BS: The 'moral' Atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM

Individual moral and ethical code may differ depending what one believes and the religious organization they are linked to....and where you live.

There are certainly differences throughout the world what societies and religions see as ethical and moral behaviour. In some societies, religion has a major impact. In other societies, religion has minimal impact. (Consider punshment like stoning, whiping or the removal of hands or fingers for crime and social laws that favour one sex over another).

There are also conflists with what a religion teaches as moral behavour and what a society code says is correct moral behaviour...though most societies make room for religious differences.

One current example might be some religions impose a belief that giving blood to a church member is forbidden...even if it is a child who faces death without the blood. Generally speaking,(IMO), most members of Christian society, would currently see this as wrong.

Different religious and social views on abortion and having more than one spouse are other examples.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM

Interesting that so many people are quoting definitions of words and terms in a strict narrow sense, usually from dictionaries, assuming definitions of words furthers their point. I reckon we sometimes use words as approximations of what we mean, so defining words isn't actually helpful. The word "atheism" means something different to me as to someone else. This is clear by how everybody is getting hung up over it.

We adopted an ex racing greyhound last weekend. he is 4 years old and up till Sunday had never been in a house, let alone been domesticated. Over a very short period of four days, he has learned not to soil the floor, not to beg when we are eating and to ignore food preparing in the kitchen, (at least at this stage, whilst we are around.) You could say he is learning a new moral code. off the lead in the garden, he stops when I call him and looks nervous but has not connected it with coming back just yet. but he knows by my voice he has done something wrong by not coming back.

In short, he is adopting a moral code.

and we didn't have to give him a copy of Watchtower to read, we haven't put a bible in his beanbag and there is no copy of the Q'ran alongside his lead.

Seems he can get a moral code without religion.

So can I.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM

Bingo!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

"Seems he can get a moral code without religion".

Are you suggesting that animals ( using the training you mentioned with your greyhound) would have a moral code of their own without human intervention?

Interesting theory. I suggest you should put more evidence forward for consideration by the two or three folks now posting here.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM

"by the two or three folks now posting here"

Oops, mixed this one up with the other similar titled post...with a couple of folks batting parallel concepts back and forth over the past day or so.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

John:

I've already articulated the distinction I use between the two.

Agreements that form in a group of people concerning right action are codes of "morality" even though they may be completely irrational; examples are various tabus, or eating rituals like avoiding meat on Fridays or shunning left-handed underpants.

Ethics is the contemplation of optimum survival for self and others.

It is an individual thing, born from an inherent sense of human effort. I think of it as aligned with what some folks call enlightened self-interest.

It requires no deities or hobgoblins. It is the individual's personal sense of duty and right action.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 12:08 PM

>>>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.<<<

Perhaps you should make a slight effort to understand the question before turning it?

To phrase it in the terms you used my question was "What rudder do atheists use?" I never said or even implied that they don't have a rudder.

It was a simple clear question, repeated at least twice, which has been answered several times on this thread.

The ill will and disrespect for Atheists you describe is purely a product of you imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM

I'd rather have a rudder than a crutch any day.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

amour French: a love affair, esp a secret or illicit one.

"The amoural atheist"

Sounds like a good boock to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM

"boock"

I was mix'in the thread up with LH's "let's talk like a scotsman" thread:)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 04:53 PM

Technically, since atheists don't believe in G-d, a god or gods, for us, it ALL comes from people. It's the religious teachings, laws of man, what our parents and various others teach us. I find it a bit frightening to think that the only reason a person may follow any moral code is because of their religion, but I don't really think that's possible.

As for Ed T's comment "Are you suggesting that animals ( using the training you mentioned with your greyhound) would have a moral code of their own without human intervention?" of course they do! Any animal that lives with others has to live by rules. With people, a dog learns not to pee in the house or steal food from the table. Without people around, I doubt a dog would get away with stealing food from an alpha dog, or staring at him or growling at him. Learning and following rules are parts of a society, whether it's a society of people, dogs, or ants.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:17 PM

Motive = motivation = emotion = motion so there has to be good and evil in the animal kingdom: eat survive reproduce = good, starvation predation = evil. Pleasure mediates good, pain mediates evil.

Only with deity can the unethical become moral. How else can it be justified?

By this you can see I tend to think of ethics as transcending society and morals as being woven of its fabric. Metaphorically.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM

>>By this you can see I tend to think of ethics as transcending society and morals as being woven of its fabric. Metaphorically.<<

The dictionaries I looked in don't show that difference between ethical and moral. You are of course free to make up your own definitions, but that impedes lucid conversation.

In fact statements like that, with definitions and distinctions, unexplained, seeming to me to be out of thin air is what prompted me to start this thread.

Jeri,

I see your point but. My morality is more to me than learning to fear being nipped by a bigger dog. It is more than even fear of punishment by God. I don't think following rules out of fear is very moral or ethical at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM

Yeah, you're right, I shouldn't even have tried that. But definitely you need religion to get good people to do bad things.

And fear is the prinmary teacher of what is evil in the animal kingdom. Were the prey not to avoid the predators, they would not live to reproduce, and if they avoid the predators out of fear, it works; what else would you have teach them to avoid being eaten?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM

Sorry about that, nipped out for a life. Back now.

Yes, I am saying a greyhound would have a moral code without human intervention. Pack animals, primates, insects... all sacrifice themselves to the common good of the community one way or another. if that aint a moral code then show me something that is.

Of course, some would say that our moral code is what separates us from other animals. They also try to distinguish between instinct and moral code. Two ways to describe the same thing. We are descended from all sorts of creatures of the past. When we were a form of star fish, did we have a moral code that was distinguishable from today's starfish?

Doubt it.

Moral code? Just a way our genes control us in order to reproduce most effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:38 AM

The fact that survival is a critical central vector in decisions of rightness and wrongness does not justify the assertion that different things are the same: "Motive = motivation = emotion = motion ".

Emotion and motion are different, if related, and neither is "the same as" motivation. Unless you're redefining "=" as well. But that would really be running amok, semantically!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:56 AM

"My morality is more to me than learning to fear being nipped by a bigger dog. It is more than even fear of punishment by God. I don't think following rules out of fear is very moral or ethical at all."

I think doing what's right is moral and ethical, no matter why you do it, but I agree that fear of repercussion or expectation of reward aren't the best motivating factors in deciding right/wrong either. For me, the best way is putting myself in another person's position, it's the golden rule, it's walking a mile in their shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM

"Yes, I am saying a greyhound would have a moral code without human intervention. Pack animals, primates, insects... all sacrifice themselves to the common good of the community one way or another. if that aint a moral code then show me something that is".


Well, I suspect some people in history, that we seem to now define as fairly bad folks, did some of that that also...using this measure, I guess they merely had a moral code to follow... that they believed benefited their "community" of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

Ed T, I suspect you were trying to be sarcastic, but I believe you nailed it. There is no universally accepted moral code. One person may think it's acceptable to steal from a person who's stolen from them. Another person may think that that's wrong, but they could understand stealing to feed one's family. Someone else may think it's wrong to steal, no matter what. A moral code isn't necessarily one we'd all think it a good one.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

Fear and anger are both immoral states of mind. At least, they lead to unethical decisions, especially when they are not due to present causes, but are generated by restimulative rhetoric. It is an interesting exercise to look back at the moments when you have been genuinely afraid or genuinely anger at an immediate situation, versus the far more numerous times when youhave felt fear or anger because of some assumed similarity with the past, when no immediate danger was present.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM

???Fear and anger are immoral? What planet did you evolve your emotions on?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

Today anyway, I think fear and anger are human conditions, eg if I remember my bible right, wasn't Peter both too scared to admit knowing Christ three times before the cock crowed and didn't he chop a Roman's ear off with the betrayal.

Fallible, yes wrong maybe too but I suspect the fear and anger is most dangerous when one might start to believe that the whoever are the cause of all your and all life's woes.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM

It goes back to my original question, of how you define "moral". If morality is what is best for society, how do you define your society?

I am sure that the Vikings and Ghingis Khan were doing what they thought was best for their own societies. I am sure those that were pillaged would disagree. I am also pretty confident that religion did not motivate the pillage, though I am sure that the whatever priests they had jumped on the gravy train to get their share. Just as the Church of Rome did when Conquistadors came to the new world. They didn't steal the gold because of the church. They stole the gold because they wanted the gold. Had they been atheistic, argument like, We will make better use of the gold so we deserve it." would have been put forth.

Animals do not follow the golden rule. Animals do not have to choose between small social units and larger ones. Animals do not think about higher ideals.

To say that morality is just about passing on genes is to ignore all human accomplishment besides breeding.

>>Moral code? Just a way our genes control us in order to reproduce most effectively.<<

If this were the case would not the most moral behavior be to knock up as many girls as we can when we are young then to have a harem when we are older.?

I think the answers to why those things are not moral points to the difference between human morality and animal behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM

I suppose to me on that "moral" might be our best beliefs which, yes could be wrong... Christianity could mean my failed but best attempt at trying to understand a book that largely but not always make sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

Problem is, my nautical friend... You use the term "animal" presumably to mean everything other than a human.

Many humans show less of what most people would call a moral code than some animals, and vice versa.

Animals don't follow the golden rule? What golden rule? There isn't one! We have evolved slightly differently, but our evolution into what we call intelligence is better / worse / so so as a dog's evolution into having a long tail to help balance. Our back problems, (especially mine) is fundamentally down to not being evolved far enough that our bodies are best suited standing on two legs. Our spine would prefer being back on all four. (Appendix and other leftovers of evolution can get us into as much a debate as pondering whether the God dude had a belly button...)

Oh, and whilst I was trying so hard to have a constructive debate, you blow it by coming out with the old "if that were the case, we would all be rapists." Change the record, that is the waffle God botherers are programmed to say when door stepping normal people.

A load of bollocks unfortunately. My dog doesn't screw everything in sight.

Just the settee, rug, my leg, his cuddly toy...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

My dog did try to screw everything that came into heat. I guess he was better at passing his genes on than yours.

I didn't say, "if that were the case, we would all be rapists." But by following your logic, it is much more likely for a rapist to pass on his genes than for a celibate priest or Buddhist Monk are you saying the rapists are more moral. Of course not. But that example points out to me that you have not thought your argument through. Would you like to give it a little thought and get back to me?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM

"Men make for themselves pictures of ideal forms of life. Such pictures are various and may be in sharp opposition to each other; and one and the same individual may be captivated by different and sharply conflicting pictures at different times. At one time it may seem to him that he should live—even that a man should live —in such-and-such a way; at another that the only truly satisfactory form of life is something totally different, incompatible with the first. In this way, his outlook may vary radically, not only at different periods of his life, but from day to day, even from one hour to the next. It is a function of so many variables: age, experiences, present environment, current reading, current physical state are some of them. As for the ways of life that may thus present themselves at different times as each uniquely satisfactory, there can be no doubt about their variety and opposition. The ideas of self-obliterating devotion to duty or to the service of others; of personal honour and magnanimity; of asceticism, contemplation, retreat; of action, dominance and power; of the cultivation of "an exquisite sense of the luxurious"; of simple human solidarity and co-operative endeavour; of a refined complexity of social existence; of a constantly maintained and renewed affinity with natural things—any of these ideas, and a great many others too, may form the core and substance of a personal ideal".

Social Morality and Individual Ideal
P. F. Strawsona1
University College, Oxford

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM

If you like, ethical can be behavior and moral can be belief. Thus, it is immoral to want to own slaves, and unethical to own them, for the next paragraph at least, OK? So you can believe in slavery being a good thing yet not own slaves yourself, and you could own slaves and believe it was wrong too, were slavery to be common in current "enlightened" society. You can be both moral and ethical, neither, or one at a time.
All of us would agree that slavery is not to be permitted? Even though most ancient texts explain how to acquire and treat slaves and consider slavery completely normal? Including the Torah/Talmud (never could keep those two apart, they're worse than twins)/Bible/Koran?
Now, why do we agree on that? Because we have intelligence and have learned from the mistakes of the past. That is why I used the term "enlightened" earlier - we have seen the light, and it comes from figuring stuff out rather than from authority telling you how things work. Like slavery being normal.
Humans and other apes, as other primates, as any social mammal, have the same morality basis, with reciprocity (fairness) being good and deceit being punished if detected (thus, bad).

Play fair and don't tell lies (or, if you're going to lie, lie very well).

What more do you need?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM

Mrrz:

You force me to reword my statement. Anger and fear are perfectly natural emotions; but when they are born out of restimulation rather than genuine immediate sources of danger or anger, they induce irrationality which is by its nature counter to optimum decision making. You don't hear the truth from an angry man, and usually not from a frightened one, either. By their very nature, fear and anger throw the viewpoint out of perspective and rivet the attention on an immediate threat.

Because of this rhetorical manipulators who want you to act irrationally often try to inspire fear and anger by restimulating you.

I am not saying these things are not human, I am saying they are not rational.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:47 AM

Amos Lightfoot" You don't hear the truth from an angry man, and usually not from a frightened one, either."

We did from Juan Williams.....and look what happened to him!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM

Jaun Williams is where he belongs, and exclusively. The only difference is that now he is no longer able to misrepresent NPR. And you have yet one more way to demonstrate your ongoing vacation from sanity. Everyone is better off.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:26 AM

Jack the sailor wants me to think my argument through and get back to him.

He started this thread by asking how a non believer can decide what is right or wrong.

Methinks the thinking things through idea should be, (and here comes the irony) based on practice what you preach... Think through your original question my friend. it is a non question as it questions whether you have to have an imaginary friend to have a moral compass. As the answer is, and has always been known to be, no; why bother asking it other than to invite indignation?

Good bit of logic chopping there. Yes, it is easier for a rapist to pass on his genes than for a celibate monk. What the hell that has to do with morality though, I don't know. Are you saying the offspring of rapists have a higher tendency to rape?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM

Willie,

Again you have written without thinking.

That was not the question or the implication at all.
Below is an answer to that same criticism just a few posts down from this one.

You are presenting yourself as and educated and informed man, but if you are simply reading the first post and making accusations based on that, you don't bring anything of value to the discussion.

>>>>>
>>>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.<<<

Perhaps you should make a slight effort to understand the question before turning it?

To phrase it in the terms you used my question was "What rudder do atheists use?" I never said or even implied that they don't have a rudder.

It was a simple clear question, repeated at least twice, which has been answered several times on this thread.

The ill will and disrespect for Atheists you describe is purely a product of you imagination. <<<<

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM

I was thinking, honest!

I haven't set out to bring value to any discussion. I would have to listen to the main thrust, weigh up the viewpoints, research the areas I am unsure of and test my replies out by pm'ing a few drafts to a select few people.

No, this type of soundbite debate allows a different sort of contribution, that is giving food for thought. No real reason to think things through, as that would take time and such an approach would reduce the pool of those who could contribute.

No Jack, my apparent vitriol is based on your assertion that there are many paths from atheism to atrocity. Other than starting with the letter "a" I am not sure how you make that connection. Atheism is the lack of belief. Every despot in history has achieved his aims by taking others along with them. To say "TO MAKE ME RICH AND POWERFUL!" is not a very good rally cry, hence you have to get your followers to believe it is the right thing to do.

Or, a belief system, as Dawkins rightly put it.

Therefore, atheism to atrocity is a contradiction in terms. Also, I still contend that to ask if an atheist can know right from wrong may be an objective question, but by then spelling out your belief system, it does tend to give people a small clue as to where you are coming from here? That is what I find disturbing. We are led to believe you feel a religious belief shows you right from wrong. Whatever floats your boat, but to put it in words can be rather insulting to those who have no need for such props.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM

To phrase it in the terms you used my question was "What rudder do atheists use?" I never said or even implied that they don't have a rudder.

Jack, I believe that was your intent. Other things you have written certainly support the idea. However, you should be aware that many things you have said have also strongly given the idea that you question whether or not it is possible for an atheist to have a moral compass. Here's why:

In the opening post, you said: Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil? That means that you think the subject is in doubt. Also, the quotations around the word "moral" in the title make it sound like you don't think atheists can be moral. Normally, quotations are only used in a sentence like that to add ironic emphasis -- in other words, to cast the bracketed word to its opposite meaning.

You then, through the whole first half of the conversation, asked the same question two or three more times, while ignoring all the answers you received. That made it sound like you were just repeating the same vaguely insulting comment over and over.

Then you came up with the whole idea of there being a logical path from atheism to atrocity. That REALLY makes it sound like you believe that atheists are by nature bad.

As I said, I don't think you really think like that. If you don't want to be accused of thinking like that, however, you should be more careful about how you word things, and you should respond when people ask you point blank if that's what you really think.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

Nietzsche: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"
    —Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

"Nietzsche is dead"
    -God

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:07 PM

Well, except that we have very good evidence that Nietzsche was actually lived at some point and actually said things . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

Oops, "actually alive at some point"

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:33 PM

John,

Since you seem to be politely asking for clarification, I am happy to provide it.

I think the path from Religion to Atrocity is obvious and plain from history. I thought that was implied in my approach, but to clarify, I now positively state that religion sometimes allows atrocity.

I just don't agree with Dawkin's claim that that there is NO path, NO PATH, NO PATH AT ALL, from Atheism to atrocity.

I saw Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher a couple of weeks ago, where the two of them made the point that Maoism, Stalinism and NAZIism were all religions and thus should NOT negate his argument. To that I thought "COME ON???? WHAT DO YOU TAKE ME FOR?"

"Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?"

When I was an Atheist, I didn't think in terms of Good and Evil, I thought then and still do that those are not rational, evidence based concepts. If we are morally the same as animals as many have argued here, then Good and Evil are not relevant. It is not evil for an orca to kill a seal. It is not even evil for it to toss that seal into the air and play with it like a kitten plays with a ball of yarn.

Like wise if we are just another animal, there is no good and evil, there are only things that are more or less optimal for passing on our genes.

I put the word "moral" in quotes because, again, I was allowing for the possibility that self described Atheists, might have difficulty applying the word "moral" to themselves because the definition I had posted had included "concern with the distinction between good and evil"

If I have not communicated that to your satisfaction I am sorry that I have failed you. But I only intended to ask a fairly simple question, not to write a long involved, boring essay on my feelings which most would not have read anyway.

I've been discussing things on this forum for nearly 10 years, I have a basic idea of how things work and what to ask to get the answer I want. I know that most people like Willie did here, insert their comments without reading and the more one explains the question, the less likely it is to get a considered answer.

So John,

Are YOU and Atheist? Do YOU believe in Good and Evil? If not how do YOU define "Moral?" How do YOU decide what is "moral?" Do you have commandments or at least guidelines that you follow or is it all seat of the pants?

BTW I would be interested in reading any considered answer to these questions by anyone who wants to give them.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

Willie, Foolestroupe,

Generally I like what you both have to say on the Mudcat, I think that you are both thoughtful and entertaining and would not want to see either of you significantly alter your approach. My criticisms of you here are only within the bounds of the discussions at the time.

I will allow that my communication on this thread has been lacking in that it has not brought what I consider to be the best in either of you.

I am sorry for that. Please allow that I had other fish to fry.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM

One of the things I have been examining as I have tried to steer this conversation. Is how morality, in our society is intertwined with religion. I was hoping to hear of Atheist moral philosophy not connected to religion and I have. But I get the feeling that many of the self described "Atheists" have not thought it through to that level. It seem many have rejected the Church but retain its morality. I wonder if they are aware of that. Alas, I cannot think of polite follow-up questions.

Many have implied that morality is instinctual. I find that unlikely because we know so little when we are born that I believe that such behavior is learned. Alas, I haven't thought of a polite way to follow up with these people to see what they know that I don't about this assertion.

Since, as I said before, I think I have got as good answers as I am going to get. If the discussion is not advancing and evolving. I would not be unhappy to see it end. If it continues to be people reading the first post or maybe just the title and only reacting to that, it ceases to be of interest to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 02:08 PM

Maybe "moral" is more cultural then but then so can religion be.

Where do we stand on say Christianity (the only one who's texts I have read) leads to a consistent view, I don't know. My own reading would make Christ sort of socialist but I believe there are for example red hot republican Christians.

Like you Jack, I could pass comment "when I was an atheist" , Not all makes sense to me though. I've thought "a thousand times" I understand it but still both in deed and understanding do not seem to be there.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM

It seem many have rejected the Church but retain its morality. I wonder if they are aware of that.

The Church didn't invent morality, surely? I've never, as you put it, rejected the Church, I just never subscribed to its beliefs. I've always considered morality to be based on common sense, and a consequence of our survival instinct.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:29 PM

I didn't refer to you directly did I Smokey?

I am interested in which common sense principles you use and which you have rejected and why. How are they different from the religious commandments we see all around us? Please tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:33 PM

>>Like you Jack, I could pass comment "when I was an atheist" , Not all makes sense to me though. I've thought "a thousand times" I understand it but still both in deed and understanding do not seem to be there. <<

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. I am trying to speak as honestly and objectively as I can. If it does not seem that way to you, I am sorry, but I have sincerely tried.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:47 PM

It wasn't meant as attack, Jack. Just trying to say that I have been both believer in some power above us and non believer but never personally worked out close to all the answers. Thought - obviously wrongly I was trying to relate to a comment I thought you had made.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM

I didn't refer to you directly did I Smokey?

Uh.. no, Jack.. nor to anyone else. I apologise for answering you directly if that isn't what you wanted - I mean no offence.

I am interested in which common sense principles you use and which you have rejected and why. How are they different from the religious commandments we see all around us? Please tell me.

If you mean 'the commandments', I suppose the ones I don't agree with are the first ones, concerning belief/worship. Why they should be ranked on a par with (or above?) not murdering people or stealing from them is a mystery to me, but that's beside the point. I'm inclined to think Kant had the right idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM

Are YOU and Atheist?
Yes. There is no evidence for the existence of god(s).

Do YOU believe in Good and Evil?
Yes. In general, people who try to own or hurt other people are evil. Also people who kill animals wantonly. I'm sure there's more, but that will do to go on with. People who are filled with love, light, helpfulness, and justice are usually good.

If not how do YOU define "Moral?"
Moral is right or wrong as defined by a society. Ethical is right or wrong in a more global way. Some of the rules or morality are also ethical, some are ethically neutral.

How do YOU decide what is "moral?"
I decide what is moral by the rules that my society places on our behavior. I decide which of those rules to follow based on whether or not they are ethical or whether or not they apply to me. I decide what is ethical by thinking about it and deciding. It's usually pretty easy. Do no harm. The Golden Rule. Act in ways that the world be better if everyone acted in that way.

Do you have commandments or at least guidelines that you follow or is it all seat of the pants?
Do no harm. The Golden Rule. Act in ways that the world be better if everyone acted in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM

Just think of all the bandwidth that could be saved if folks would agree on definitions of the terms they use.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:09 PM

"Every path has its puddle." Proverb