Look at colonies of ants or bees and see how they cooperate. Do they cooperate because the sweet baby Jesus told them to? No, they cooperate as a result of evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes. This.

Bees are an example of the mindless imperative to cooperate regardless of morality.

It's when an organism becomes more intelligent, more emotionally sophisticated, that cooperation requires empathy - the desire to avoid causing pain to others, the desire to see others experience well being and joy.

In the absence of a developed sense of empathy, one might require, say, an organized religion to enforce mutually beneficial behaviors.

Anonymous wrote:Example, Genghis Khan's millions of descendants.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

He was a prolific mass murderer. http://pazhayathu.blogspot.com/2010/11/mass-murderer-genghis-khan-he-took.html

He was a brilliant organizer. He united the Mongols, then the Turkic groups, and created the largest empire the world had ever seen.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the point. It wasn't that we were all barbaric and then religion came along and civilized us.

Religion was a unifying force within many groups that allowed them to go out and kill the other groups.

The civilizing force is enlightenment, rationality, which allows us to find ways to live together in peace without a unifying religious belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being nice makes me feel good.

Being mean makes me feel bad.

I know the difference between good and evil like I know the difference between chocolate and vanilla. I don't need the threat of hell to make me be good. Hell is being bad and then hating yourself for it.

"Harm none, and do what you will".

Do you agree that for there to be good and evil, there has to be a creator of it? Otherwise, the terms wouldn't exist and folks could do whatever they want.

No, as we explained, humans evolved as social creatures. As such, concepts such as good and evil proved to be evolutionarily helpful. They require no creator.

That's absurd.

Those humans who were bold enough to seize power and step on anyone who stood in their way did best, in terms of life on this planet. They ate well, had sex with whomever they desired, lived a fabulous life. Killed millions along the way, caused terrible suffering, but they themselves made out very well.

If atheist materialism is true, they "got away with it," while those they oppressed just got screwed. But even that is saying too much.

There ARE no concepts of good and evil in atheist materialism. We are all atoms clashing and falling apart, no more or less. No justice, no hope. We are lions and gazelles on the African plain. We are nothing.

No, you fail to understand how evolution occured. Suppose you had one group where humans stepped on everyone, and they thrived within their society, individualistic and without morality. Now along comes another group, which has evolved and enforced social norms that reward cooperative behaviors. This latter group would defeat the former group - more organization, more effective tactics etc.
Look at colonies of ants or bees and see how they cooperate. Do they cooperate because the sweet baby Jesus told them to? No, they cooperate as a result of evolution. In similar, though distinct, ways, humans evolved with the ability, and indeed propensity, to cooperate with each other. Extra-group conflict is always much more common than intra-group conflict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's empathy. It's innate.

Agree with this. But why is it innate? Again, I am far from a fundie Christian. I'm speaking more from a spiritual view than a religious one. Where does that innate feeling of good vs. bad come from?

It comes from the same place that urges a mother to care for her newborn infant, that urges an grown animal or human to care for an abandoned baby/child, that urges an ant to follow the ant in front of it for the greater good of all ants, ...

It's nature. It probably originates through some complicated procedure of natural selection and evolution, but humans are probably not quite advanced enough to fully comprehend it. What does it matter where it comes from? It helps us survive as a species. It's not necessary to make up some higher being to profess eternal gratitude to in order to reap benefits we cannot see.

It comes from intelligence. And intelligence is the mother of empathy.

Anonymous wrote:

It's empathy. It's innate.

Agree with this. But why is it innate? Again, I am far from a fundie Christian. I'm speaking more from a spiritual view than a religious one. Where does that innate feeling of good vs. bad come from?

It comes from the same place that urges a mother to care for her newborn infant, that urges an grown animal or human to care for an abandoned baby/child, that urges an ant to follow the ant in front of it for the greater good of all ants, ...

It's nature. It probably originates through some complicated procedure of natural selection and evolution, but humans are probably not quite advanced enough to fully comprehend it. What does it matter where it comes from? It helps us survive as a species. It's not necessary to make up some higher being to profess eternal gratitude to in order to reap benefits we cannot see.

Example, Genghis Khan's millions of descendants.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

He was a prolific mass murderer. http://pazhayathu.blogspot.com/2010/11/mass-murderer-genghis-khan-he-took.html

Anonymous wrote:It would seem to me that atheists are a bit contradictory in their non-belief.

Most live a moral life, yet reject the idea that the concept of morality is a spiritual/religious one. In order for there to be good, there has to be a creator of good. Who *originally* dictated what is good and what is bad? Where did the concept come from?

We are not born with the ability to determine good from evil, right from wrong. That is why so many children are vulnerable to the ill intentions of dangerous people.

Which one of these creators did those concepts come from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

"good" and "bad" are social constructions, that are not fixed in nature, or any particular god (how do you choose which one?). They reflect the societal needs and values at a time. The ability to determine good from bad, comes from the social parameters we are born in, and is very much cultural. And of course, all cultures have their deviants - sometimes good ones, that branch into new ideologies. Sometimes bad ones, that harm and hurt others.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but what is the *origin* of good and evil? What/who decided what is good and what is evil?

So first you need to accept that good and evil are not unchanging across time and across societies. Some societies consider slavery and human sacrifice good, and some consider them evil. So clearly there was no one creator that decided what was good and what was bad.

Now, all humans do have the concepts of "good" and "bad". Why? because these were socially advantageous concepts. To simplify, suppose you have lots of groups of hominids competing for resources. One group gradually develops the concept of good and bad and begins punishing those who do bad and rewarding those who do good. As a result, this group develops more effective cooperation for hunting and more effective distribution of resources, and outcompetes the other groups that do not develop this concept. we are descendants of the group that developed this concept.

-What (or who) governs how you live your life? - my conscience
-What standards do you uphold (as it relates to how you live and your actions)? the usual ones that most people, even people who believe in a god, do. Don't say it unless you'd say it to someone's face, put out into the world what you want to get from it (which I suppose ties into the old treat others the way you want to be treated and be the village you'd like to be able to lean on for support), etc.

Those pretty much seem to cover almost all situations.

It is true that sociopathy also provides some evolutionary advantages, for exactly the reasons you mention above - they take what they want, secure more resources, reproduce more perhaps. That's why some say we still have one in four people who are sociopaths among us today.

But the reason MOST of us reject sociopathy is we have the ability to empathize.

And I would say that sociopaths have just as often used a formal state religion or philosophy to harm others as they've used any other tool. If Nazis had allowed themselves to feel empathy, could they have done what they did?

Anonymous wrote:It would seem to me that atheists are a bit contradictory in their non-belief.

Most live a moral life, yet reject the idea that the concept of morality is a spiritual/religious one. In order for there to be good, there has to be a creator of good. Who *originally* dictated what is good and what is bad? Where did the concept come from?

We are not born with the ability to determine good from evil, right from wrong. That is why so many children are vulnerable to the ill intentions of dangerous people.

Why does there have to be a creator of good and evil? You state it as a given, but it's not.

Anonymous wrote:

What governs how I live my life? I don't need any external governance ... I have an internal understanding of right and wrong. Almost everybody does.

New poster. Not being snarky- where do you think that internal understanding comes from? I am far, far, far from the conservative Christian Right. But I have come to believe that we were provided this moral compass by a creator. It is when we act outside this internal sence of conscience that conflict occurs.

Which creator? There are quite a lot of creator gods [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods]

Of course, my believe are that all of these gods (and all gods) are mirror reflections of the societal views/leaders/power structures at the time, for those communities those creator gods (and all gods) represent.

My lack of belief in any religion or gods does not come from a place of anger - I understand the fulfillment that those tools serve for humans. It fulfills a niche. But rationally, logically, it puzzles me how one set of theological view is somehow more "right" or "real" than any other, because they ALL claim to be right & real. Does it all just come down to what you were raised as?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being nice makes me feel good.

Being mean makes me feel bad.

I know the difference between good and evil like I know the difference between chocolate and vanilla. I don't need the threat of hell to make me be good. Hell is being bad and then hating yourself for it.

"Harm none, and do what you will".

Do you agree that for there to be good and evil, there has to be a creator of it? Otherwise, the terms wouldn't exist and folks could do whatever they want.

No, as we explained, humans evolved as social creatures. As such, concepts such as good and evil proved to be evolutionarily helpful. They require no creator.

That's absurd.

Those humans who were bold enough to seize power and step on anyone who stood in their way did best, in terms of life on this planet. They ate well, had sex with whomever they desired, lived a fabulous life. Killed millions along the way, caused terrible suffering, but they themselves made out very well.

If atheist materialism is true, they "got away with it," while those they oppressed just got screwed. But even that is saying too much.

There ARE no concepts of good and evil in atheist materialism. We are all atoms clashing and falling apart, no more or less. No justice, no hope. We are lions and gazelles on the African plain. We are nothing.

Anonymous wrote:It would seem to me that atheists are a bit contradictory in their non-belief.

Most live a moral life, yet reject the idea that the concept of morality is a spiritual/religious one. In order for there to be good, there has to be a creator of good. Who *originally* dictated what is good and what is bad? Where did the concept come from?

We are not born with the ability to determine good from evil, right from wrong. That is why so many children are vulnerable to the ill intentions of dangerous people.

This is really so simple and we keep explaining it, yet you seem to keep misunderstanding.

Humans evolved with the propensity to develop a moral framework. They will consider some actions good and some bad. These will differ somewhat from society to society, but they are intrinsic to humans since as social animals we had to learn to cooperate, which involved developing and enforcing social norms by rewarding "good" behaviour and sanctioning "bad" behavior.

Relying on religion to determine good from bad is flawed, because religion developed in a particular society at a particular time. This can lead to problems when different value-systems have to coexist - Catholics who think abortion is murder with others who don't, for example. Instead, we have to rely on rationality to determine "good" and "bad" that ensure the maximum benefit to society as a whole.

I have a related question for Christians.

I assume you believe that right and wrong is defined by god. Hypothetically - if you found absolute and undeniable proof that god does not exist, would right and wrong cease to exist for you? Would you throw your beliefs about right and wrong out the window? How would you act differently?