta. It means that you don't think any gods exist and that's it.

 

[untermensche]

Atheism has the morality of not believing in things merely because some other human tells you it is the truth.

 

[WAB]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

Why the anger? I have the feeling, if we were sitting face to face, I'd be soaked in saliva.

Wait, what? I saw one exclamation point, and no real expression of anger, just strong disagreement and natural self-defense. I refer of course to the bit you quoted, not anything prior to that.

The 'Wait, what?" was in imitation of one of the groupthinkers here. I cringed when I typed it.

 

[Perspicuo]

Atheism is an empty container, just as theism. No one's just a "theist", they are something else in addition, like "Seventh Day Adventist", "Sunni Muslim", etc.

It's what you put in it that counts. Over here, most people have Humanist values.


Other than that, the OP expounds merely 100% typical ignorant strawman drivel. The kind you repeat when you don't know what you're talking about and you really don't want to know.

Starman, you come here to tell us what we believe. Why not ask us instead?

 

[Bronzeage]

Why the anger? I have the feeling, if we were sitting face to face, I'd be soaked in saliva.

Wait, what? I saw one exclamation point, and no real expression of anger, just strong disagreement and natural self-defense. I refer of course to the bit you quoted, not anything prior to that.

The 'Wait, what?" was in imitation of one of the groupthinkers here. I cringed when I typed it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "groupthinkers." Whenever I make a post, I've come to expect disagreement. As the great Philosopher Mendacious said, "It is better to be right than agreeable."

As in this case, I find an angry and embittered tone in the words, a lack of exclamation points notwithstanding, where you find strong disagreement and natural self defense. This seems to be more of a preemptive offense than self defense, in that we are instructed not to respond to the OP, but to simply discuss it among ourselves. I presume the OP intends to stand back and listen, but it's possible he has found our forum so odious, he will never return, feeling our comments are overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

typical ignorant strawman drivel.

I think his login ID was a typo.
Or, what was that, a malapropism?

 

[dystopian]

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

Why do you put the word 'only' in quotes like that?

If evolution explains the origin of humans,

Which it clearly does.

then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Unless of course, morality happens to play a significant factor in both survival and procreation. Which it does.

Moral sensibilities evolved as a way of protecting the tribe. Tribal groups of humans (herds) where moral sensibilities discouraged things like theft and murder while promoting a mentality of helping each other had an obvious evolutionary benefit: the members of these tribes had clearly higher chances of survival and procreation than those who lived in tribes that did not.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

First of all, Darwin's personal prejudices have absolutely no relevance today whatsoever. General relativity isn't invalidated by the fact that Einstein liked to wear two different colored socks either.

Secondly, much has been said about Darwin's racism, much of it slanted by creationists who think it somehow discredits evolution and who don't place these utterings in context. Darwin's views hardened in old age, as society's racial views became amplified due to the realities of the day; however much of the accusations against him are blatantly false. As a point of fact, Darwin favored the abolition of slavery, which surely seems a curious view to hold for a racist don't you think? He also explicitly stated the exact *opposite* of what you claim about blacks being closer to apes; as a matter of fact he wrote that all humans belong to the same species, which ran contrary to the established view of many at the time:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate" – The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

These do not sound like the views of someone who is a racist, who thinks black people are inferior. Quite the opposite.

The claim that Darwin believed that black people were inferior and soon to be extinct derives from an example of quote-mining. In fact, he never said this about black people. What he actually said was:

"the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"

Which may seem racist until you understand that he used the word to mean varieties of human, instead of the actual races. Incidentally, here is the full quote the line appears in:

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Hermann Schaaffhausen|Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Clearly, he wasn't talking about the extinction of black people; but rather the extinction of the *actual* great apes. It also shows that he clearly considered black people to be closer to white europeans than apes.

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

It is patently unfair for someone to make statements like yours and demand that people don't direct any commentary to him. Put up or shut up.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Hi Starman!

Atheists have stated that their "only" claim is that they do not believe in God because there is no
"proof" that God exists.

They have? I mean, I'm sure some have, but isn't there some room for nuance here? Perhaps you're oversimplifying things a bit?

If evolution explains the origin of humans, then morality is irrelevant. Only survival and procreation
count.

Wow. Perhaps you're arguing about something you have little to no knowledge about, which doesn't seem wise. I learned some time ago that part of critical thinking is being aware of when you're doing this. Allow me to point this out. Babies only a couple of months old have morality. Chimps and Bonobos have morality. Other animals have morality. Not only is it not true that morality is irrelevant in the light of evolution, but it seems that evolution has given us a way to negotiate and thrive in social groups, which increases our survival and ability to procreate.

Moreover, Charles Darwin propounded an extraordinarily racist prediction, viz. that blacks would soon
become extinct by virtue of their inferiority, being close to the apes, as Darwin described them.

So? Charles Darwin was a product of his day, as we ALL are. To his credit though, he was anti-slavery, which shows a superior morality to that of the god of the bible. The founding fathers had slaves. Are you a protestant? Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism was a rabid anti-Semite. Look at ANYONE, and you will find a mixture of good and bad. This doesn't invalidate good ideas. That's another tenet of critical thinking, avoiding ad hominem arguments.

Arguably one of the most successful groups of humans, in Darwinian terms, would have to be
Muslim terrorists. You atheists can't judge them! No they're just following their successful evolutionary
prerogative.

Um, what? How does that follow?

Please don't direct any of your comments to me. They're overwhelmingly disingenuous and giggly.
Besides, it is patently unfair for dozens of people to overwhelm one person with challenges, questions,
and.... giggly one-liners.

Oh, so you're here to talk but not listen? That doesn't seem fair, or a very good way to learn anything. It's also contrary to 1 Peter 3:15. Is this the equivalent of a message board street preacher? Has anyone ever convinced anyone using such tactics? Ever see anyone break down in front of a street preacher and say "You're right!" I'm broken! I'm a whore! A wretch! I need Jesus!? Yeah, not so much.

If there are any Christian conservatives here, they should add their comments. I doubt that there are more than
a token few.

Most of them left. Personally, I preferred it when there were more here. Some de-converted and stayed. Most left. Some in righteous indignation. A few of them stayed and contribute and treat others with respect and dignity. Which will you be?

ATA: Also, I am not giggly.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd like to reiterate that morality does not come from religion. It comes from us (as does religion, and the two don't always overlap).

 

[Bronzeage]

I'd like to reiterate that morality does not come from religion. It comes from us (as does religion, and the two don't always overlap).

Morality comes from the simple fact, that from a zoological viewpoint, humans are a pathetic animal. We cannot survive as a solitary creature. We can't run fast enough to catch most animals we would like to eat and can't outrun those who want to eat us. Our flat teeth, soft claws, poor sense of smell and inadequate night vision forces us to gather in groups. A group has to live without conflict, which means our behavior must be predictable. We have to know how one another are going to react in any given situation.

Morality makes it possible for us to live in close quarters and cooperate, instead of compete for for resources. Morality is a social construction. There does not appear to be much instinct in human social structure. This means it must be taught to each new member of the group, and the teaching must be consistent, throughout the group. Religion, in all it's varieties through time and geography, provides consistent transfer of the group's moral code, generation after generation.

The problem with moral codes start when groups merge and the definition of who is in the group becomes blurred. To complicate things even more, some religions suddenly declare the entire world to be one group and in a flash, killing and stealing from other people is wrong. There was a time when David(soon to be King David) could massacre tens of thousands of people and take all their stuff, and his group thought this was a good thing. Their "Thy shalt not kill" clause in the moral code did not apply to other groups.

 

[Togo]

I don't see how morality, atheism or evolution are related to each other. You can have all, any two in combination, any one, or none of those positions.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't see how morality, atheism or evolution are related to each other. You can have all, any two in combination, any one, or none of those positions.

I think this misconstrues the terms.

Morality and evolution are a chicken or the egg paradox. Atheism is a rejection(reconsideration?) of the social authority we construct to enforce our moral code of behavior.

The problem comes when this rejection of the authority is mistaken for a rejection of the code of behavior.

This is where it gets tiresome, because some asshole has to pop up and ask something like, "If there is no God or hell, why don't I kill or rape as many people as I want?"

The simple answer to this simple minded question is, "Apparently, you have." Sometimes people fail to recognise zero is a number. Humans are a lazy species. It maybe our weak behavioral instincts. Turn a wasp loose and it will begin to build a nest. A toad will hop back to the pond where it was spawned, to find a mate. If I wanted to hop back to Panama, I would have to consult a map, or maybe a GPS navigation device, but I'd probably decide to look for a woman someplace close by. A code of behavior makes life easier, and we've never been able resist the easy way.

We have a moral code of behavior because it makes life easier. An easy life gives us more time to do the fun stuff and that is a powerful evolutionary drive. Did our large brain bet bigger because life was easier in ways such as more and better food, lower infant mortality, longer childhood, etc,l or did the large brain make that stuff possible? We're back to the chicken or egg thing, again.

One thing is certain, without the egg, we wouldn't have the chicken.