"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

[1] Genetic-based

but if this were all there is then we would remain children, reacting to stimulus, acting automatically."

[2] These are called sensory tableaux[Piaget]and are present in humans and many other animals too. Higher mammals move-on from this stage. We learn.

[3] [2] is subject to the Nativist vs. Constructionist debate

John – you say: “Morals, then are essentially the elements of that code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex social animals such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others.”

Of course, the obvious question in response is: “Who says so?” John Ness does, but who is John Ness? You sound like some secular “god” making pronouncements from on high that we ought to ensure the survival of the species and consider the welfare of others. Without wanting to be rude, why should anyone care what you say?

A fellow atheist could say that he/she does not care about ensuring the survival of the species and that they don’t want to consider the welfare of others. They just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die. And why shouldn’t they? Presumably you must think that they are sick in some way not to see things like you do, but why shouldn’t they regard you as the sick one?

I guess you will say more atheists think like you than like the others I have proposed. Maybe you are right but I wouldn’t bet on it. But even if you are, so what? Is there some cosmic rule that states that the majority are always right? Really, your position boils down to ‘might (in the form of greater numbers) makes right’, at least when you think that the majority support your favoured position.

No John, atheism logically leads to every man/woman for his/her self when it comes to morality.

Oliver,

Sometimes your posts are so abbreviated I don't have a clue as to what your on about. I suspect your last one might be in that category. To me you point [1] reads like "things that are genetically determined remain constant over the life of the organism". Obviously you didn't mean that. What did you really mean?

Also, you evidently know who John Ness is. A URL or short bio would be handy.

Grey: "Could it be there is no real agreement between atheists on morals because there is no real logical foundation for morals within the atheistic worldview...."

Probably not Grey. In fact I would go further. I suspect that if you put the "moral outlook" of atheists and theists to the test by say giving them real world scenarios and asking them what the right course of action would be, you would end up with very similar outcomes. In other words there is not a huge real world difference between the morals of a atheist and a theist, let alone two atheists.

That is not to say there aren't differences between atheists, just like there are differences between atheists. How does a nice lump of pig sound to you, or juicy piece of cow, or how feel about worshipping a buffalo and indeed do you agree with the prior pope that evolution is real? Absolute morals are a bit like standards really, the great thing about them is there are so many to choose from ... all different. Now that I think about it, its likely that if you plucked two random atheists form the world, their outlooks are likely to be more similar than those of two theists chosen the same way.

"In fact I plan on making many more contributions to this site."

Isn't this harrassment? Continuing a behaviour after you've been advised that it's unwanted?

I'd be prepared to make an official complaint against at least one of the postings this person has made today.

GP: "No John, atheism logically leads to every man/woman for his/her self when it comes to morality."

If give you one thing Graham, never an arrow flew a straighter course than you on this topic.

Here is something I think needs to be pointed out, even though I know your not interested. Logic has nothing to do with how the mind works. There is no rule that says the human mind must behave like some logical machine, and there is no reason for it to do so. So when you say "atheism logically leads" you are just plain wrong if you are implying the human mind forced to go down some logical path. The human mind isn't constrained by logic, and in fact I would of thought your very own faith in an entity whose existence can't be proved would have made that plainly obvious. But then again, human minds don't have to be logical, so perhaps not.

GP: “Who says so?”

No one says so, Graham. John Ness is just observing all humans have moral codes that display a certain consideration for the welfare of others. He is not saying anybody told them do to so - that is your assertion, not his. That we all behave in a similar way is hardly surprising, as we all belong to the same species.

GP: "why should anyone care what you say."

There is no reason for anybody to care deeply, and more to the point its unimportant whether they do. They behave they way they do because they are all human, not because John or anybody else told them to.

GP: "A fellow atheist could ... just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die."

Yes, they could Graham. The problem for you is they don't. John has given one explanation of why. Evidently you don't agree with it, so what is yours?

GP: "your position boils down to ‘might ... makes right’"

You imagining things, Graham. He offered a reasoned, if forceful, explanation of his position, and is hoping it might persuade you.