BS: The 'moral' Atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:40 PM

Right - without god, how do you justify killing all the jews, for instance? Or Sep. 11th?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

"I'm not really very concerned about what Dawkins thinks anyway, since he's not part of this discussion. What do YOU think?"

OK, I will weigh in, as I am unsure if I clearly did so earlier.

There is no direct relationship between individual morality, and whether you believe or don't believe in God. While a few individual and extreme cases, may lead one to a false conclusion... these do not to link a relationship on eithr side.

Witty or thought provoking comments, statements, prose, questions and quotes from writers, poets, religiouis and non-religious spokesthingies, entertainers, scientists and philosophers are just that...and offer no reliable proof to base any conclusion on that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: michaelr
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

Jack - I heard a quote from Voltaire yesterday which I think is relevant here:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Or: Those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.

Atheists are a lot less vulnerable on both counts.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:58 PM

Voltaire was not an atheist, nor a non believer in "a God", but was a Deist. It is quite feasible that this quote could have been sourced from this belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM

Ah, it's been Voltaire I've been misquoting all this time. I knew it was somebody...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 09:35 PM

Are you sure Dawkins wasn't saying that there isn't AUTOMATICALLY a connection?

Yes. He says that there is a logical path to atrocities for Christians but not for Atheists. And to make that more convenient, he says that Maoism and Stalinism were religions. Apparently his test of whether or not a belief is a religion is whether or not it can lead to atrocities.

Dawkins' form of Atheism is as dogmatic and fantasy prone as any other religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:06 PM

Could you be one of the folks mentioned in this article? Anyone volunteer that they are?

Could you be one of these?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:36 AM

Jack the Sailor, (HELLO SAILOR!) reckons there are many paths from atheism to atrocity.

Yeah, history shows that God botherers start the atrocity by pushing their superstition to be the only true superstition. (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Galileo's trial, Islamic fundamentalism, The Deep South of Dumbfuckistan, even the well meaning Salvation Army appear to have a military structure...)

Also, all this waffle about Dawkins being the high Priest of Atheism. Atheism means there is no High Priest, silly! Don't confuse commenting on religion as being commenting on Atheism by default. Atheism is what ever Wikipedia, OED etc want to call it, but as it is a zero state, not letting superstition get in the way of being rational, my atheism is different to yours, to his, to hers and especially to Richard's. Mine incidentally is...

Just that.

Nothing.

I both appreciate and respect religion as a moral compass for those who seek solace that way. No problem between consenting adults in private. Ranting on street corners, knocking on doors and asserting the right to influence government however... Tell your black hooded preachers to stop it. They are giving you a bad name.

And the rest of us either dismiss you or point and laugh. Which is sad because at the personal level, religion has something to offer those who accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:00 AM

When I am travelling home on my own or at home on my own I don't trust the morals of anyone whether it be Athiest, Christian or whatever to be perfectly honest. Somehow I don't think a would-be mugger, burglar or rapist is going to announce his persuasion first.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

Ed T, I hope that I'm not - I try to remind believers *who claim their faith is rational* that faith, by definition, isn't rational.

I argue against what is often perceived by people who are not of scientific mindset as evidence for deity, when in point of reality it isn't data - not evidence for or against anything at all.

Besides, if there really were any such evidence, you wouldn't need faith, and I would conclude rationally that particular god exists.

I have no issue with people who simply have faith, against all odds or reason. My friends of faith are all like that. But the misuse of science to *serve* any organization that purports to tell you what their god wants of you is a crime against humanity in my book, and I fight it for very ethical reasons.

And those who find evidence for deity in the real world are generally being led to it by such organizations, or by their teachings, or by their influence.

I think it would be hard for a rational, scientifically literate person, who had never heard of deity as a child, to conclude rationally that anything in the real world demonstrates the existence of deity.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:54 AM

"I try to remind believers *who claim their faith is rational* that faith, by definition, isn't rational".

Why do so many Atheists, who seem to be frustrated by those who agressively and publically promote their belief in god, feel compelled to agressively and proactively state that a belief in God is not rational? Why not just let it be? Is it that they actually feel they are going to convert these folks to being non believers? An unlikely result.

Would they also remind parents of newborn babies, that their belief that their baby is attractive, that by definition, may not be a rational belief?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:33 PM

Ed, reminding believers who claim their faith is rational that it isn't is very different than feeling compelled to agressively and proactively state that belief in god is not rational. The first is a response to a false statement. The second is an attack.

One of the reasons so many atheists "go public" is because so many religious folks spend so much time trying to force their belief systems into our laws.

Yes, there are strident atheists. Most of us, however, just want to be left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:52 PM

Um, Would they also remind parents of newborn babies, that their belief that their baby is attractive, that by definition, may not be a rational belief?
Their belief in their kid being pretty has nothing to do with people who don't agree. People of faith, though, *do* interfere with those of us who don't, as you well know. It isn't going to lead people into atrocities.
I would let them be if they would let me be. But it's a little late for that, considering that almost all my maternal relatives, and my father, have already been killed for what people of faithe believed their faith was, which it wasn't, anyway.
It's the harm that makes it *immoral* to just let them be.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM

Affinity states are not objective; a parent is very likely to be attracted to his own baby for a whole bunch of reasons you would not subscribe to. That doesn't make his perception of attractiveness irrational; it simply makes it individual. The notion that the subjective is irrational and the objective alone is rational is a profound error. So profound, in fact, it may be the key to the downfall of civilizations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM

True, subjective is not irrational; but even if it were, I stick with my above rationale.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM

I am always worried by religious people - usually Christians in my environs - who argue that religion is essential for morality, and that without it, people would be out there looting, raping and killing. Leaving aside that the evidence for the already existing atheists doing these things is scanty, what is very concerning is that these religious folks seem to feel that without the laws of their faith, they would be behaving in this totally self-centred way themselves. Can this be true? When I am near to these people, am I near to some seething mass of barely restrained violence? Not a comfortable thought.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM

"Ed, reminding believers who claim their faith is rational that it isn't is very different than feeling compelled to agressively and proactively state that belief in god is not rational. The first is a response to a false statement. The second is an attack"

Well the two situations that you put forward is hardly parallel situations.

Why would anyone feel compelled to remind those who are minding their own business, as most likely do, that their beliefs are not rational? To me, beyond being rude, is condesencing and I suggest may also be seen as an attack. Why must you remind opeople of that?
As stated the blog I recently linked to, do you actually feel that you are telling these folks something they have not heard, or read, before?


"People of faith", though, *do* interfere with those of us who don't, as you well know....I suspect some may do so. But is that a logical justification for puting all "people of faith" in the same category, as your statement seems to do?

I feel it just as illogical and unfair for "people of faith", and "people of no faith" (if that is a paralell term) to interfere with the "others.

"That doesn't make his perception of attractiveness irrational; it simply makes it individual".

Yes, and as I suggested before IMO, a belief in God is also an individual belief, similar to the belief in the parents example I put forward below. If one were raised in a different situation, the belief, of lack of one, would likely be different.

A belief, whether it be your belief that your wife or child is beautiful,or more beautifyl than your neighbours, or a belief in a God, is not something that benefits from a rational test...as they are subjective. Telling those folks they are wrong does not serve any useful purpose, nor is it likely to change that belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM

Faith isn't subjective or opinion. But you're right that I should not tarnish all people of faith with the same brush...

Faith is, by definition, belief in the absence of evidence. That is not rational. If there were rational reasons to believe in deity then you wouldn't need faith, you could use intelligent conclusion, which is how most atheists came to their lack of belief in deity. (Some, like me, were raised without religion and thus did not have anything to overcome.)

And I have great conversations with people of faith about their faith being irrational, and when they are intelligent and open-minded rather than dogmatic, they end up realizing it if they don't already know it. (If they already know it, then it's a shorter conversation.) It's the people who insist that their beliefs in deity are rational rather than faith-based that I argue with the most; if they are dogmatic, they get mad, and we don't usually become good friends. If they are rational people who happen to also have faith in deity, then we can. As I've sid before, I have friends of faith of that ilk.

A *value* judgment, like pretty/ugly, can be subjective opinion. The *existence* of something isn't - that thing either really exists, or it doesn't. Thus if you believe in things for which there is no evidence, you have faith, and that is neither opinion nor rational. If you don't, you don't, and it's rational, although it still isn't opinion.

It isn't my opinion that Australia exists, despite my never having seen it. I do believe that it exists, but not in the absence of evidence. I can't think of anything that I have faith in, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM

"Faith isn't subjective or opinion."

I disagree on your assessment.

A belief in a God is just that a belief which is held individually.(though it could, and traditionally is (but does not have to be), held in common with others), so it is subjective.

It should not be be confused with membership in a religion, nor the interpretation (dogma) by an organized religion, or "prophets on Earth" attach to that belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 05:36 PM

I can;t think of anything more subjective.

And surely the existence or not of "evidence" is also a very gray area when talking about the non-material. Is there "evidence" for beauty. or a sense of destiny? A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 05:36 PM

Why would anyone feel compelled to remind those who are minding their own business, as most likely do, that their beliefs are not rational? To me, beyond being rude, is condesencing and I suggest may also be seen as an attack. Why must you remind opeople of that?

Yes, it's rude. However, we are in an open discussion on an internet forum. No one here is accosting Christians with out-of-the-blue disparagement. I don't think you'll find many atheists who just start spouting off about how irrational people of faith are. If you are in a discussion about religion and claim that faith is rational, you should expect other people in that discussion to offer differing points of view. In other words, if you don't want people to point out that faith is irrational, don't get into conversations with them and claim that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM

Evidence is *not at all* a grey area. That's just it. It's very rigorous, and there isn't any, none at all, for deity. Otherwise you wouldn't need faith.

And it may be rude but it will save lives. I'm sure people thought it was rude of doctors to wear face masks, at first. It was still the moral thing to do.

Who is it who said their job was to confort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Amos: And surely the existence or not of "evidence" is also a very gray area when talking about the non-material. Is there "evidence" for beauty. or a sense of destiny?

I think it is fairly obvious that there are lots of things that can't be measured or quantified. Your examples are excellent. These things are not, however, the same as belief in a deity. The fact is that everyone can experience beauty without setting aside reason. That's not possible with religious belief. Lots and lots of people have spiritual experiences that can't as yet be defined by scientific measurement, and those experiences are not unreal or irrational. The problem I have, and, I think, most other atheists on these threads, is that religious people make claims for the occurrence of actual physical events which are patently impossible. I have met many "holy" people in my life and have had many mystical/spiritual experiences, but the idea of god still doesn't make any sense to me, and I've never heard a Christian explain it in a way isn't an exercise in accepting the impossible as fact.

What I'm saying is that I don't need scientific evidence to accept the existence of things that aren't physical, but I still need the conclusions drawn from the existence of those things to make sense. An all-powerful god who can alter the laws of physics, cares about individual human beings, responds to prayer, has the power to forgive, is really three separate beings but is all one being, can become human and die and rise from the dead are just a few of the things that don't make sense -- that are, in fact, irrational -- even if one accepts lots of non-physical reality.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM

"Yes, it's rude. However, we are in an open discussion on an internet forum. No one here is accosting Christians with out-of-the-blue disparagement. I don't think you'll find many atheists who just start spouting off about how irrational people of faith are. If you are in a discussion about religion and claim that faith is rational, you should expect other people in that discussion to offer differing points of view. In other words, if you don't want people to point out that faith is irrational, don't get into conversations with them and claim that it is.
"
Well, I was not talking about discussions like these, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

When most folks talk of believing in a God, faith or religion, thay speak from a particular religious experience or with a religion in mind...like Christianity or RC, for example.

But, there are and have been many world religions and Gods to keep in mind, and consider...so many, no wonder folks get confused, and in frustration likely choose only one. Check 'em out.

So many Gods, so little time

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM

Oops, no respect to Atheists, I should also have added or chose none.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

BTW, here are a few more from North American First nations. I did not include Aboriginal Gods, and those in amy other world societies.
Hopefully, I did not piss off any by the exclusion
more Gods

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

There appear to have been no gods beginning with 'w', so I will hereby posit the God of Rock and Roll, Wopboppalula.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM

Well, John, I would certainly never expect you to accept any such malarkey.

However, the fact that one sect or cult makes a bunch of indigestible assertions about its icon does not eliminate the entire concept of godhead, by which I mean a sense of the spiritual extended to infinite transdimensionality, or something of that order. As far as I am concerned any claim for icongraphy of the sort you describe is just variations on a theme of idolatry, although it is understandable that some people will be uncomfortable if they can't have some sort of symbols to wrap their brains around.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM

like Christianity or RC, for example.

Hee hee. "or Catholics"?? Some of my relatives, the "Catholics are idolators!" crew would probably agree, but not most others . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:57 PM

the entire concept of godhead, by which I mean a sense of the spiritual extended to infinite transdimensionality, or something of that order

I have no problem with such a concept. I would, however, not call it god. Not because it isn't or can't be, but because most people, especially religious folks, have a much more concrete definition. Also, as soon as you define god in such broad terms in a discussion about atheism, you've lost anything that anyone else can hang their hat on for the purposes of having the discussion. You might as well say that god is the universe, whenever the universe is considered in a conscious manner. Sort of like calling any and all acoustic music "folk". How's that for comparing one undefinable Mudcat concept to another?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM

Well, Mrrzy, you are being firm with us, which is always good.

But you are rejecting the notion of non-objective phenomenology out of hand, and this may be a mistake.

I think there are three major sets of phenomena we are wrestling with here. The common framework we all share, measurable and evidentiary, is apparently the dominant one in our lives, for obvious reasons.

But sociologists are forever chasing after phenomena in a second sphere--the zone of non-substantial agreements, memes and notions, trends and shared opinions, all of which cannot be found in the measured spacetime of the material world, but they apparently have a lot of weight in human affairs. There is no evidence for a popular conviction, after all, except that many voices assert it.

In the deep and private universe of the individual being you may find a third complete domain, in which intentions, created views, postulated realities, spiritual insights, and many other things are in play without a shred of evidence for their existence showing up in the common space except by voluntary description.

How to be rational about these three areas may differ dramatically. In the physical universe, it is a common thing to increase the amount of force one uses to move a mass at rest until it succumbs. If you try this approach in the universe of shared opinions and such, you will find yourself failing miserably.

All I am saying is don't mix them up, or decide prematurely that "everything" is cntained in one or the other of these three.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 09:03 PM

Overall the concept of a God belief differs, based on experiences, theology, culture etc. With each individual the concept may deviate depending on that person's experiences, perspective and how they learned of a God to believe in. However, some God beliefs are more commonly shared within an organized religion, if you belong to one.

Consider a well known God, Jesus. When I hear this word, it means one thing to me. If a Buddhist hears it, it will mean something different. If a Christian hears it, it means something different. If an Atheist, something different again.

Subjective? An objective God belief, which exists, would mostly be shared and independent of perspectives, noted above.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:07 PM

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith The English word is thought to date from 1200�50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.

I have faith in Jesus as a guide. His advice is sound and puts me in good stead. I have faith in the 23rd psalm. It comforts me. I have faith in prayer. It calms me and allows me to remove fear and ego from the task at hand. I have faith in Christianity because, for me, it works.

I believe that there is more evidence that there is something that people call a deity than not. But I do not have a narrow definition of what that is. Joesph Campbell thought it was human racial memory, psychology and Myths. My wife believes it is the spark of divinity in all things. C.S. Lewis and billions of others call it God of Allah. Hawking calls it the laws of physics and mathematics. I think from each of their points of view they are all correct. The Hindu fable of the blind men and the elephant is very illuminating.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 10:26 PM

That should read: C.S. Lewis and billions of others call it God OR Allah.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: bobad
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:08 PM

Morals Without God? - A NY Times essay by Frans de Waal

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:13 AM

We have courts and police to make sure that a code of morality is kept, if they didn't there would be pandemonium and a breakdown in law and order. The recent video of CCTV footage of the lady who dumped the cat in the wheelie bin nothing states what her beliefs are, she could be a Christian for all we know but she felt that it was alright to do that deed. People who work with livestock in the food industry might work amongst bad animal welfare standards and conditions, would they be the first to stand up and blow the whistle on it? I wonder. Christians can be a hypocritical lot when it suits them.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:15 AM

How does a non-believer decide what is right or wrong. Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?

I think however we attribute it, most people just do have some inbuilt sense of right and wrong.

I'd class myself as failed but attempted Christian but while I do firmly believe there are powers beyond mankind and Christ is to me the most likely solution, I can still get stuck.

Can I answer whether if someone has a scan and a baby is shown to be deformed whether one should have it? My Christian answer might be yes but my moral one no.

Can I relate to at times a Christian maybe rejecting me at times as a drunkard and an atheist while maybe saying you should not drink like that offer understanding - and where would that fit in with "good Samaritans"

While I might like to believe the cross, etc. Can I really get on with a chosen few and that some even from a time point of view might not even have had the opportunity? I try to take the book but it does not always make sense.

Can I understand the war like Blair/Bush Christianity?

Does creation in the big trap to others who believe in evolution when we can find dinosaur bones really make sense to me?


I still wrestle and try to work it all out, my own views may change but I've, try as hard as I can and with varying thoughts, have never fully made a consistent "this is all right" position. I wish I could.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM

Well, people can believe that there is evidence for deity, but there isn't. I very carefully do *not* say that people can believe in deity, but there aren't any. There just isn't anything that is actually evidence (in the jargon sense of replicable data).

That is why so many people are giving up their faith, now that we have explanations for all the phenomena we didn't used to understand, and so used deityh as an agency-based explanation. Again, in the jargon sense of Agency, which means something being done BY something/someone whenever there is a happening. Not everything that happens is caused *by* someone/something who *intended* it to happen, on purpose.

And agency-based explanations for non-agency phenomena (it isn't an agency who "put" the rainbow in the sky, rainbows happen because of physics, no agency involved) is childish. That is how developing minds understand the world until they mature enough to realize that not everything is agency-caused.

I understand that as we evolved, we would have had to go through a stage of agency-based explanations for natural phenomena; all cultures who experience thunder had thunder gods; all cultures who have seasonal change have myths explaining how deity made it that way (Persehone, or whatever). None of those explanations held up to reality once we started understanding reality, and developed science and actual knowledge about physics, chemistry etc.

BUT, because of the invention of *religion* (separate from the concept of deity), the idea of deity remains as a valued explanation for why you need someone to intercede between you and your deity, or to explain what deity really wants from you; since people don't deal deirectly with their concept of deity if they are in a religion, the power lies with the interceders and the explainers, not the worshippers. The evolutionary advantage of religion accrues to the explainers and interceders more than, if not instead of, the worshippers.

So it's time for humanity in general to outgrow the need for deity to explain reality, which will take all that power away from the explainers/interceders and give it back to those regular people, no longer worshippers. Imagine all the savings to humanity of people had to really accomplish things instead of relying on being supported for explaining/interceding between the unknown but posited to be very powerful (be afraid! Be very afraid!) agency to credulous people!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

"That is why so many people are giving up their faith, now that we have explanations for all the phenomena we didn't used to understand, and so used deityh as an agency-based explanation".

Ummm...I wonder if that is supported by any measurable evidence. I suspect not. Taking a pass on being closely tied to organized religion, which likely is more of a western phenominum, differs to giving up one's faith...which I assume is aka, a belief in a God.

But, if the statement that, (very many)..."people are giving up their faith, was proven true, the reason for it may be varied and also cries out for evidence that it is correct. Could they just changing their faith habits" and associations with a God? Or, are we just hearing more of it, with the numbers not really changing much.

From my observation, and some of what Joe O posted, many RCs are changing their reliance on the center of the RC church. Some may have switched from one organized religion they have issues with to another. Or, some, like me, see no real need for a close or regular association with any church.

Something that was mentioned by another poster is many Buddhists and Hindus do not believe in one God, but, we see them as having faith..
"Hinduism, Buddhism can be hard to pin down as to its view of God. Some streams of Buddhism could legitimately be called atheistic, while others could be called pantheistic, and still others theistic, such as Pure Land Buddhism. Classical Buddhism, however, tends to be silent on the reality of an ultimate being and is therefore considered atheistic".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM

If you look at the religious surveys, more and more people are saying No to faith; and since almost nobody is raised without religion, those people are way more likely to have had faith and given it up than they are to have never had any in the first place, like my family (we now have 4th generation no-religious-upbringing atheists). Even my *kids* don't know anybody else being raised without religion.
So I would say the data are there.

besides, what I *meant* was (boy, and I am the one who claims rigor is required... thanmk you) that now that we do have explanations for natural phenomena fewer and fewer people rely on theistic explanations for those natural phenomena. Of *course* there are still people who pray for hurricanes to either strike the nasty or spare the nice, or who claim that since the tornado DID strike the nasty or spare the nice that proves deity caused it.

I doubt that anybody in the developped world thought that some sea god up and ate all those villages when the Asian tsunami hit. But to the people *there* - if we didn't know about earthquakes and plate tectonics - it sure would have LOOKED as if the sea had up and et everyone!

And right about Buddhism, which is a philosophy, not a religion. No deity, then religion is the wrong term. Kinda like the prettiness of the rainbow doesn't make deity the right term for its cause, or evidence for deity the right term for the prettiness.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:59 PM

"No deity, then religion is the wrong term"???? Oh, come now. That's completely facile and meretricious.

Let's stick to our semantic rootas, shall we?

•a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
•an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[4] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[5]) is derived from the Latin religiô, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare, an interpretation traced to Cicero connecting lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius.[6][7] The medieval usage alternates with order in designaing bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[8]

According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety" (which Cicero further derived to mean "diligence").[9][10] Max Müller characterized many other cultures around the world, including Egypt, Persia, and India, as having a similar power structure at this point in history. What is called ancient religion today, they would have only called "law".[11]

Many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law. Throughout classical South Asia, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power.[12][13]

There is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities.[14] One of its central concepts is "halakha", sometimes translated as "law"", which guides religious practice and belief and many aspects of daily life."

It seems clear that the core concept is "the belief that binds", which applies as neatly to Gautama as it does to El or Magog.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:54 PM

IMO faith, religion (aka organized religion) and a belief in a God are related, but not the same.

I note that these words (and this term) seem to be, on occasion, used as if they are one and the same?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM

Yes, the words are often used interchangeably, and it's usually possible to tell what the meaning is from the context. But you're right: for the purposes of a discussion like this, "theism" would be more accurate than "religion".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM

"No deity, then religion is the wrong term"???? Oh, come now. That's completely facile and meretricious. - Sorry, religion involves deity, if your way of life doesn't, than no matter how ritualistic it isn't a "religion" - it's a belief system. All the definitions quoted above agree with me on that. I know that Buddhism is often called a religion, but that doesn't make it so.

Kind of like believing in deity doesn't make it so?

Religion is the organization that stems from it being impossible for anyone to know what in the world deity, should any exist, *wants* - and so the whole tribe of shaman/priest/ess/etc evolved to intercede between deity and individuals. Some interpret signs, some intercede through ritual or prayer, some just plain make stuff up that keeps them in power. But they were necessary to a human society that had faith in deity. The need for a bridge between deistic faith and life (reality, if you will) required it (again, if there were actual *evidence* for what deity wanted, you wouldn't need faith).

Thus you can have faith without religion by dealing directly with your deity, but you can't have religion without faith. You *can* have lots of other social structures, but without deity, it isn't a religion, it's something else.

But even worse, go back to the hunter-gatherers living at bare subsistence level, having just evolved human intelligence; in these structures, meat is hunted, by men, for the community, and most hunts are unsuccessful. Plants are gathered, by women, for their families, and are much more abundant. The social structure depends on reciprocity and detection of deceit, just like any primate group, so being caught lying is "bad" and being fair is "good" (see, no need for deity to tell us this). Thus when there is a successful hunt, the village gets fed before the successful hunter. That means that when hunts are *unsuccessful* (as they often are), ***it is the best hunters who are owed the most food*** - so the best hunters survive the times of famine, which is great for the society.
But then along comes someone who says, hey, I know what your deity wants. Now, they are the ones getting fed, by people who are saying Please, I don't know what deity wants!
Who's going to survive the famine now?
Who's going to be poor - will it be the poorest/worst hunters, as it "should" be? No, it will be the ones who pay everything they have to the powerful interceder.

Then if they add things like The meek will inherit the earth, why on earth would you ever be unmeek and stand up for yourself?

OK, I've had coffee today, sorry, I don't usually. But you see where I am.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:39 PM

Ok,let's consider the Aztecs, safrifices and bloodletting mportant aspects of the Aztec religion, as they believed it brought balance and peace to the world around them. This was considered moral behaviour.

At the root of these Aztec rituals was the belief that the gods needed to be nourished by human blood. A part of the Aztec religion, therefore, was to participate in bloodletting, which is intentionally harming and drawing blood from the body. Those who were higher in status within the Aztec religion were expected to give the most blood during these Aztec rituals.

The Aztec gods and goddesses also required the living hearts of humans for nourishment. All hearts were good, but the bravest captives were considered to be particularly nourishing to the Aztec gods. As a result, widespread warring took place, not for territory, but for the captives back to the Aztec temples for sacrifice. Sometimes, those practicing the Aztec religion sacrificed just one person. At other times, hundreds or even thousands of captives were sacrificed at a time,


Warriors were highly regarded in the Aztec culture. They were responsible for going out and finding and capturing the majority of the sacrifices used to appease their gods. As a result, a special god was included in the Aztec religion to honor the warriors. This god, Camaxtli, was the god of war, hunting, fire, and fate. He was thought to have invented fire and to have made the Earth. The Aztecs believed that Camaxtli lead both warriors slain in battle and human sacrifices to the eastern sky. According to the Aztec religion, they then became "stars in the sky".


Source: http://www.aztec-indians.com/aztec-religion.html

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 06:52 PM

The use of the word religion to mean theism is a Johnny come lately, Mrrz, and its fundamental meaning requires no icons or theism.

" It is commonly regarded as consisting of a personÕs relation to God or to gods or spirits.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but it is more than private belief and has a public aspect. Most religions have organised behaviors, congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places and scriptures.
Academics studying the subject have defined religion into three broad categories: world religions, a term which refers to transcultural, international faiths, indigenous religions, which refers to smaller, culture-specific religious groups, and new religious movements, which refers to recently developed faiths.[3]"


1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

An excerpt on the various definitions from WordIQ:

Defining "religion"
Beyond the above, very broad definition of religion, there are a variety of uses and meanings for the word "religion." Some of the approaches are as follows:
One definition, sometimes called the "function-based approach," defines religion as any set of beliefs and practices that have the function of addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any). This broad definition encompasses all systems of belief, including those that deny the existence of any god, those that affirm the existence of one God, those that affirm the existence of many gods, and those that pass on the question for lack of proof.
A second definition, sometimes called the "form-based approach," defines religion as any set of beliefs which makes claims that lie beyond the realm of scientific observation, according to some authority or personal experience with the Divine. This narrower definition places "religion" in contradistinction with rationalism, secular humanism, atheism, and agnosticism, which do not appeal to authority or personal experience in coming to their beliefs, but instead appeal to their interpretation of science.
A third definition, sometimes called the "physical evidence approach," defines religion as the beliefs about cause and effect that Occam's Razor would remove as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence. By this definition then, non-religion is any set of beliefs that admits no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance.
A fourth definition, sometimes called the "organizational approach," defines religion as the formal institutions, creeds, organizations, practices, and rules of conduct, of all major, institutionalized religions. This definition places "religion" in contradistinction to "spirituality," and therefore does not include the claims "spirituality" makes to actual contact, service, or worship of the Divine. In this definition, however, religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive: a religious person may be spiritual or unspiritual, and a spiritual person may be religious or non-religious. By analogy, "religion" is the coal, wood, or gasoline, while "spirituality" is the fire.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM

Amos, again, all the definitions you w

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM

Oops - that was supposed to be a backspace to change the "w" to a "q" but something happened...

...all the definitions you quote agree with me, that religion involved deity.

The aztecs were much, much, much later than the time I was talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:05 AM

Perhaps we should turn the question around: Many Christians (including, apparently, Jack the Sailor) seem to believe that atheists, because they don't take the Christian mythology to heart, can't have any moral rudder. Doesn't that mean that these Christians can't be moral? Someone who claims to need a preacher and a book to tell them how to behave isn't really a moral person deep down inside are they?

On another topic, does anyone have a good difference between "morals" and "ethics"? My dictionary seems to define them almost interchangeably. I had thought "morals" refers to what society thinks is right and wrong, while "ethics" is more of a look at more permanent ideas about right and wrong. As in, the morals of the Victorian age were very different than ours, but ethical behavior is the same now as then. Should we be talking about ethics instead of morals?