Question for Atheists?

But in your view, how does human beings determine right from wrong wihtout there being a God.

- Intelligence and evolution.

how are we any different then animals in the wild that attack eachother.

- The animals have fewer psychosis.

Why are there laws and courtrooms to deal with this kind of random act

- Psychosis. One of those gifts of your god.

Humans are no different from animals in the wild. That's why we're called mammals. We're descendants of the Primate family. If you don't believe we're descendants just take a look at these facts.

http://listverse.com/2012/02/14/10-comparisons-bet...

The animal kingdom has hierarchy just like humans do. We have evolved more than our relatives. We have gone from being at the bottom of the food chain when man first walked on Earth to being at the top of the food chain and have a very advanced society. We have developed the ability to speak and our brains have become more complex so we could develop things to make our lives easier like cars and cell phones. If you don't think Evolution is real look at our technology today. If everything was the work of God, why didn't the ancient civilizations have cars or cell phones? Why? Because their brains were not fully developed and they were not capable of such complex thoughts and ideas. We have the ability to cure diseases and illnesses. Millions of people died during the Influenza Virus of 1918. The Flu! Nowadays we just sleep for a day or two and drink alot of water and we're fine. Back than the flu was a death sentence. We don't die from the common cold thanks to Evolution and the ability to develop medicine. Evolution doesn't only apply to humans. If you deny evolution then clearly you have not developed a working brain.

Most social animals are able to make moral decisions. Chimpanzees are well known to make moral decisions and even "punish" members of the group who violate the chimp moral code. (Chimps even have a rudimentary for of politics...which is an extension of morality. They even have coup de etats.)

Chimpanzees don't have laws and courtrooms, only because they aren't physically able to write down laws, and build courthouses.

Humans do it the same way.

Moral decisions (determining right and wrong) are largely made in the emotional centers of the brain. Researchers have found that if an impulse is emitted into the brain that briefly blocks the brain from processing emotions, test subjects found it very difficult to determine which actions would be "right" and "wrong" in morally questionable scenarios.

Once the emotions have processed the basic right and wrongs, humans then use moral reasoning (ethics) to determine which specific scenarios are right, and which wrong. It is in ethics, not morals, that most human disagreement occurs.

For example...nearly all humans will make the emotion-based judgment "killing without just cause is wrong." But there will be much disagreement on what is "just cause." Some will say self-defense qualifies. Some will say only God could have just cause. Others will say there is no just cause for killing. Etc.

-If one argues, as some deeply religious individuals do, that without God there can be no ultimate right and wrong - namely that God determines for us what is right and wrong - one can then ask the question: What is God decreed that rape and murder were morally acceptable ? Would that make them so ?

While some might answer yes, I think most believers would say no, God would not make such a decree. But why not ? Presumably because God would have some *reason* for not making such a decree. Again, presumably this is because *reason* suggests that rape and murder are not morally acceptable. But if God would have to appeal to *reason*, then why not eliminate the middleman entirely ?- Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, Pgs 171-172.

---------------------

According to the bible, which one of the following is immoral?

a) Raping someone

b) Treating women as objects

c) Picking up sticks on a Saturday

d) Genocide

e) Infanticide

f) Killing someone for having different views to you

g) Slavery

According to the Bible, only option c) is wrong. All of the others are either accepted as mainstream, or even encouraged, in the Bible.

However, you and I both know that all of the others are wrong and that c) is perfectly innocent. You do not get your morality from scripture and neither does anyone else.

Searching through religious scripture for morality is like searching through the sewers for small coins; sure, there is some in there, but is it really worth it?

*sigh*

Animals in the wild have proper and natural reasons to attack one another. Humans rarely do.

Court systems have evolved. Like societies. That horrible, hate filled book contains many things both illegal and immoral. Yet, by virtue of being a god christians give these wicked stories a pass on morality.

My people shudder at the things you want us to accept. I'm not an atheist, but that is the closest label you use to describe us.

Glug Glug and Zug Zug are two hunters who provide their tribe with mammoth meat. Glug Glug has short little arms and cannot get close enought to a mammoth to kill it so he distracts it while Zug Zug spears the beast. Zug Zug gets all the praise from the tribe and Glug Glug sits in the shadows. One day Glug Glug comes up with an idea for a new hunting weapon that can kill from a great distance. Every day he kills the mammoth by himself and becomes the tribes hero. Zug Zug becomes jealous and one night he steals Glug Glug's weapon. The next day Glug Glug cannot go hunting and spends the day making a new one. Zug Zug cannot kill the mammoth without someone to distract it and so the tribe goes hungry that day. Because his actions had a negative effect on the tribe, stealing was considered a "bad" thing. The next day Glug Glug was ready to go but Zug Zug couldn't bear to be second best. Zug Zug killed Glug Glug and again the tribe went hungry, This time for a longer period, until a new hunter could be trained. Because this had a worse impact on the whole tribe, murder was seen as a "very bad " thing. All morals evolved this way. If you are unable to see that this is how humans learn and adapt there is nothing more I can say.

Morals and logic don't necessarily come just from god. They come from within a person and society. I have yet to kill anyone, cheat or steal yet i don't believe in god.

Then as parents we teach our children morals and right from wrong.

We actually do have a lot of tendencies that stem from animals. But we are humans therefore we have the ability to adjust to our surroundings and basically. .....be good people.

People who don’t believe in God or gods, or supernatural beings generally, make choices and have the same basic morality as everyone else, as part of the complex behaviour patterns that evolved in our species, and others. When several behaviour patterns conflict in a given situation, our upbringing, experience, need to live as part of a community, and the satisfying chemical changes that evolved to happen in our brains when we do someone a favour, determine which to suppress; this is often done subconsciously, but can sometimes be conscious (which might be what we experience as conscience). And when this goes wrong, we have remedies as a species codified in laws, penalties and punishments.

Having experience of life, I base my choices on mutual respect and compassion for others. And not being religious, I have no problem about minorities, such as gay people, being given civil and human rights; and same-sex marriage will mean that more people in our society will be able to lead happy and fulfilled lives.

I just don't attribute the origin of moral behaviour to mythical beings, or claim that the way we resolve conflicting behaviour patterns consciously is through something supernatural or that the conscience is supernatural or comes from a supernatural being.

I remember when I was a child in the 1950s that the moral standards were based on religious or biblical ideas: unmarried women who weren't virgins were disowned and had children taken away from them for adoption, homosexuality was illegal and carried a prison sentence, and white people considered themselves superior to other races. There was no concept of civil or human rights. By the time I started work in 1970 things had improved, but women weren't allowed to wear trousers to work, Health & Safety at work wasn't even a concept, and people actually smoked in the workplace.

In my 62 years, my experience is that morality has generally become more compassionate and we have become more free as we adopt secular ideas that replace religious ones. I wonder what people in 50 years will consider as barbaric that we now consider normal.

Secular values allow freedom of religion (or none), freedom of individuals to live fulfilling and happy lives, and that allows for civil and human rights. Before secularism became prominent there was no protection of minorities such as gay people from hatred (claimed as "love") and persecution.

How are we any different than animals in the wild that DON'T attack each other?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that animals attack each other. Animals manage to live together in peace and harmony, why are you surprised humans can too?

I see more signs of religion encouraging violence than stopping it.

Simple: Logic. I can't think of a moral I value that can't be arrived upon starting form the premise that humans are social creatures and therefore the better society does as a whole the better the individuals do in that society.