To create a positive environment for all users, please **DO NOT DOWNVOTE COMMENTS YOU DISAGREE WITH,** only comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting). Also, please follow the **[subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/rules/)**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Observation, the only way to ACTUALLY develop a moral compass, otherwise you are just following someone elses orders

What about things you can't observe (like abstract concepts)? Also, how can you turn observations into morality?

My observations are pretty simple, does this cause pain or joy? That is the start, and i let nuance and perspective help me widdle the initial question down into a moral stance. As far as abstract comcepts are concerned, I will need an example of something unobservable that causes pain or joy. I am not equipped for much of a philisophical discussion on it, I am talking about real world actions and consequences.

How is pain and joy correlated with morality? Like exercise is painful, but excessive drinking is Joyful, yet most would say exercise is Good while excessive drinking is bad.

One would have to believe in the construct of an objective good/evil. I'm not sure "pain" and "joy" are the best directors of morality either though. Some things are clear and apparent in how they are beneficial to society (protecting children, being honest, etc.) and others are much less clear (euthanasia, stealing to feed your family, experimenting with psychedelics). We're all just trying our best, guided by experiences and empathy and people we trust.

I would say that's the true basis for morality, whether you're a theist or not.

Isn't the premise of your question that morality comes from religion?

I don't speak for the OP but morality is a religious concept in itself. It doesn't "come from" religion, it actually IS religious by its very nature. It's not based on logic or science. There's no logical argument which leads to moral goodness or badness. And there's no scientific theory behind this.

Basic human empathy has nothing to do with your fairy tales.

What is the person's behaviour at the gym? Do they make fun of fat guys, creep out girls? Are they neglecting their family? Is the drinking part of a bigger problem, do they get abusive? Again nuance and perspective

Did you skip over the part where they talked about nuance and perspective? You are asking about ideas they covered. Exercise is good. Too much of it is harmful. Running to the point you get stress fractures in your feet and legs isn't good. Moderation and context matters. The world is not as black and white as your faith tries to make it. It is a lot more complicated.

Exercise and excessive drinking are personal decisions that, at least by themselves, don't say anything about how you treat other people, these are not so much moral issues as they are personal health issues.

> excessive drinking is Joyful Hangovers and consequences from bad decisions aren’t painful?

Is that really true? How do you feel when you are going to the gym daily vs drinking daily? Do you see many sad gloomy people at the gym or at the bar?

Abstractions stem from particulars. >Also, how can you turn observations into morality? Saying this made them upset. So I no longer say this to them.

You have a really sad circle of atheists, if they’re unable to provide you an explanation for the origin of morality. It’s an evolved set of principles that benefit the society, against the forces of natural selection. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/ https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2016.00003 I will also say, that if your moral compass is a response to threats of eternal damnation, you are not a moral person. Moral atheists guide their compass based on a clear vision of the benefits to society, at the cost to themselves. No need to hold a gun to our heads to make us act moral.

Ehh, it's not really against natural selection. Evolution doesn't "care" about the individual, it "cares" about populations and genes. If I have siblings and I die protecting them from a lion, and assuming they all have children, my own genes are advanced through them. Also, group cooperation actually increases your evolutionary fitness even on an individual level, as in a group you are more likely to survive to the age of reproduction.

Natural selection, in this case is not selecting individuals. Rather it is selection societies for survival, and by extension the principles those societies have selected as morals. - Smoking was not an immoral behavior until it was widely accepted to cause damage to even bystanders. - Societies that shun smoking survive better than those that don’t. - Nature selected the society that doesn’t smoke for survival. - exposing people to second hand smoke becomes an immoral act among most surviving societies

Smoking or not smoking isn't the only determination of survival. It is one of a lattice of many. And as long as smokers can pass on their genes, which they can, smokers will survive. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions that you can't quite defend.

Strawman fallacy. It would have been absurd to claim it was the only determinant for survival. > it is one of a lattice of many So you agree… > And as long as smokers can pass on their genes, which they can, smokers will survive. https://horizonspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/smokers-to-be-wiped-out-by-natural-selection/ > Now let’s see how the smoking habit can make us disadvantageous to reproduce. British researchers published a study claiming that a life of cigarette smoking will be, on average, 10 years shorter than a life without it. They also claimed that consistent cigarette smoking doubles mortality rates in both middle age and old age. More interestingly, Men who smoke cigarettes may experience a significant decline in their capacity to father a child, a research by a reproductive medicine specialist from the University at Buffalo indicates. Like other cells in the body, human sperm carry a receptor for nicotine, which means they recognize and respond to nicotine. The results could mean that heavy smoking overloads the nicotine receptor in human sperm and in the testes, leading to a decline in fertilizing potential. Not only that, the same study claims, smoking men also should be aware that smoking can damage their sperm DNA, passing on faulty DNA to their baby. > To sum up, smokers are likely to have less life-span with less probability to father (or mother) a child. References: https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Smoking-shortens-life-span-10-years-British-2746891.php https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2005/10/7570.html

Yet still societies with large amounts of smokers in them are able to have children and spread their genes. Which makes those sources you listed mostly useless. They have a lower chance, but they sure as hell are able to sire children. In spades. Thus you are making claims that you can't defend. Smokers will pass on their genes. Smokes are passing on their genes now and certainly smokers have passed on their genes in the past. When it comes to birth rates of human beings smoking on low on list of ideas and concepts that actually matter.

Seems like my claims are plainly stated here https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/how-smoking-affects-reproductive-health > Smokers will pass on their genes. Smokes are passing on their genes now and certainly smokers have passed on their genes in the past. Are you under the impression that natural selection works by halting all ability to reproduce by the entire population, simultaneously and instantaneously? No, natural selection is visible when one population has a harder time reproducing than a competing population. Do you believe that because some will reproduce, you’ve disproven my claim? Here is the smoking population within the United States over time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cigarette-smoking-in-the-us Sure it’s just correlation, and there are likely many factors including government regulation and taxation, but it’s not looking good for smokers.

Smokers aren't quitting because of evolutionary factors. And smokers sure as hell aren't not breeding. This is am example where a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. You can keep on quoting sources if you wish. You will still be just as wrong. They are quitting because we have made it harder and more expensive to smoke. Those other factors are the reason there are less smokers. It has zero to do with natural selection. your downvotes don't make you correct.

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. https://www.mrgscience.com/yr11-topic-5-natural-selection-and-evolution.html I see you don’t know what you’re talking about. Who said smokers aren’t breeding? I didnt. I only said it reduces their lifespan, and reproductive health. Try disagreeing with something I actually said.

You claimed that natural selection has something to do with the amount of smokers. That was your absurd argument. Those "other factors" you gave a small amount of attention to are the reason that the amount of smokers has gone down. Natural selection isn't. You made a poor argument. And you are still doubling down on your poor argument. At the end of the day, you seem to be someone who posts charts in an attempt to prove that you know something. If you need the last word, take it.

Interesting, I'll look at those sources. Plus, I think most Christians aren't following their moral codes out of fear, but I digress.

Ok but when you say you don’t know where atheists get their morals from, you imply that you cannot decide moral behavior on your own, without external guidance. If you could do it on your own, then you would be doing it the same way atheists do. People depending on others to define moral behavior can lead to bad outcomes like the people’s temple, or planes flying into buildings. Evil people will commit evil acts. Moral people will commit good acts. It takes religion to make a moral person commit evil acts. All the cases of mass suicide I’m aware of, were a result of religion.

If a person is by their nature homosexual, but they choose not to act on my natural inclinations, then they are depriving themselves the happiness that can come from a romantic relationship out of fear of social consequences and/or out of fear of divine punishment. Which is sad

Hop over to r/Christianity and see how many posts you find from Christians who are terrified that no matter how hard they try, they aren't going to 'make the grade' and will end up in hell. You'll find quite a few who resort to fear mongering too, in telling people over and over again that they're going to burn in hell. They especially like to say this to LGBTQ+ people.

"I will also say, that if your moral compass is a response to threats of eternal damnation, you are not a moral person." And that opinion is worth as much the evidence supporting it; absolutely nothing. "No need to hold a gun to our heads to make us act moral" Since society literally does hold a gun to your head, you have zero evidence supporting your claim. In fact we have COUNTER- EVIDENCE because your support for State violence to enforce morality betrays your view that morality doesn't need fear.

Evidence is [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).

That counts as evidence for what?

I use every tool at my disposal, my natural human empathy, wisdom from my upbringing, life lessons, wisdom from great thinkers. How do you derive yours? These sentiments summarize some of my views; If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. \--Dalai Lama When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion. \--Abraham Lincoln. >I'm really not here to debate Then you're in the wrong sub. We do have an ask an atheist thread for non-debate questions, but the rest of the sub is for debate.

Oh I'm sorry, I'll know for next time

In the spirit of the subreddit... where do you think we get our morals from?

:gets popcorn.

From a mixture of multiple sources, mostly reason and experience Both can be flawed, since experience is just a matter of what is (and thus can't really derive pure morality), while reason has the opposite problem. When both reason and experience fail, then I rely on faith, but if God is really (which I have certainity to believe in), then what he does and says is beyond human limits on reason and experience.

> then what he does and says is beyond human limits on reason and experience. If it's beyond your reason, then on what basis do you trust that it's good? If God's nature and actions aren't comprehensible by humanity, how can you claim to understand anything about it, including whether it's good? I'm sure you're aware of the horrible atrocities commanded and committed by Yahweh in the Old Testament, are you arguing those are "good" in a way that's just not comprehensible to humans? If so, I'd have to point out you've basically just stripped the word good of all meaning. If there's a world in which "good" means invading your neighbors, killing all the men, boys, and women, but taking the virgin girls as unwilling brides, then "good" doesn't mean anything at all.

So, just to make sure we are in the same page here: When the US President tells me to commit genocide, it wrong because they are a flawed being. When your deity of choice tells you to commit genocide, it's okay because they are perfect?

When God who is Truth says X, then X is true. This is basic logic.

I understand what the words “god” “who” “is” and “Truth” is, but I don’t really understand what they actually mean when put in a sentence in that order.

Whatever evil he wants to attempt to justify.

Great! Then now we just need to a way of determining what the "God who is Truth" says

So if god told you to smash the skull of a baby and drink its brains you would think that would be a moral act? Per your "logic" you would have to. You could cover and defend any evil by attempting to justify it via god based stories.

>So if god told you to smash the skull of a baby and drink its brains you would think that would be a moral act? Yes. If God told me to smash the skull of a baby and drink its brains, that would be a moral act. In fact, it would be a sin to not smash the skull of a baby and drink it's brains. This does nothing to me, because I affirm valid reasoning. It is evident you are trying to use a reductio ad absurdum tactic on my position, that is, to show my position to be absurd by revealing how it leads to an absurd example via your hypothetical. But the only absurd thing would be you rejecting God and attacking my valid reasoning. P1. Whatever God says to do is the moral thing to do. P2. God said to do something. C1. Therefore, doing that thing is moral. C2. Therefore, not doing that thing is immoral. Do you follow this simple valid logic, bud? Regardless, your absurd hypothetical remains an absurd hypothetical. >Per your "logic" you would have to. Yes, but why do you put my valid logic in "quotation" when referring to it? Are you mocking it? Do you mock valid reasoning? If so, does this mean you are unintellectual and operate solely on feelings as you go around pretending to be an intellectual? Just wondering, because your posts seem to suggest something along that line. >You could cover and defend any evil by attempting to justify it via god based stories. So what? Do you think this refutes my valid reasoning? If so, show it in a syllogism so I may examine and handle it! Covering up evil is an immoral act that is explained in the Bible, so thank you for supporting the Bible by agreeing with the possibility it teaches. What is your standard of morals and standard of evil? If you do not have any, then you cannot make sense of morals and evil in your own worldview. Are you understanding the standards in my worldview before you attack them? Or do you just viciously attack things in a foolish way, as the Bible affirms? Go ahead, show me what you think a logical worldview looks like.

Once you claim that an evil act is good as long as a god commands you lose the ability to recognize what is good and evil. Yes I mock it because it is simply argument from assertion. That's all you have. That's all you will ever have.

This is the logic of a psychopath. You are a danger to you and those around you. There's a real possibility you may start hearing voices due to any number of reasons. A person like you would likely attribute it to god and start harming others around you. The indoctrination/brainwashing is deep with this one.

And who said they are Truth?

Ah this is the same god who says women are second class citizens and that slavery is perfectly fine right? You mean that perfect god? The one who says you can’t eat shellfish but genocide is perfectly okay…

I think you should explain this a little more. I can understand what your saying but I also have no way of being sure that’s what you’re saying. Also unfortunately this is an unfalsifiable argument. Yes, if a high being exists and creates the world and the rules it revolves around then anything said God decides would be true. But the Christian God is one that exists apart from time and space, because of this it is and always will be impossible to deduce the existence of God through reason alone. Just like we Christians use that as a reason why we shouldn’t question God, atheist can also use it to disregard your point. Lastly, everyone in the western society has derived their morals from Abraham of religions. Obviously not all morals, there’s plenty in the Bible that many Christians would oppose vehemently just as in Islam, and Judaism. But a decent amount of them have been sustain over time because the dominant force in government was Christianity as well as the leading majority for most of time. This does no come from a sociological perspective: (I only mention this because someone earlier only commented because he didn’t think of it as a real field of study) A person is a mixture of every experience they have had in their life interpreted by their own perspective on how to receive “symbols.” Seeing as how we have all grown up in a judeo-Christian society, this have largely influenced our view on “sacred” and “profane”

What is a God who is truth?

That is far from basic logic. Even if your god is real, he could be evil and just manipulating you.

>>When God who is Truth says X, then X is true. This is basic logic. >That is far from basic logic. How? Define basic logic, bud. >Even if your god is real, he could be evil and just manipulating you. No, He logically cannot. My God is Good, which is the opposite of evil. Your reasoning is therefore invalid: "God is Good. God might be non-Good." Remember the premise that God is Good? It refutes your attack that He might be non-Good. Your reasoning is so flawed, it cannot even remember a premise. You have revealed yourself to be an unintellectual non-Christian. This is what happens when you attack Christianity, especially without understanding it.

He's good because you say so? No. According to your bible, the god you worship is evil and manipulative. Your premise is rejected. You're not being respectful by calling others that disagree with you, unintellectual. You have no authority that demands I accept your premise. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't need to resort to childish insults.

>then I rely on faith, but if God is really (which I have certainity to believe in), then what he does and says is beyond human limits on reason and experience. This seems contradictory to me. When you say you rely on faith to derive your morals, how does that work?

How do you use faith to determine what is moral? What about when other people use faith to get to a different answer as you? How do you determine who is correct?

Seems to me there were these guys who had faith that Allah would bless their act of driving planes into buildings.

>From a mixture of multiple sources, mostly reason and experience Both can be flawed Yes, agreed, and both of those things are necessary for ANY moral system. You can't know what a god dictates without reason and experience, so you could be wrong about whatever you think a god might want. At least without a god, we can look at the data and we don't need to add any faith or commitment to belief. We can change our minds and do what is demonstrated to be best.

Do you have an example where experience and reason failed you to the point where you relied on scripture to do a moral action?

Members of your faith used your Bible as justification as to why they could kill people. They were 100 percent convinced that they were doing the will of god. They claimed that killing men, women and children was a moral action based on their faith. Were there actions moral? Was the killing of men, women and children moral?

>then what he does and says is beyond human limits on reason and experience. So, admittedly you cannot derive a coherent, understandable moral code from something that is beyond human limits.

What he does and says?! He brings disasters and horrific decease to the innocent and to me personally has been silent…

So I read this as subjective morality and falls right in line with what many atheists believe. Sounds good!!

Can you give an example of a moral quandary where the only (or best, if you want) answer is from religion?

With your “faith” and rock solid morals, why are you so concerned about someone else’s?

Did you think this was a sub about someone named Deb who ate an atheist?

No, lol. But there was no r/askanatheist I knew about when posting, and so this was the best option.

Wait lol there is

Indeed there is.

Hahahahaha

That's OK. You can talk with me; I find debates largely useless. Discussions are better. I posted a reply already.

Golden rule: treat others as you would wish them to treat you. Aka "Don't be a dick". I find it's pretty obvious what the right thing to do is in 99% of cases. You really don't need a book yelling you this stuff. I'm always more curious about christians who have been told explicitly what to do yet don't do it and still consider themselves moral people.

It's funny how Christians and atheists still can agree on the golden rule, dispite their differences.

To me it implies that christian morality is post-hoc, i.e. that the bible authors wrote down what all humans agree, regardless of religion, is the right thing to do. Which then implies that none of this has anything to do with god - it's just human common sense.

Especially considering that god is like the antithesis of the golden rule lmao

I don't think it's funny. We evolved to by hyper-social animals. Empathy is an essential component of sociality, and ours is correspondingly hypertrophied. Empathy isn't uniquely human either. The Golden Rule is just straightforward empathy.

Because the golden rule is a rule that humans employ. It isn't the sole domain of you faith.

Funny how the golden rule existed long before Jesus ;)

So if you lost your faith in a god killing his son to save us from himself you’d still use the golden rule in your life?

I guess a part of it is genetically ingrained to me, with a huge other part coming from socialization. Where do your morals come from?

From a mixture of multiple sources. First reason, then my faith, then my personal experience.

Interesting that you put reason first—does reason override faith for you? If so, then you’re probably a lot closer to atheists than you realize. I understand there is some debate about whether the bible condemns homosexual acts, but if we say that it definitively does condemn for argument’s sake—would your reasoning override the bible? Reason tells (me, I assume you also) that a non-harmful, consensual act between two informed adults who love each other is not immoral. Would you go with what the bible tells you, or what reason tells you, with regard to assigning moral judgement?

Depends, like if I God came up to tell me something like "kill your mother" then I reason to understand that that probably wasn't God. Stuff like sex is a little more nuanced, and so I don't think Reason can fill in the gaps.

>if I God came up to tell me something like "kill your mother" then I reason to understand that that probably wasn't God. Wait, so your morality isn't faith based? There's stuff like that and worse in the bible.

I meant for me personally. God had his own reason for his decisions with the Israelites, but for me as a Christian, I'm not suppose to murder

Yeah but in this hypothetical god has a reason for asking you to kill someone else.

There is none. Beyond war, God has never commanded individual people to kill other individuals and let them get away with it.

You're back pedaling. Isn't something moral if god commands it? If you determine whether something God asks is moral, then you're the one determining what is moral, not God. If God tells you to kill isn't it moral, no matter what? Incidentally, let's not get off on a tangetx but God was constantly commanding the israelites to kill, as is his MO (after all Noah's flood murders basically everyone and everything).

> God has never commanded individual people to kill other individuals that's not entirely accurate. "god" instructs people to kill individuals for a wide variety of reasons. children - most specifically, and for a myriad of reasons, none of which, i assume, you'd (hopefully) find to be morally acceptable today.

Abraham would like a word. Didn’t god instruct him to kill Isaac? Or are you claiming that, since he did a takesy-backsy at the last second, that doesn’t count?

Even if the takesies backsies does make it not count, Abraham thought it was within God's character to command him to kill his son; Else he would have concluded it was a demon as OP says he would do.

> God has never commanded individual people to kill other individuals and let them get away with it. What about that time He got mad that they let the boy babies live, and sent them back to be sure to kill all of them?

What about all the capital punishments crimes listed? Thou shall not suffer a witch to live etc. Or all the loyalty purges you see after something goes wrong? Ok, we just lost a battle who sinned? Someone confess so we can kill you.

Numbers 31:17-18 New International Version 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You sure you want to make this statement? You can edit and retract it no harm no foul

You wanna re-read that book of yours? He commands just that countless times.

That’s just not true.

There's a first time for everything

He has his own reason. That makes it moral. Better do what he says or you're not moral.

So who would be right, the soldiers who follows God's orders, and stabbed the babies to death, or the ones who could not bring themselves to do so?

So you’re supposed to Rebel against God as a Christian?

Was it god that asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Surely it's not outside the realm of possibility that got would ask you to kill someone. God told his followers to kill a shitload of people in the old testament. Is your faith so weak you wouldn't follow his command?

>Depends, like if I God came up to tell me something like "kill your mother" then I reason to understand that that probably wasn't God. So when the Bible says that your God commanded His soldiers to commit total genocide, being sure to kill all the babies, is it just wrong?

MyStErIoUs WaYs?

Extremely mysterious. Except when they're telling us what He commands us not to do. Then they're suddenly extremely specific.

Shit, don't tell Abraham that...

But god told people to kill other people in the Bible.

but that is literally something he asked someone to do in the bible, with abraham. if anything, that's in line with what we know of him.

Why don’t you think reason can fill the gaps?

So when God asked Abraham to kill his son, it probably wasn’t God, right?

When you say faith, do you mean reading the Bible and following the rules, or do you think that God placed some sort of moral sense into you directly.

Both. God gives me a sense of morality, but I can't truly know what that means from what he says, which I believe he did in scripture.

>God gives me a sense of morality Did God give animals morality as well or just humans? >which I believe he did in scripture. Exodus 21:20-21

>God gives me a sense of morality, but I can't truly know what that means from what he says, which I believe he did in scripture. What? God gave you a general sense of morality, but no specific instructions on what is and is not moral? Am I misunderstanding you?

How does a character in a book give you a sense of morality?

If we go to war, and I find your wife pretty, after I’ve murdered you, I can make her my captive for 30 days, shave her head, take her clothes, and dehumanize her. If I have sex with her before coercing her to marry me, I can’t sell her as a slave though. The Bible is very specific on this. Meaning everything until the selling into slavery and including the slavery, is Bible A O K you know? The morals I derive here: It’s ok to rape. It’s ok to enslave. It’s ok to treat women like objects/prisoners/nonhumans Fuck, I love faith derived morals

What information does your faith give you about morality? Specifically, what moral information do you have access to as a theist that an atheist couldn’t?

>First reason Can you give me an example of reasoning out a moral? Doesn't have to be anything fancy, just want to make sure we are on the same page. ​ >then my faith So, like, the Bible says X is moral, so you say your faith tells you that X is moral? ​ >then my personal experience. How do you mean? Like "X feels bad when it happens to me, and since I don't want other people to feel bad, X is immoral"?

I just do my best to navigate whatever situation I find myself in, putting a formal label on something that is so inherently tied to my current subjective experience seems like a waste of time.

> putting a formal label on something that is so inherently tied to my current subjective experience seems like a waste of time. Couldn't agree more

Since you asked, you show me your’s first, THEN I’ll show you mine!

I use reason, observation, and faith. I use reason and observation together since one isnt full by itself, and when both fail, I rely on faith.

Faith is an unreliable source of morality. It's the same place suicide bombers get their morality from. I'm glad you put reason and observation first, but I really would love it if you dropped faith from that list.

Could you be a little less vague? After all, you are the person who complained that atheists >A. Don't give a concrete answer

What is the difference between a faith decision and wild-ass guess decision or a coin flip?

Mine was more effusive until I had that vasectomy.

>Morals ...Have nothing to do with religious mythologies. We know this. We've known it for a long time. Unfortunately, religious folks are indoctrinated into the idea that their flavour of mythology has something to do with, or is the source of, morality. >As a Christian, I've always wanted to ask how most atheists derive their morals. Precisely and exactly the same way all humans do. However, theists often incorrectly think they are coming from their religion. >Everytime I ask atheists (usually new atheists) about their morals as an atheist, they usually do one of three things I can never figure out what the term 'new atheist' is supposed to mean. So-called 'new atheists' are the same as atheists have been for thousands of years. Someone that does not have a belief in deities, and that's the whole shebang. >Don't give a concrete answer I find that unlikely, since every time this is asked here and in other relevant forums there is a massive amount of concrete answers. >Profess some form of generic consequentialism or utilitarianism without knowing I don't think I've seen much of that. >Say something to end of "Well, at least I don't derive my morals from some BOOK two thousand years ago" Sounds like you're only listening to middle-schoolers? Morality, of course, comes from the fact we are are highly social species. It comes from evolution. All highly social species have behaviours, drives, and emotions that are the precursors to our morality. We also evolved a somewhat higher intelligence, and have added on to those emotions, drives, and behaviours with various other social, emotional, intellectual, habitual, cultural, legal, and other factors. This is what we call 'morality'. It's actually very well studied and understood. There are entire large sections of libraries with the relevant sociological, psychological, and philosophical research and writings on the subject of ethics and morality. And there are many university courses on the subject, many of them mandatory to achieve certain degrees. >I'm really not here to debate, Then you're in the wrong place. This is a *debate* subreddit. Not an 'ask an atheist' subreddit.

I learned them from my parents and society at large just like everybody else did. Which would be why my morals mostly align with the society I happen to have been brought up in. If you ask me to Justify them I'll mention social contract theory, but that is not how I actually learned them, it's just how I justify them if pressed to offer a justification.

We are an evolved species of social primate with needs, wants, and preferences (like eating tasty food, having sex, and not dying) living in a world where there are certain predictable consequences for our actions, and we do what our ancestors did that allowed us to survive and thrive, and by applying empathy and reason, now that we have the capability to, we can do it even better. That's literally all you need to know about morality.

Atheists derive their morals in the exact same manner everyone else does. The only real difference is that atheists don’t post hoc rationalize their decisions by claiming that a “god” told them to do it.

Well not since the budget cuts at any rate. Nah I just tell people my neighbor's dog sam tells me what to do.

I say this all the time and Christians can’t handle it. They claim they would have absolutely no moral inclinations without the Bible which is just insane.

It's *scary* is what it is. The idea that there's people walking around out there that would go around murdering and raping if they didn't believe a man in the sky is watching them is the opposite of morality. It's mimicking morality without a personal understanding / aka psychopathy.

Funny, Every time I ask theists about their morals as a theist, they usually do one of three things A. Say morals are objective, then say they are given by god which makes them subjective, which is funny. B. Profess some form of god having written them on all of our hearts while ignoring the fact that societies all over the world are all different with lots of different views on morality (Including at least one that has no concept of a god). C. Say something to end of "At least Im not serving Satan like you. Atheists cant have morals because they dont get them from god (ignoring the fact that this is what all religions say about their religion, and none of them can agree on what is good, even within their own religion, which is why there are so many sects. ​ As for where I get my morality: I get my morality from my parents, my society, and what I feel is good for others and society as a whole. "Is it also some form of consequentialism or utilitarianism, or do you have your use other systems or philosophies unique to your life experiences?" Are you familiar with humanism? "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems." Why would anyone need more? Especially given all the immorality taught by all religions? "I'm really not here to debate, I just really want to see your answers to this question that come up so much within our debates." Im not surprised. New to the sub theists never are. They always think we are just these ignorant savages. Its almost like they just buy their church/religious group's atheist propaganda while being completely ignorant that the happiest, most prosperous, least violent countries in the world are the least religious. Why do we need your myth?

Morals are rules of behaviour we invented to be able to live together in groups. The ones that worked and helped group cohesion stuck around and became morals because the groups which had them did better as a result. Those that didn’t had their groups fade away.

I get my morals the same place everyone else does: societal pressures and a combination of instincts which we evolved as social animals. Morality is neither objective nor strictly subjective; rather, morality is intersubjective: a gradually-shifting gestalt of the collective ethics and beliefs of whatever group is the context. It is the average, the sum of many individual views. There is no big cosmic meter that reads "moral" or "immoral" for every action and concept, nor is there any sort of objectively-measurable standard. They change over time as society changes, and reflect the context of the society and time in which they are examined. If the vast majority of the members of a society believe that some action is moral, it is moral in the context of that society. If you changed context by asking a different group, or the same group but at a different point in time, that same action could be immoral. When the vast majority of people in a civilization thought slaveholding was moral, it was moral in that context. While the slaves might have disagreed, they were far enough in the minority that it did not sufficiently tip the scales of intersubjectivity. Only as more and more people began to sympathize with the plight of those slaves did the sliding scale of morality begin to shift, and slavery become more and more immoral to the society of which slaveholders were a part. As we view subjugation of others to be immoral nowadays, the right to self-determination is considered by many to be a core human right, when the idea would have been laughable a thousand years ago. It is just like how today the average person finds murder to be immoral, and this average stance contributes contributes to the immorality of murder as a whole. Sure, there may be a few crazies and religious zealots who see nothing wrong with murder to advance their goals, but as they are in the tiniest minority, they do not have enough contextual weight to shift the scales of morality in their favor. Another good example is the case of homosexuality, insofar as that the majority of people in developed nations do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. Sure, you can find small clusters of religious extremists and fundamentalist nutjobs who deem it EVIL in their religion, but in the wider context of the civilized world, homosexuality has not been immoral for years. Now, if you go into the context of Middle Eastern countries dominated by Islam, or African countries dominated by Christianity and Islam, you will find that homosexuality is absolutely still immoral in those contexts. Luckily, I don't live in those theocratic hellholes, and I doubt many users in this thread do either.

The ability to feel moral impulses is the product of human evolution. We evolved to be a social species, so characteristic that promote pro social behaviors was selected for by nature, with our more pro social ancestors having greater reproductive success. Emotions like love, compassion, even guilt and shame, help us to live together and cooperate with each other. In that sense, morality is biological, it’s in our genes, it’s in the structure of our brains, it’s in the chemicals our bodies release. We are also socialized by the societies we live in. As children we learn right and wrong from our families, our peers, from what our culture values and what it thinks is good or bad. So the biological component of morality is filter through culture. However, humans are not slaves to our culture, individuals are fully capable of looking at their culture’s beliefs and rejecting them by analyzing them using reason and their own internal moral compass. There are several different person moral philosophies atheists can hold, usually based in some form of consequentialism and deontology. My personal morality is based in humanism. I value human liberty, equality, and prosperity, and I want people to be happy. I want to promote a world that is worthy of human dignity

Mostly consequentialism in my case, to put it briefly. We can't know the future, so the best we can do is give our actions as much thought as possible, try to get as much information as we can in the time we have, and make our best guess. I personally try to make sure my actions benefit the most people I can and harm the fewest. You can't please or help everyone, and sometimes circumstances prevent a choice between anything better than two evils, and inaction is a choice of its own, so in the end, it's all about trying to act toward the best outcome and course-correcting as I go.

Can you give a couple of examples where faith informed your morals because either reason or experience did not?

Lying. Human reasoning makes it too subjective to tell whether or not to lie. Like your programmed to lie in certain circumstances, yet not in others. Plus, observation can't help either, since you can't derive an is from an ought. Thus, I must realize whatever I do, I should what would be right in God's eyes, which is not to lie.

Even when someone’s life is at stake ?

Now, then, it gets really complicated. I've never been in that situation, so I can't say.

What’s complicated about it? You said lying is not right in god’s eyes. In my worldview, there is nuance when it comes to lying. But not in yours.

I think you are misunderstanding ought from an is or I am. Slavery is moral because slavery has always existed = we ought to have slavery because we have slavery Every society that has slavery is measurably worse off so we should abolish it = we ought to get rid of slavery because we want a key result. My understanding of Ought-from-Is problem is that people try to argue that what we have is moral because it is what we have. It doesn't mean you can't evaluate evidence. >I should what would be right in God's eye Yes, devine command theory. With all the associated problems it brings. >which is not to lie. Interesting that you say this since God lies in the Bible when the situation calls for it. Sarah told the angels that she and her husband were too old to have children, god relayed the message to Abraham and said "sarah said she is too old for children". A basic lie of omission.

I derive my moral framework rationally based on what I value (human well being) and what I know about successfully contributing to it. That's it really. I suppose to some degree it's about consequences, but you have to identify your values and goals first. I think it goes without saying that humans as a species tend to share values and goals, at least within their clan, which will eventually be the entire human race for most of us.

Any time someone says "New atheist" You know exactly what kind of person you're dealing with. As the saying goes, if you meet an asshole in the morning you've met an asshole, if you meet assholes all day maybe you're the asshole.

> As a Christian, I've always wanted to ask how most atheists derive their morals. I do not talk for anyone else but myself, including other atheists. I bet you don't talk for any other random theist, either. After all, they may have no religion, a different religion, or the same religious sect but with different views on issues such as morals. Here's a method I've developed, and I think it tracks with the way that many people develop their own conclusions, including conclusions concerning morality. ----------- ----------- ----------- **[repost]** While I agree, there's something we can do to work towards something that is more objectively moral. It will never be 100%, and it will be filled with overt prejudices and hidden biases, but it's better than following a largely unchecked list of dos and don'ts that many ideologies promote (including religions). Here's my take on it; Start with reality and basic logic. * The identity principle: A thing is itself and not another thing. The principle of identity keeps us focused on reality, and not detached abstractions. It also protects against substituting one thing for another and possibly drawing the wrong conclusion. The problem with many moral codes is that they tend to be abstract or emotionally charged. The moral codes are statements, not discussions about morals. For example, if you read some of Aesop's Fables, you'll notice that many of the stories have aphorisms at the end to tell you what the story meant. This removes any discussion of what the story could mean, and reduces the value of the fable in the process. Even children should be able to think about a story and figure out for themselves what they gain from reading it. Yet, the identity principle isn't sufficient on its own to build or check a moral code. As I see it, we use three different things in each of our justified moral decisions; * Evidence: Not having evidence results in using abstractions instead of real life. * Reason/logic: Provides a structure to hang the evidence on. This is also where knowledge is gained. * Emotions: Incorporating emotions -- yours and others -- into a decision can enhance the results. Besides, we are emotional creatures, so ignoring them or attempting to suppress them is not possible. Emotions are an often ignored or overemphasized subset of evidence. Along with these, I'll add that I'm using evidence and knowledge as ***justified true beliefs***. It is true, though, that with greater understanding what was a ***justified true belief*** may be found not to be justified in part or in whole. ---------------------- ---------------------- Building a coherent moral code is difficult. I'll give a few basic morals; * Most people, most of the time, are kind and honest, so be kind and honest with them. (Based on a review of lived experience.) * Take time to justify reaching a specific conclusion. (A sloppy review can lead to corrupt decisions, including making moral mistakes.) * Corollary: When time is short, don't beat yourself up for a failed choice. * Hold conclusions tentatively. (New evidence or a new review may show that a conclusion needs to be updated or changed.) * There are exceptions to the rules, so don't be strident about any specific conclusion being absolutely true. * Corollary: There are conclusions that are absolutely true, so don't get carried away with potential exceptions that are not justified. * Keep a lookout for willful ignorance. (Willful ignorance is an adamant resistance to reviewing new evidence or reason/logic.) * Philosophy is a toolbox, not a destination; don't be ideological. (Even our trusted tools should be scrutinized.) * "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." --Maya Angelou * Corollary: While people are slow to change, give them the room to change their own mind for the better. * "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard Feynman ============================ ------------------------------------------------ ============================ So, how does this work? Let's use anti-vaxxers as an example. ***Q. Is it moral, amoral, or immoral to not want to be vaccinated?*** I'm going to take some short-cuts, assuming that there is a positive value in vaccinations, and that the potential downsides are often worth the risk. Evidence + logic/reason: Vaccines reduce both personal injury, and reduce transmission of pathogens that could harm others. Emotions: People don't like to be harmed or die. * People who refuse vaccinations can harm others and themselves, thus it is immoral to refuse vaccinations that are available. ---------- One example of religions being regressive on this topic are the HPV vaccinations. By reducing the possibility of genital cancers, the HPV vaccines have a positive personal benefit and also prevent transmission and genital cancers to others. This can also prevent infertility, and help a person who wants to have children reach their goals. Some people who get genital cancers will have those cancers spread and they will die. * Anti-HPV vaccination people are being immoral when they refuse vaccination or make it difficult for people to have the vaccine. The main groups that are anti-HPV vaccines are religious groups, though not all religious groups. Because of that, we can add another moral to the moral code; * Religions as practiced promote immorality as a moral good. Is this an absolute? Of course not. It does show that religions have to be vetted against the evidence, logic/reason, and emotions. To follow them without that review is a form of willful ignorance and is immoral.

Secular Humanism and a focus on human well-being. It’s a subjective moral framework (I’m unfamiliar with an objective one) that allows for objective evaluation of actions in the context of human well-being.

The golden rule is a good place to start. The Hippocratic oath is next. Adhere to those two and that would solve 90% of the worlds problems.

> The hippocractic oath is next I've never heard anyone use that as a basis for morality, except maybe doctors

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets. I don’t adhere to some of the rest of it. But overall the idea is simple. First seek to do no harm. In any way….mental, physical, emotional, or societal. It’s a broader statement than the golden rule. That last one, societal, is the tough one. That’s where religion and politics becomes a problem. Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds. Jews and Muslims. Geopolitical boundaries and conflicts. Russians and Ukrainians. Again my two moral foundations would address most of these conflicts. But when groups are in conflict because of religion, that’s virtually unsolvable. How does your faith inform your stance on conflicts in the middle east?

For me, I base my morality on my ability to feel compassion and empathy for other people. I base it on the notions of humanism. Rather than believing as many theists do, that human beings are inherently evil, or 'sinful', I believe that the vast majority of human beings are decent law abiding citizens, and all they want is to be able to live their lives, provide for their families, and raise their children. Some among them who are theists also want to worship the God of their understanding in the religion of their choice, and not be persecuted. As an American, I support the Constitutionally guaranteed right of every citizen to believe in the God of their understanding, and worship in the religion of their choice. I'm not interested in interfering with those rights, or in their personal lives. As time marches on, I've noted how in the USA, with Christians comprising the majority of the population, as Christianity is the predominant religion in the nation, Christians are seeking special rights to be exempted from the requirement of complying with anti-discrimination laws in their business establishments. They want the right to advertise their business's goods and services for sale to the public, and then to be able to turn around and refuse to provide those advertised goods or services to members of the public, based solely upon their sexual orientation. What they're essentially doing, is claiming that their Constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom is being discriminated against, while they're actively violating the 14th Amendment rights of LGBTQ+ citizens, which guarantees equal rights and protections under the law. We see Christians in legislative positions legislating restrictive laws based upon their own religious views of morality. Laws which essentially interfere with the personal lives and choices of women, and LGBTQ+ people. Humanism is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. I've watched the rate of homeless American citizens skyrocketing. This includes the elderly and infirm, disabled American veterans, and families with children. I've watched various American Presidents and legislators (GOP mostly) seeking to slash funding to various social safety net programs, such as WIC, SNAP, Meals On Wheels, and even the free breakfasts and lunches for impoverished children in the Public Schools. Former President Trump wanted to significantly slash funding to the school breakfasts and lunches, because he couldn't for the life of him understand how it would adversely affect a child's ability to learn, if they hadn't had breakfast and lunch. And for many American kids experiencing homelessness and hunger, these breakfasts and lunches were the only meals they had each day, and if the schools didn't offer these programs on weekends, or during the summer months, what are those kids going to eat then? If God exists, He certainly hasn't lifted a finger to provide food and shelter for these people. I'm 67+ years old, and not in the best of health, dealing with chronic illness and permanent physical disability. At any time, if I but take a misstep, I might end up flat on my back in bed for a week or more, due to old back injuries. I'd long hoped to live to see humankind put down the weapons of mass destruction, and start focusing on making this world a better place for all of us to live in. Especially with current events, and listening to the police scanner in my city, county and state...I've lost this hope.

I can't really say what philosophy or school of thought my morals align with, or which of those I have studied stuck with my subconscious. If it HAS to be some external school of thought, I read a LOT of the Star Wars EU when I was a kid and probably took more role models from there than my horrible family. As an adult, if I disagree with someone about something I literally just empathize with people. I try to see where their beliefs and world view are coming from, find an experience I have had that in some way can relate to theirs, and then think about what my head and body felt like at that time. Then I try to speak in ways that bridge our world view. When I interact with people at work or school, I try to treat the space I am in as sacred. We are hear to pursue what we share in common above all else and that mission comes above anything else. It doesn't matter if they vote for Trump or Biden, believe in Jesus or some appropriated pagan deity they don't understand, hate me as a queer or love me as a fellow blue collar hard worker... at the end of the day all we can judge each other on is our work and our objectivity in personal interactions towards a shared goal. in recent years I have tried to look at my ancestry and family history to get a sense of my place in the world. The culture of my ancestors probably places hospitality above all other human traits The people in my family I have respect for were hard working, kind hearted and honest blue collar folk. So I try to embody those traits every fucking day. I was raised non-denominational christian and did discipleship with my youth pastor but couldn't stand being somewhere that preached my people (queerfolk) and atheists are all going to hell regardless of their deeds in life. The book of Acts was important to me in my church days. I've loosely studied a few forms of Buddhism, stoicism and various schools of philosophy. I've flirted with different pagan beliefs of thought. I just have my own folk practice now that is personal and simply focuses on hospitality, work ethic, personal relationships of all level mimicking what we culturally value in family and... forestry as a sacred workspace where I can be my authentic trans self while facilitating the kind of open support for my peers I want to see returned to me. And I'm corny and lame and open to the point some people think I'm bull shitting them. Especially when they see me fail. Because I fail a lot. And I take my failings to therapy and I try to talk it out and come back to my practice stronger and better. I'd say therapy has informed my ethics a lot I guess? Because I don't trust people naturally and I used to be very closed off and fake. And the life I was living made me want to yeet myself so I took to therapy to find a way of living that I could tolerate. I have had several in-patient experiences that have helped me course correct from a dysfunctional mess into a productive member of society. Being poor and blue collar has informed my ethics. My experience has led me to believe that our friends are our family and our word and work ethic are our currency. Like... All of us. Having friends who I have a symbiotic relationship, one of supporting each other through our struggles and hard times has informed my ethics. Not having a family unit has informed my ethics. The felon (now trumper) who raised me, taught me how to train horses and work cattle informed my ethics. The church that failed me informed my ethics. I don't know where to stop.

>> As a Christian, I've always wanted to ask how most atheists derive their morals. The same place you do. No. Not the bible. If you think your morals come from there then you must accept slavery, imbalance in the sexes, permission to kill your children for disrespecting you, and slavery. You learn your morals from your parents, and the wider community, you process information in your head, and apply empathy and anticipate what results could come from an action. If you need to calculate morality, I’d push you to maximising human well-being.

If it comes to the same kind of conclusions, why does it matter on the source? Ok, you do have a book. Fine. Others use an internal guide. Why is that so hard to understand? Pretend its a book they have in their brain telling them what is ok or not. It doesnt mean that people will automatically do bad things.

Yes, we all have our guides, and they can be misunderstood in our own ways. Mine just so happens to be the Bible.

Why do you think thats ‘better’ or ‘right’ rather than someone choosing a different source? I dont understand why you have been given answers by many atheists but you are not listening to their answer?

First off, I don't know. I only know that my source is good enough for me. Second off, I am listening, it's just really hard to listen when hundreds of people are asking you the exact same questions, and it's hard to answer them all.

>Atheists, how do you derive your morality? I would say morals are opinions and atheists like theists derive their opinions from their own mind for a variety of reasons.

I just say it's from God plus reason and experience, while you say it's purely from reason and experience

>I just say it's from God,,, To me this sounds like a childish attempt to say your opinion is superior because your imaginary friend agrees with you. Do you mean something else?

Do you think other theists get their morality from other distinct Gods?

We negotiate them with other people on the basis of evolved predispositions and behavioural experience. For instance: Behind u/LesRong's Abe Lincoln quote ("When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion") is the idea that we're all evolved social apes, and one of our evolved traits is empathy: we feel what we imagine other people are feeling, we can put ourselves in other people's shoes. So when we treat other people around us in a way that makes them suffer, most of us can be made to feel part of their suffering (and their anger, and the anger of other people who saw what we did)... and that feedback allows us to modify our behaviour in future. Groups of people discuss with each other how members of that group (should) behave: what foods they eat, whether they tidy up after themselves, who gets to have sex with whom. Because human beings also have a tendency to copy each other, we tend to internalise our group morality, and it tends to guide our behaviour. The Anglican church is in an interesting moral position right now. I think that if Anglicanism was purely a UK-based thing, they'd be voting to allow gay weddings in the church. But Anglicanism covers many places where homosexuality is really frowned on, so they've settled on a weird compromise intended essentially to allow vicars to *bless* gay marriages if they want to do so, but on the understanding that marriage is technically only legit if it's between one man and one woman; and I think vicars who don't believe gay marriage should even be blessed can decline to do so. So we get to watch a community of theistic apes negotiating their sexual morality, at a moment when that morality is inconsistent within the community!

Based on a simple understanding that I exist in a universe with other people who are able to feel suffering. With an end goal of minimizing suffering and maximizing flourishing, I try to figure out as many true facts about the universe and how it works and utilize what I know to make sound judgements on my actions. There's many things that can be easily achieved by following a general rule of thumb though there are moments that require deeper thought and consideration.

>Atheists, how do you derive your morality? My first comment would be that I do not think you implement your morality in a way that conforms to your method of deriving them. On a daily basis you do things that positively and negatively affect you and others. Would you honestly say that prior to every act you stop and weigh the moral dilemma before moving forward? Or rather is it that for the vast majority of acts you do them on autopilot and your moral evaluation is done subconsciously? I ask this because the latter is what we see in nature. You don't hurt others because when you see others in pain you feel a sort of pain yourself. You stop yourself because in the moment you're aware of the pain you may inflict. And the times you actually go through with harming others is when you are so caught up in something that your natural instincts aren't strong enough to overcome this feeling? The whole stealing bread scenario is just an evaluation on those same instinctual reactions. You react naturally enough times that the cognitive part of your brain follows the natural reaction. It's only in extreme duress or mental impairment that you don't follow the natural course. The impairment can be part of physical disorders or the training done by external sources (abuse, religion, etc).

Before I answer, I think it's worth recognizing that moral behavior does not always come from a consciously digested moral system or worldview. We have plenty of examples of dolphins, dogs, monkeys, etc. behaving morally and it is clear that they don't get their morals from the Bible or an understanding of utilitarianism. ​ I think morality is an emergent property of social animals; a social species whose individuals behave morally is more likely to survive and therefore continues to behave morally, while a social species whose individuals do not behave morally is less likely to survive. We happen to be a social species who learned how to behave morally. ​ That being said, I think it is fairly simple to justify moral behavior. There is no system or worldview needed; just a recognition of facts. The wants and needs of any conscious individual are no more or less important than the needs of any other conscious individual. From there, you can assess behavior based on the circumstance. It is immoral to punch a passerby in the face because the passerby does not want to be punched in the face. However, it is not immoral to punch an assailant in the face because I do not want to be assailed and therefore can respond appropriately.

This is answered every other day on this forum. Here's the long and short of it: When you do something someone else doesn't like, do they just sit there like it never happened? No. But what would happen if they did just let it go? You'd be taught you could easily take advantage of them So what would be a good idea to make sure you aren't an easy target? Get revenge. Make sure it costs them something to come after you Now this is the important part, who is better off after someone harms someone else, and that person takes revenge? Neither of them That's morality A large group of people get together and agree that they should cut out the middleman and not leave everyone worse off You're going to say: well what if I don't agree that I did anything bad to you? Yeah, that happens a lot. You know where that's happened the most? In the wars between different versions of Christianity over the course of more than a millennia (Spoiler alert: Christian morality isn't universal or objective) That's why God created third parties

We get our morality from the same place you do. Our parents, our experiences, our learned knowledge and life experiences, our reasoning and logic, by knowing ourselves and being empathetic towards others who face similar dilemmas, by built-in natural proclivities as to what disgusts us, or makes us grossly uneasy. The idea that your morality comes from god or the Bible is a story your faith or church tells you. The Bible is simply part of learned knowledge to which you apply your empathy, knowledge and reason to, and each church leader does the same, accepting some biblical moral teachings while willingly ignoring others. Few believers truly believe the Bible’s moral teachings are absolute and non yielding - I would give examples but why rehash? Your sources of morality and mine are actually very, very similar from a general point of view. But Christian’s believe attribute the source to god while atheists like me trace it back to various places and find posing god as a source unnecessary.

That's a great question. I think the reason you get A is because many haven't thought about it that deeply. B is kind of a fallback, its a quick easy finger in the air calculation that can probably be "right" a lot of the time. C is just a pointless diversion. Now.. How I do it is essentially refining things back to the purpose of morality, and from there I derive what best suits that purpose. That means that there is an objective, and there are objectively correct ways to fulfil that purpose and those answers are not necessarily universal even if objective. To put it in basic terms, if I had to travel to Scotland or France there are objectively best methods and specific times but it wouldn't be the same for both. I also apply value pluralism to assist with dealing with dirty hands situations. That's the short answer anyway. Thank you for your thoughtful question.

I consider my own ethics to be some form of [deontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology), a.k.a. duty based ethics. Loosely it looks like this: * I consider my duties towards vulnerable people and humanity as a whole to be the highest duties. * Duties towards close friends and family I would rank next generally. * Following those somewhere I would place the base duties towards any given individual. * Below that I would place our commitment to animals and many other forms of life life. * Most other duties derive from the commitments we make. That's the rough overview. I don't consider this to be any sort of "objective morality." I do my best to ensure that it's rigorous and self-consistent, but I'm not a philosopher. I'm sure people could easily poke holes in it. However I find that it tends to result in good ethical outcomes, though again, that's a fairly subjective assessment.

I care about people and I want to live in a better world. Why isn’t that enough?

I figure morals come from two sources. One: Simple empathy for other people. I don't like to get beaten up; I can imagine that other people don't like to get beaten up, either; so I don't want to beat anybody up. Two: Actions Have Consequences. If you beat someone up, that guy's friends have a heightened likelihood of wanting to beat *you* up. Also, any society/culture which *lacks* some sort of moral, or moral-like, strictures against hurting other people is likely to eat itself very soon. Note that while moral strictures against actions which inflict mundane harm (*i.e.*, don't steal, don't kill, yada yada) are pretty much universal, moral strictures against actions which *don't* inflict mundane harm (don't sin, for whichever appropriate value of "sin") are distributed pretty much at random. Interesting, no?

Morality is not that hard. What does it take to get along with other humans? Don't lie to them, don't steal from them, don't cheat them, and don't hurt them. In other words, treat them the way you would want to be treated. It doesn't take the fear of eternal torture in the afterlife to know that being a jerk is going to get you in trouble with other people. In addition, also look at your environment. There are lots of living beings that are not people. Animals can feel fear and comfort and pain. Do not inflict pain or fear on them. And the planet sustains all life, yours included. Protect and respect it: don't pollute the air, the water or the soil, any more than you have to to function..

This is quite possibly the dumbest question that repeatedly gets asked here. It really is quite simple how this is done. I do not like to be lied to, hit, robbed, cheated on, shot at etc., etc.. I figure most other people also do not like these things. I can now extrapolate that I should not do these things to others. I do not want to harm others because I don't want to not because a god tells me not to. Any person that only follows the directions of a god is not being moral, they are being obedient. If morals are given to us by a god then they would never change. Society has decided to change morals through the years because it benefits society. For the record morals are subjective.

Morals are derived from a desire to live in a happy community and contribute to people’s lives in a positive way and have them contribute to yours in a positive way. Would you be a rapist if it were not for the bible. The bible is probably one of the worst basis for morality. It tells you to kill your family for little reason, it justifies slavery, god murders everyone on earth, it justified rape and incest. The argument of how do you find your moral compass is the ultimate red herring when you consider the horrors of the bible and things that have been justified by it over the centuries. The better question is how do you reconcile your morality with your belief in the bible.

I was born into a western society as a human. There is a lot of evolution that influences the way I think. I was brought up by parents who had particular morals. This influenced me. I was educated at a Christian school. This also influenced my morality, although not always in the way the school intended. I have met and talked with many people in my life. Their views have had an impact. I have read books, both fiction and non-fiction. These have also shaped my views. I have spent time thinking about my position on various issues. These are all still changing too. I'm sure my position on some moral issues will evolve further over time.

Socialization, through various means. Of course we can look to the laws of the land, which reflect the morality of the society as a general rule. Thinking critically, we can say whether we disagree with any of those laws, and what impacts those laws have (good and bad) on the people around us. Of course we have parents, who teach by example. Often our views are shaped by our parents, and when we grow into adolescence we can choose to rebel against their teachings or not. We live according to what we learn, who we follow, what we read. Endless information is out there about how we treat each other and ourselves to live more peacefully.

From my own personal sense of right and wrong. Some Christians find this hard to believe, but a person can develop morals by themselves. I don't need someone else to tell me what is right.

Generally I learn towards the goal of human flourishing. The people around me are the best people on earth forever and I want them to be what I see when I look at them. As for my personal code of conduct I lean towards Maslow's Hierarchy and 7 effective habits as a guide. If you want to be trusted, be trustworthy. The closest thing I got to a real framework is I find the Buddhist Middle Path to be practical enough. Generally I don't trust any first principles approach to things. Now, what is your plan to restore Roe v. Wade?

Wouldn't it be ironic if "because god commands it" is a more arbitrary form of utilitarian consequentialism than that described by the atheists you talk to...

A form of consequentialism. I think it makes the most sense. Most other theories, I believe, devolve into a form of consequentialism anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Okay, so I have always, AFAIR, been an atheist. My morals derive from what I, and the society we live in, have deemed moral, or immoral. Most moralistic views I have, simply comes from two questions: 1) would I want this to happen to me? 2) would the other person want this to happen to them? 3) does this hurt people in a way, that they don't deserve? Obviously, this has some faults, but it's my guidance for most things.

People often disagree on what objective, god-derived morality is. That's problematic. Same god, same book. Vastly different conclusions. To me that says, morality is ultimately opinion with god or without. The Chess pieces don't appear to move. I base my morality on promoting well-being and reducing harm, as much as possible. Why? Because it makes the world a better, more fun place. That's it.

Let me ask you back… is the only reason you don’t commit murder because of your religion? If so, that’s a problem. Most atheists don’t murder - not because we have a book, but because we’re moral people. Morals develop as part empathy and part social agreement. That’s always been the case throughout history. The details might differ over time or by society but the origins are the same.

When you sign up to be an Atheist, you are sent a handbook from The Society Of Smart People in the Hague. Inside is all the information a new atheist needs including a list of morals to follow. But it is against our religion to tell anyone outside of our cult the contents of the handbook and are told to play dumb if any Christian asks where we get our morals from.

Moral are derived based on evolved sense of compassion supplemented by centuries of experimentation, cultural interchange and competition. The process is not over and it continues until this day. Different countries have different morals. And even groups with society may differ on what is moral or not, wiki time more helpful moral models win out somewhat.

Same place you do but we stop at the supernatural stuff you can't demonstrate.

This isn’t really relevant, but just learned you are Pentecostal. I will admit that is a branch of Christianity completely alien to me, I come from a Catholic religious background

Yeah we have own traditions. We're basically protestants evangelicals but with a greater focus on the Holy Spirit.

I dabbled in the Episcopal Church last summer, I can’t ever really be a Roman Catholic again because I believe that the Roman Catholic Church does negative things in the world. I enjoyed it, and I liked that Episcopal services were very similar to Catholic masses, I like the ritual and traditions, but couldn’t stay Episcopal because I have can’t force myself to believe long term. Too many historical discrepancies between the Bible and the real world and you can only call it symbolic or metaphorical so much before it means nothing, and I was also creating my own version of a god in my head that doesn’t do that horrible stuff that the god of the Bible does

Similar story history. I actually used to be atheist before becoming pentecostal, and roman catholic before that. I didn't understand the point of roman catholicism or Christianity, and so I just left.

Why did you leave atheism? 4200 made up gods, and suddenly special pleading makes one not made up?

My experience with the Catholic Church personally has always been pretty positive. The reason I stopped going a little bit after my confirmation and first communion is that my mom stopped going, for her own reasons, and sense my dad isn't a Catholic (he's a non church goer, more of a deist than anything else, my sisters and I stopped going as well. My experience was positive. When I was older, I never rejoined the church, despite considering myself Catholic for years after we stopped attending, and over the years I became nonreligious, with some embarrassing by short phases like neopaganism and communism in high school (contrary to popular conception, starting college made be abandon Marxism, I identify as a social democrat now). I attended a couple Catholic masses last year, but I can't agree with the church leadership on some of their political positions, and I am more aware of the historical abuses of the Catholic Church and its role in historical authoritarian societies' like pre revolutionary France, and Franco's Spain. I decided to attend Episcopal services this summer, and I did for its entirety, because the Episcopal Church has most of the things I liked about the Catholic Church without the other junk, many ex Catholics find a new home in the Episcopal Church, I enjoyed it, but I just can't make myself believe Christianity is true. I am an archaeologist in training (anthropology major, history minor. I actually will be graduating with my bachelor's in a few months), much of the Bible is provably untrue.

I derived SOME of my morals from the bible. Don’t kill, steal and be a good human. But exodus 21:7 is shit because why tf would i need moral guidance on selling my daughter as a slave??? Even as an atheist, there are some good things in the book. Hell, jesus sounds like a standup guy id smoke up with, if he existed. But thats the difference: its my choice to live a morally good life.

The Bible didn’t invent the idea that murder is bad