Fortunately I don't believe I need a book to tell me what's right or wrong either. I believe once you are tapped in, you are now just a part if God as God himself. And to add for good measure, I do extreme amounts of mind altering drugs to let me visualize what I feel. Smell colors, taste sounds, live dreams.
I have never wondered what the right or wrong thing to do is. I don't always do the right thing, but I usually do. But who decides what is right? It's not God for me, it's not tapping into some existential force. It's also not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. It's innate, within me. In the 5-7th grades I got into many fist fights. In the 8th grade I made a decision to stop fighting. I haven't thrown a punch since. The point being, we have the power within ourselves to realize what is bad (fighting for me) and then weave that thought into our makeup. It was introspection and personal disappointment that helped me construct my new non-fighting paradigm.
So if Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's decide to wipe out 6 million Jews, and it's innate within them that this is the right and good thing to do, does it make it right? Is almost a million babies being murdered so far this year in the US right or wrong? Or does it just boil down to your opinion versus someone else's? There are literally millions of examples of this, some even more horrifying. This sort of justification is disturbing, making people the standard for morality.
All I know is for myself. I am not hitler. I have killed everyone I have ever wanted to kill. You have many cases of religious people also using their religion as a reason why they kill. Millions have been killed by both secular and religious, so neither system can be touted as some moral high ground. I suppose, as I stated earlier in this thread, my innate knowing of right vs wrong is based on a combination of nature and nurture, with nurture being the more important. My parents, family, friends, school, teachers, and society at large have all influenced who I have become. So have my genes. I know what's right because I just know, I don't need to reason why sticking a fork in someone's eye is wrong, to me it just is wrong. No code, no manifesto. But I am not born in a test tube and raised without influence. But that influence, be it from a religious person or a secular one helped form me. Helped make right and wrong an unconscious part of me. This is not some philosophy I'm spouting, just my thoughts on my personal morality (and I'm an atheist) .
So you're saying you were fortunate enough to be raised 'right' (whatever that would be anyway)? So if someone was raised differently than you in a society where they had to steal and kill in order to survive, is that good or bad? Or even just different values, like say it's okay to steal as long as you don't get caught, is that wrong? Who decides? If a serial killer was born with the 'wrong' genes and had an impulse to kill people based purely on their genetics, are they to blame or be pitied? There are literally millions of examples one can make. And regardless of religious motives or not, if people decide to murder it's because of a fallen, sinful nature causing these things in my eyes. If you are a Christian and doing those things then you are not actually a Christian, since what you are doing is in direct contradiction with what Christ taught and commanded you to do.
Yes you aren't hitler and there have been obvious abuse from all sides of the spectrum. But then again, what determines if what hitler did was immoral? Do you think he thought it was wrong? Or maybe a sociopath killing victims, using justifications within himself? I'm sure he thinks he feels that's justifiable as well. So in the end, I believe we do have that footprint embedded inside us. Ones either choose to listen or ignore. I believe it's God and you believe it's DNA. We all are puppets (to naturalism or theism), so choose which strings you wish to control you. Atheism is not freedom like so many claim. In fact, it's even more control because you give that power to those men or woman with more power and wealth than you. If you want true freedom, be an anarchist!
Innate behavior doesn't make anything objectively right OR wrong. The functionality of the golden rule combined with the fact that most humans value their own lives undeniably makes genocide functionally wrong from a utilitarian standpoint. Utilitarianism is ultimately subjective, however. you're just referencing your feelings here. how anyone feels has no relevance to the subject of objective morality.
Society norms. We live in societies with norms and laws, and those are designed to help steer people towards what societies deem right. There have been many societies where what was considered the most praiseworthy thing one could do was sacrifice oneself. In most of those (all I can think of off hand) it was a religious act. But it is not some universal truth that says that sacrifice is wrong, it is the culture, the times, the society that dictates what is or is not acceptable. Or killing others under gods name. Spanish Inquisition anyone? Is killing wrong? In our society it is under most circumstances. But at other times, with different societal norms and laws, perhaps killing wasn't wrong. To me, under my parents tutelage, killing is totally wrong. But times change and morals adjust. Look in the Old Testament as to what was accepted, even encouraged from murder to slavery, but times changed, and so did morality.
Well obviously millions think the golden rule is BS and don't abide by it at all. Maybe you should talk to them and not me since I actually agree with you here and the faith I follow makes it central (Matthew 7). I just fail to see where your foundations are when you bring it up. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc. obviously didn't follow it. Not saying you are them but many atheists have used naturalism and evolutionary thought as an excuse to wipe people out. They are seen as excess protoplasm and inferior, nothing more. I'm actually not because I know where my morality comes from. By even bringing this up you are only strengthening my point.
There have been many societies that were complete and utterly barbaric, and many exist today all around the world. If the society you happened to be raised in decides to have a bit of a shift in their thoughts on morality are you going to make the changes necessary, or stand up for what is "right"?
See, this is the difference in how you and I are viewing this thread. You have a point, a side to defend. Me, I'm was just trying to answer the original question without trying to defend or prop up atheism , just explain how I view right vs wrong. Then, I answered some follow ups. But I understand that it can appear odd that someone without a belief in god can be a very ethical person, so I was just trying to inform where I feel my morality comes from. No agenda in my answers.
I understand and respect that and I think it is vital for people to try and ground their morality somewhere. I thank God that most atheists I know follow Judeo-Christian Western values and morality, or else it could be chaos But seriously my objection is that many atheists cry morality and say religious morality is inferior and point out atrocities committed by religious people, yet have no real grounds to base their own morality on. Yes many atrocities have been done under the mask of 'religion', but you should take some time out to see if they are actually following what their faith teaches, and also not lump all religions and religious people together at the same time. Over 85% of the world adheres to a religious faith, so of course there are going to be some bad apples in the bunch, and some religions actually do call for violence (or at least their followers wholeheartedly believe it does). I believe though that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong because God has put it there, and this is taught in the Bible too. Yes you can easily quote mine the Bible and make it say what you want it to say, but there is a consistent message throughout.
As far as I know the golden rule doesn't have an objective foundation in the sense you mean. It does have utility from most modern perspectives, so more advanced societies tend to agree on it. when you read Leviticus, do you honestly think to yourself that stoning adulterers to death is immoral now but wasn't then because "Jesus fulfilled the OT law" (or whatever reason you think that flip-flopped in God's eyes).... ...or do you think to yourself it's immoral and always was because your common sense informs your feelings that it's an unjust punishment?
Judeo-Christian religions have adapted themselves to fit in with modern Western society. That's the problem with Islam, it can not adapt to modern, not even Western, society. There was a time when it was absolutely against Judeo-Christian religions to have women in positions of power or even work outside of the home. As society changed so did religion.
There most certainly are murderers and evil-doers from every stripe, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and yes, certainly atheist. I personally believe that if you lost your faith tomorrow and joined the unholy atheistic hoards, you would still have the same basic values. What causes you to shudder in revolt today would likewise cause you to shudder tomorrow as well. And if I found God tomorrow, cleaned up my soiled soul and got baptized, I would still have the same basic values. There might be small differences, I might decide not going to church was wrong and you might decide beef tastes good on a Friday too. However both of us would refrain from theft, adultery and murder. Both of us would want to help the infirm and encourage the fallen. We both believe our values and morality come from in, we just differ on the influence.
Prime example: Monsanto able to have congress pass a bill to not hold them liable if their gmo products hurt you
It doesn't matter whether it's congress or the private sector. The golden rule is the golden rule. He who has the gold gets to select the board of directors.
