Atheism and Moral Values

[Flint]

Oh, I'm sure things used to be brutal. I'm not saying it isn't within our nature to rape and pillage; just that, for the most part, we've come to an agreement that we aren't really into that kind of thing anymore. Exactly how it is that we've all agreed to voluntarily curtail our raping and pillaging tendencies is what is up for debate here. I, for one, say that to attribute this change in behavior to a the noodley appendages of a cosmic vigilante is the less likely than the Mama's fryin' pan theory. I don't see the need to include supernatural forces in the equation. It works without that.

[Ruminator]

OK! Guys this thread has become what I was hoping for, and more. My first thought was just to gain some idea of how an atheist acquires their moral compass and values. But its been great how this discussion has evolved. For me its the first time.

I love this, and its why I registered here... to be able to discuss without personal attacks all of our varied beliefs from our diverse backgrounds.

Dana you are right I'm sure about our not being able to relate well with what each other has been through in life. And yet in some ways more so. I was born into a strong christian family of a conservative type similar to the Mennonite faith. But in high school I joined a cult and scrapped my prior belief system. Upon learning that it was totally bogus, I have very carefully worked my way to where I am at spiritually today.
But I am learning from you guys so much! I hope to be able to contribute some things that are useful to you in return.

All that I am interested in is being able to calmly, and as friends compare notes between each other.
Smoothmoniker, and the rest, I am glad you joined this thread.

- Rumi

[Flint]

Ruminator, you have a knack for stirring up some great conversations. Please stick around for many more!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

Exactly how it is that we've all agreed to voluntarily curtail our raping and pillaging tendencies is what is up for debate here. I, for one, say that to attribute this change in behavior to a the noodley appendages of a cosmic vigilante is the less likely than the Mama's fryin' pan theory.

Raping and pillaging is not just for cavemen. The Vikings did a pretty good job. Some of the Asians and plains Indians were pretty good at beating each other up, also. It's still going on, albeit more efficiently, in parts of the world like Africa.

I'm betting morality is a societal construct, with variables for different societies, but the common themes in these constructs (like no killing), were codified by the major religions, as a way of anointing Mama's frying pan with moral authority.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

This does not logically follow. Of course societies have a low level of violence; society was formed to prevent things such as violent interactions and would suppress such tendencies. You cannot look at a set of sorted data and conclude that sorting was not necessary because your data set is sorted already.

I strongly disagree that societies were created to prevent violent interactions. Societies were most likely created in the same nature as writing, agriculture, and religion, with no planning.

If you look at how writing started in ancient Egypt, Sumeria, and China, there is a trend in all three. These three did not copy or borrow a writing system from any other civilization and no one created it. In ancient Sumer, there was a lot of trade and with that trade came accounting. Traders would mark create symbols for what they traded. After thousands of years of making this system more complex, the product was a complete system of writing we now know as cuneiform.

Agriculture worked in a similar fashion. Since almost every crop we now use cannot be found in the wild means only one logical conclusion, they were genetically altered in the same way that we get house dogs from wolves. To do this, it takes thousands of years. All wild forms of wheat and corn could never sustain a human community and most do not even produce anything that provides any nutritional value so that means there could not be any planning involved. No one looked at ancient wild wheat and thought that they could create agriculture from it. It took thousands of years of chance, luck, and experimentation to find anything sustainable, and even then, hunting and gathering was still more efficient. So, having a society based on agriculture was something that had to have just happened and the switch was most likely very slow and gradual (over the course of thousands of years).

Societies, mostly came the same way with the use of agriculture. When humans were primary hunter gatherer societies, mobility was a must so a civilization in the sense that we have today could never have formed. But as agriculture came into play, people would have to start living in one place, and societies would slowly start to form. As with writing and agriculture, no one planned societies and it most likely just happened. So I do not see how violence would have any play into this. In fact, humans living 5000 years ago in agricultural societies had shorter lifespans and were on average shorter than hunter gatherers, which backs up the inefficiency of that early lifestyle.

To get to my point, I do not believe in any Daniel Quinn hunter gatherer utopia but I not see how we so easily believe that the hunter gatherer living was so brutal. Which is my original point of comparing morals with religion and morals with government and law. Everyone of us have been raised to believe that government, law, and religion (besides a select few) keep us civilized, but like our debunking of religion, I am starting to question government and law as well.

Note- This is not some anarchist rant but I mean in the same manner as the atheists have done in the defense of morals and religion.

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

I don't see why small groups of people wouldn't raid another small group for their resources. It wasn't just "raping' and 'pillaging", it was a matter of the struggle for survival when competing with other groups. I'm sure it wasn't all violent either. Some groups probably joined together as another means for survival.

I'm wondering how it was any different than our society today in that respect? We still do raid other countries for their resources, but just on a much larger and discreet way. As I said earlier, I'm not suggesting that it was any better in that respect 8,000 years ago (proportional wise) but I certainly don't see it as any worst either.

Its about sustainability. The population density was much smaller back then and as long as their was not a drought, most groups could live in peace without going into each others areas. But, in case of droughts, it would be very likely raids happened and some violence did occur.

Originally Posted by Flint

Oh, I'm sure things used to be brutal. I'm not saying it isn't within our nature to rape and pillage; just that, for the most part, we've come to an agreement that we aren't really into that kind of thing anymore. Exactly how it is that we've all agreed to voluntarily curtail our raping and pillaging tendencies is what is up for debate here. I, for one, say that to attribute this change in behavior to a the noodley appendages of a cosmic vigilante is the less likely than the Mama's fryin' pan theory. I don't see the need to include supernatural forces in the equation. It works without that.

From my knowledge, it seems that most raping and pillaging either comes from necessity or expansion (nationalism). The Vikings, Goths, etc didn't start raping and pillaging until their food sources started to become low. Rome, the Colonial nations, etc just wanted to expand for resources and nationalistic reasons. Just like genocide, raping and pillaging is most likely a very strong social force that happens when a group feels like they are under a strong pressure to survive or way too big headed. That also means that I don't think the raping and pillaging part of humans are over, just like the genocide part isn't either. We may consider raping and pillaging bad but our nation as a whole has never been threatened with starvation or elimination. Also, I would not consider our economic policies towards other countries to be anything close to moral.

[Ruminator]

I can see the "no kill" rule developing from a selfish survival need amongst the earliest hunter/gatherers. It would have soon been learned that mutual cooperation increased the success rates of hunts especially. Basic respect of "ownership" would of necessity for any cooperation to occur had to also develop at the same time.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

... Societies were most likely created in the same nature as writing, agriculture, and religion, with no planning.

Oh, absolutely. I just meant that people came together basically because of "strength in numbers". This helped people hunt and other such mundane activities, but it also helped to keep people safe from other less friendly people. My point was that you cannot conclude people are naturally non-violent by observing that there is little violence in a system likely shaped in part by the threat of violence.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm betting morality is a societal construct, with variables for different societies, but the common themes in these constructs (like no killing), were codified by the major religions, as a way of anointing Mama's frying pan with moral authority.

I agree, and this seems like he most logical, likely scenario. And from this, I can't understand the position that morality "comes from God" or "isn't possible without God" or that "you can't be a moral person if you don't believe in God" etc. as has been suggested by some.

[Trilby]

I would read this thread, but I'm afraid of going to hell because I did.




That and it's too long and looks boring. I wish you guys would learn to just sum up---life is too short for all this. You need to make your point - BAM!- then get out. Posting as a stealth ninja----like that.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Oh, absolutely. I just meant that people came together basically because of "strength in numbers". This helped people hunt and other such mundane activities, but it also helped to keep people safe from other less friendly people. My point was that you cannot conclude people are naturally non-violent by observing that there is little violence in a system likely shaped in part by the threat of violence.

When did I ever use the phrase non-violent? This thread started with morals and religion, and going off that I compared morals with government and our society's current thought of humans being extremely barbaric before civilization. Because many have concluded that morals come from a social force, government, like religion, is not needed to create morals so therefore the hunter gatherer tribes were most likely just as moral as we are today, just much more diverse.

I already said I do not believe in any Daniel Quinn hunter gatherer utopia ideas and I never had said non-violent but I'm questioning where people get this idea that these people were constantly raiding eachother? Because you suggest that people created civilizations in response to attacks also suggests that these raids must have been on a high level to create such a revolutionary idea.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...
I already said I do not believe in any Daniel Quinn hunter gatherer utopia ideas and I never had said non-violent but I'm questioning where people get this idea that these people were constantly raiding eachother? Because you suggest that people created civilizations in response to attacks also suggests that these raids must have been on a high level to create such a revolutionary idea.

I think we are actually on the same page. I don’t think that the ancient world was a Mad Max world of looting and death either. I also don’t think that civilization is that revolutionary an idea; many animals have picked up the concept of sticking together for mutual benefit. Stopping moving, setting up shop in one location, and specializing is the revolutionary concept.

My only point was that disagreeing that without the boundaries of society people would be inclined to loot and pillage, and basing that conclusion on observation of a society is a non sequitur. The best way of telling what people would tend to do without the bounds of society is to look at situations where the bounds of society are starting to break down. Look at some of the world’s worst examples of riots and you can see that people definitely have the looting and pillaging aspect within them. Then realize that those people were raised in a society from birth and were only without society for a few days, and imagine how someone raised without the concept of society might act.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

I think we are actually on the same page. I don’t think that the ancient world was a Mad Max world of looting and death either. I also don’t think that civilization is that revolutionary an idea; many animals have picked up the concept of sticking together for mutual benefit. Stopping moving, setting up shop in one location, and specializing is the revolutionary concept.

We are on the same page here except our definition of civilization.

A civilization is a society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities. Compared with other cultures, members of a civilization are organized into a diverse division of labor and an intricate social hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

A complex society, writing, agriculture, division of labor all are parts of a civilization and the entirely complexity of it is revolutionary even though it most likely happened quite naturally.

Originally Posted by Phage0070

My only point was that disagreeing that without the boundaries of society people would be inclined to loot and pillage, and basing that conclusion on observation of a society is a non sequitur. The best way of telling what people would tend to do without the bounds of society is to look at situations where the bounds of society are starting to break down. Look at some of the world’s worst examples of riots and you can see that people definitely have the looting and pillaging aspect within them. Then realize that those people were raised in a society from birth and were only without society for a few days, and imagine how someone raised without the concept of society might act.

This is what I am trying to make my point about. Look back to the posts where moral and religion were discussed. The conclusions came that morals are sociological and created by the environment someone was raised in. Therefore, the logic that someone raised in a civilization would have the same set of morals and mindset as someone not raised in a civilization goes directly against our prior conclusion.

So, my point is that someone raised in an environment without a civilization would have a mindset that is greatly different than someone who was raised in a civilization so no theoretical comparisons can be made. And, since we base our logic that hunter gatherers were barbaric based on the observations of our current society, I am saying that logic is flawed because we cannot tell exactly how any hunter gatherer society worked without directly looking at an isolated hunter gatherer group, which is impossible in this day and age.


I furthered the discussion by making the statement that hunter gatherer societies had low levels of violence. First, keep in mind that morals and mindset would be highly decentralized. That means one group may be almost perfectly peaceful while another might be very violent. But in spite of that, I still keep my claim of relative low violence because of the following factors.


Violent imperialistic campaigns come from a centralization of power and resources. In order to have a centralization of power and resources we need to have a civilization. So violent imperialistic campaigns could not have happened in hunter gatherer societies. This would not stop raids of a neighboring tribe but that is basically what it would be limited too. No hunter gatherer society (expect in maybe extremely rare events) would move place to place killing off eachother.

Land populated by hunter gatherer groups had a low population densities because a large land area was needed to be sustainable off hunting and gathering.With low population densities, war would be very hurtful to all groups involved because a lost of one member of the group would be more hurtful than in a civilization of high population density. Even though resources might have been taken over, the risk of losing half your tribe would prevent all out war between groups unless already faced with death.

As I said earlier, we cannot be certain of how hunter gatherer societies acted without actually looking at one, which is impossible, but using this knowledge we can at least eliminate any unsustainable or impossible ideas about their way of living.

[Phage0070]

piercehawkeye45, thank you for the clarification, I agree.

[Ruminator]

Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'm betting morality is a societal construct, with variables for different societies, but the common themes in these constructs (like no killing), were codified by the major religions, as a way of anointing Mama's frying pan with moral authority.

I agree, and this seems like he most logical, likely scenario. And from this, I can't understand the position that morality "comes from God" or "isn't possible without God" or that "you can't be a moral person if you don't believe in God" etc. as has been suggested by some.

Flint, I don't believe that "you can't be a moral person if you don't believe in God".

My stated purpose in creating this thread was to gain an understanding of what atheists use to develop a moral value system because I couldn't think of any absolute on which one could be built.

There have been some really excellent answers posted here that have given me an awareness and appreciation for how that process occurs for an atheist.

That purpose for my thread has been met and I truly appreciate all of this discussion. Especially since its gone considerably farther than it was first intended.

Thanks everyone.

Now where were we ...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

My stated purpose in creating this thread was to gain an understanding of what atheists use to develop a moral value system because I couldn't think of any absolute on which one could be built.

Could you think of an absolute on which the correct religion could be picked?