|
14 Oct 10 - 06:38 PM (#3007165) Subject: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Morality... # concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct # ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong In a couple of threads I have seen the word "moral" tossed around but even in context I have no firm idea what the speaker means. How does a non-believer decide what is right or wrong. Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM (#3007179) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Little Hawk I think the short answer to that is "yes". I think it is definitely possible for either atheists, agnostics, or people of any religion to have....or not have...a strong moral sense and a clear understanding of right and wrong. I say this because I've seen moral and immoral people in all those general categories. The main question is: can they empathize with and love and respect others? Do they have enough self-esteem to honor themselves and others? If so, they probably have a pretty good sense of morality. Most morally strong people decide what is right or wrong one of two ways: 1. by following a predetermined set of moral rules (the passive way. Doesn't involve much independent thought) 2. by following the Golden Rule, which is.... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...and also...don't inflict upon others what you would not want inflicted upon you." This means allowing others the same freedom and autonomy and consideration and kindness that you yourself desire. (the active way. Involves much independent thought.) It's pretty simple really. The active way is definitely a more enlightened path, in my opinion. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM (#3007183) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Little Hawk Another thing I'd say is...you won't know someone by his or her stated beliefs. You will know them by their actions. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:07 PM (#3007202) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Absolutely and positively. In fact, operating independent of rigid moral codes he can have a clearer and truer version of good, right action, and desireable consequences than he sometimes can trying to fit his inherent ethical sense into a code that may or may not be flexible as regards present circumstances. The notion that morality must be imposed from without is not only counter-productive, it can be harmful. That does not mean that beings cannot get into wayward ways, but the just correction is that which restores his clear sense of ethical choice, not one which gets him to be obedient. A |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:08 PM (#3007205) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Can non believers in God do good or bad? If so, they must be infallible; Since they are not infallible, as they can make mistakes as other humans, good and bad must exist for Atheists, as with all other humans, including God believers. If good and bad exists, then it should be possible to define them, though the definition may not be uniform, nor without mistake. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:11 PM (#3007207) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe "The notion that morality must be imposed from without is not only counter-productive, it can be harmful." Morality is relative, depending on the Society. Some societies have had no problem ripping beating hearts out to pacify their magic sky fairies, some have had no moral problem having slaves, some have had no moral problem considering some races of people were no better than animals, and could be murdered with no moral problem... etc. In some cases, these societies were allegedly self claimed to be "Christian" ... |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM (#3007218) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Little Hawk Yes, certain moral issues are relative, depending on the society. That is, they are relative in the minds of the people at the time, that's for sure. We presently seem to have no problem, for instance, sending off our young people to invade other nations and fight wars on other people's land. Excuses are made to justify it. Opposing it is deemed traitorous by some. I can well imagine, however, a society which would not regard any such action as moral, and I would be pretty much in accord with such a viewpoint....in most cases. I might make an occasional exception. Very occasional. Our business people also seem to have little problem with the idea of destroying vast numbers of living things in pursuit of their short term profits. Again, this might be more stringently questioned in a society with a more sophisticated view of humanity's moral responsibilities toward other forms of life. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM (#3007232) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jim Dixon I'd like to turn the question around and ask any believer: If you have no capacity to make moral judgments on your own, how do you know God is good? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM (#3007233) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu "Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". Bertrand Russell |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM (#3007246) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Wesley S I'm not sure that we can put morality and beliefs in the same basket. We can bring up examples for days and find immoral and moral believers, moral athiests and immoral athiests in equal numbers. And what will that prove. That we can count? It will add up to a mental exersize - nothing more. Of course - some of you might disagree..... |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM (#3007253) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "Even more interesting, can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?" You don't annoy me, Jack, and I'm sure you mean to be no more thsn provocative, but this question (were I to be neurotic) seems to imply that non-atheism, which really means God-believerism I suppose, has some kind of default grasp of good and evil. The pat riposte to this, of course, is that goodness, however you define it, does not necessarily emanate from religion. I'd go further and claim that goodness has nothing at all to do with religion. Just like Christmas, goodness has been usurped by religion and claimed as its own. Recently, I attended a funeral at which the vicar pronounced that the deceased had acquired his goodness from his religious upbringing. As it happens, I'd known the deceased person very well and I know that his goodness had derived from no such thing. It was very annoying, but what can you do at funerals! To be slightly more combative (why not... ;-) ), I'd contest that anyone who claims that their "goodness," or "moral code," derives from their religion is actually admitting to a miserable lack of spine (I'd suggest that they kicked away their crutches), and I'd point to myriad atheists who are profoundly steeped in goodness, as much as any Christian/whatever has ever been. We atheists could try harder I suppose, but we are cheerfully disorganised, and long may that be so... |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM (#3007261) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: McGrath of Harlow Yeats put that last better: The best lack all conviction, while the worst. Are full of passionate intensity. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM (#3007263) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T This is Wiki, but, consider Kant: categorical imperative |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:01 PM (#3007272) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: kendall I'm a Deist. I don't believe the creator cares one way or the other what I do or don't do. I decide what to do or not do by the Golden Rule. It's like the basic reason for manners, treat others in a way that makes them want you around. If you can't figure out what is right or wrong maybe therapy would help. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM (#3007276) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bill D and more from Kant...Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals These issues are discussed in many ways in Philosophy, but a common thread seems to be that it can be shown to be ultimately 'impractical' to allow 'anything'. Fair, decent behavior is, simply, a reasonable way to operate. Mammy Yokum, Li'l Abner's mom, used to say "Good is better'n evil, 'cause it's nicer!" |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:15 PM (#3007294) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "Yeats put that last better: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." Thanks for that! That is very good. I'm sure there's a forum somewhere where that can be my signature! |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM (#3007301) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bee-dubya-ell There are entire philosophical systems (i.e. Buddhism, Taoism) which do not espouse the existence of an external supreme being. As such, they are not "religions" (per the Western definition of religion as systemized belief in a supreme being) and their followers are, therefor, "atheists". Yet those followers are among the most moral people on the face of the earth. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:23 PM (#3007307) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Basically is human morality not based on communal survival? We need other people to survive and thrive, and a suuessful community is in our best interests. For stability and to survive, a community needs an accepted framework of what is right and wrong for the survival and success of that community. This is normally determined and changes by necessicity and discussion. We conform because we see it as in our best interests. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:32 PM (#3007317) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T A framework and common understanding of what is right and wrong allows individuals to live in harmony with one another. Since humans are social and rely on each other in a material sense, it is in our best interests to help one another and conform with agreed to norms. Non comformity with important and commomly agreed to rules of behaviour is normally not reinforced (especially in the short term). It should not matter if the community is made up of believers in a God, non believers, or a mixture. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:35 PM (#3007322) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger Of course an atheist has a sense of right or wrong. Morality came historically before religion, particularly Christianity. Societies had to have a sense of morality to be able to exist. Rules were made up based on moral precepts such as helping each other, protecting the tribe, raising children etc. Religion became a corporation headed by religious CEO's who decided it was up to them to determine morality so to prove the point, they conducted holy wars and burnt people at the stake. They decided to punish people who didn't believe as they wanted them to. Constantine decided that it was prudent to join Christians instead of feeding them to lions. He stepped in front of their parade and impacted upon and changed them often through condign practices. Some of the most hideous immoral acts have been perpetrated throughout history by some religious leaders. Religion has never had a corner on the market of morality. People aren't perfect but there is a built-in sense of morality in a human society. The Manichean idea of good and evil may become outmoded as we discover dysfunctional behavior as detrimental to the working of a successful society. Today we are faced with notions of morality dictated by antiquated religious ideologies that serve no useful purpose in modern society. The CEO's of religion control the institutions, deluding their followers and becoming glaringly inconsistent in their practices and pronouncements. A new enlightened society may find it has no need for these outmoded ideas. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:37 PM (#3007325) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw As ever, the problem is what you mean by moral. Both Blair and Dubya thought they were being moral and both invoked God. A million and a quarter innocent Iraqi civilians and a good number of widows and orphans might have demurred, had they had the chance. The pope thinks he's moral in condemning thousands of poor African women to die from AIDS. Pius X11 thought he was being moral in sending a thousand Vatican Jews into the hands of the Nazis and expediting the escape of Nazi war criminals to south America in 1945. The Israelis think they're being moral in imprisoning a million and a half Gazans in deprivation and poverty. Moral isn't a very good word any more. Better to just argue about what's right and what's wrong. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:43 PM (#3007330) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T There is good and bad that doesn't require a belief in a God (but these could have been captured in religious thought and practice). They are not from subjective judgement. Good is what's of benefit to the individual and the community. Bad is what's detrimental to the individual and the community. So, actions that jeopardise the cohesion of a community commonly seen as bad. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM (#3007338) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T I suspect some things that happened in history, that we likely now see as bad, using the lens of today, may have been judged as good at the time, because they were believed to be beneficial for the survival of that society, at that time. For example, sacrificing the lives of many people, because the understanding of the time was that the spilling of blood was needed to avert distruction by the Sun (possibly thought to be a God). |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:52 PM (#3007344) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor The question I asked was "How does a non-believer decide what is right or wrong?" No one seems to have addressed that question at all. How do you personally decide what is right or wrong How do you decide what is good or evil? Can there be good and evil? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:58 PM (#3007349) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Unfortunately "Good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", can be associated with preconceptions and subjectivity. If an action is of benefit to one community or group, but be detrimental to another group is it good or bad? Is it good if it is more beneficial to a larger group of people than a smaller? Or,is something good if it only benefits me? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:05 PM (#3007356) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T From and evolutionary perspective, I suspect something is good if it helps you and your community (society) to surrvive and thrive. From that are agreed to definitions of right and wrong within that community. Something which is bad, is something which is detrimental, or possibly non beneficial to thet community, or society. The definition of your ccommunity or society could be small or large. In today's world, I suspect the society would be large, possibly Global. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM (#3007360) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Good" and "Bad" are subjective terms. But, since we need other people and that is a logical reason to care for others. IMO.it's why the creed of most ways of thought (not just religious) boils down to "the Golden Rule". |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:13 PM (#3007364) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bill D 'good' according to Utilitarianism |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:25 PM (#3007375) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Pudding is wrong". We have nothing to tell us if it is true or false, unless we know what is meant, and have an common understanding of, the word "wrong". |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:29 PM (#3007378) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T What is right,wrong, good and evil? Pudding is wrong! :) |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:31 PM (#3007380) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Just keep your pudding to yourself mate! :) |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:49 PM (#3007395) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T And, baked goods are actually baked bads |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM (#3007399) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Well looks like this topic ran out of steam real quick as usual - it's a real laugh for atheists when they see this hoary old set-up coming... |
|
14 Oct 10 - 11:24 PM (#3007442) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. "How do you personally decide what is right or wrong How do you decide what is good or evil? To quote my 5 year old son: "With my brain". |
|
14 Oct 10 - 11:56 PM (#3007463) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Or without it. Individual judgement of rightness and wrongness and the contemplation of optimum futures are innate spiritual attributes, IMHO. I am sure the materialists will shudder. But we've had this discussion before. A |
|
15 Oct 10 - 12:00 AM (#3007466) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe "innate spiritual attributes, IMHO." Except of course the a-spiritualists disagree ... :-) |
|
15 Oct 10 - 12:48 AM (#3007487) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Hmmmmmm. I asked this question out of genuine interest not to bait any one. I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong. If you think its a trap it isn't much of a trap. You have as much right to your beliefs as I do I am sure. But if you say something like magic eight ball or I learned everything I need to know I got from Star Trek, or John Wayne, I promise I'll keep my amusement to myself. When I was an atheist I took Jesus to be a very wise philosopher and considered his words to be moral guidelines. I can't imagine any of you doing that so I am curious about how you do decide. I know Bill well enough to know that he is a moral person, more so than many Christians that I know. The others I don't know as well but I think you are good men. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:18 AM (#3007503) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>Moral isn't a very good word any more. Better to just argue about what's right and what's wrong. OK Steve, how do you decide what is right and wrong? |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:45 AM (#3007510) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe "If you think its a trap it isn't much of a trap" It's only a trap that the theists set themselves, digging their own hole! For if they have no capacity to make moral judgments on their own, but have to trust some magic invisible sky fairy and do only what they are told, how do they know that their magic invisible sky fairy is 'good'? Believers of different magic invisible sky fairies know that only their 'Fuhrer' is 'good' and that all the others are 'evil'. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM (#3007551) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer I think that the best morality is pragmatic and communal, based on works best for the common good of a community and the individuals within it. The Golden Rule, of course, fits these criteria quite well. When morality is authoritarian and based on obedience to authority, something is lacking. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the most honest and effective morality is non-theistic and non-authoritarian - and rational. I guess we could call it Jiminy Cricket morality: Always let your conscience be your guide. -Joe- |
|
15 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM (#3007608) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T IMO, the definition of right and wrong for individuals within a society changes. Change is normally slow, but can be rapid. If parts of the institution do not change with the society, it faces a danger of being marginalized. This may be the case for some religions, as its central influence on member's daily lives is lessoned. As a tiny society, consider an example from the TV program Survivor (I know, this is entertainment). At the first of the program, the goal is for group survival. Very quickly each group defines for wrong and right behavior, to strengthen the survival of the group. This enhances the chances of survival of each member. Those who do wrong, are often are isolated and face elimination. When the group's merge, and the goal is changed to individual survival, not group, the definition of right and wrong quickly changes. What was earlier considered wrong, may actually be admired by other members.... often revealed by later discussion in the program. This is a TV program, but does show interesting examples of the group defining what is right or wrong, based on survival. When members of a society attempt to rapidly change the definition of what is right or wrong, it could impact harmony. This may impact the perception of survival and could be shunned or opposed. Often it is not just what the change could mean for the group, but what the perception is on what it could mean. For many years, rules (harmony) within many western societies were based on religion (admit it or not, all members are influenced by that). When a subgroup (for example, atheists) aggressively challenge those rules, it impacts harmony, and established balance (survival of members, so this stimulates concern and opposition. If the boundaries and impact of changes were uncertain, one would expect the concern to be greater. Over time, if the changes were not seen as a danger to harmony, (does not impact sub groups survival) the concern would likely subside. Again,IMO. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:44 AM (#3007706) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong." With difficulty and hand-wringing and conscience-plumbing. But one thing's for sure. We don't let anyone with ulterior motives tell us. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:03 AM (#3007721) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Atheism is our default state as human beings. We are not born with religion, but we are born with empathy, which is subsequently perverted by having Religion forced upon us resulting in a base and rancid righteousness which excuses all manner of atrocity in the name of a higher (though entirely non-existent) celestial authority. The conceit of Christians believing themselves saved is alarming; it gives them that smug little glow that they are better than the rest of us even thiough, dep down in their empty little hearts, they know they are, in fact, worse. If morality is predicated on grounds as rancid as Religion, then I'll continue on my amoral human path and be glad that if hell there is, it won't be filled with Christians. My choice, however, is not to be believe in a fairy tale Idiot God Ogre who creates our humanity only to damn us for all eternity for making good use of it. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:12 AM (#3007725) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Thanks Steve, got there before me. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:40 AM (#3007742) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos I can't imagine any of you doing that so I am curious about how you do decide. First of all, there is no earthly reason for an atheist to not recognize the wisdom of advices attributed to Jesus, or to Lao-Tze or Gautama, either. What gets into you? Second of all, the ability to sense ethical courses of action is inherent in any conscious individual, and most of us get training in using it at an early age. You examine the consequences of a course of action, and weigh the relative merits thereof, and also use a pipe-wrench. A |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM (#3007744) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bill D "I want to know how Fooletroupe, Bill D, and Steve Shaw and anyone else who considers themselves atheist decides what is right and wrong." What Steve Shaw said....and for me, simply because I did spend years getting a degree in Philosophy, I was able to put into semi-formal context what I 'felt'. The "Golden Rule" is a good start...then pragmatism, utilitarianism and stuff like Kant's attempts to show why, at the fundamental levels of abstract thinking, there are logical rules which apply....even as some ignore them for short-term personal reasons. All this added together leads me to be saddened by, but not totally opposed to, such things as abortion, capital punishment, wars of self-defense and population control. I'd like to live in a world where those things were understood as 'sometimes' needed, but rarely employed. I'd like to live in a world where no one argued FOR such things based on superstition and hearsay and prejudice and false gods like 'honor' and 'homeland' and 'tribe'....and people read and studied the ancient religious texts for perspective & context, instead of for artifical rules interpreted for them by priests with 'agendas'. I like, when possible, to use humor to shed light on the foibles and prejudices of my fellow humans...like Walt Kelly did in "Pogo", and Berke Breathed did in "Bloom County" and Charles Schultz did in "Peanuts"....and I wish I could remember who coined the line.."If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?" Someone once said that marriage should be a fair, 50-50 balance of give & take...to which a wiser person replied: "Why not a 75-75 arrangement with a 25% overlap to cover the rough areas?" I kinda like that....I wish countries and politicians, as well as husbands & wives, would take that concept to heart...and not just when rescuing miners.... |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:57 AM (#3007753) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: catspaw49 I always thought of marriage as a three way partnership.......two people and the marriage. Basically the same thing but if you don't allow that third entity or overlap I don't know how a marriage survives.....although they do. Has more to do with the happiness thing I guess.............. Spaw |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:13 AM (#3007768) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin Can atheists anything? You see, morality is a form of altruism. Altruism has been shown to be genetic, or more specifically, a product of genes. We are used to the idea of pack animals, bees, termites, ants etc etc living as a community. Primates also put the community first. Is this religion? Is it heckers like. It is the same phenomenon that causes orgasms. Genes want to reproduce and have situations that engender reproduction, hence lifeforms sometimes work together for the common good whether they think about it or not. Genes, it would appear, are the lifeforms. We are but the hosts. So, can you have a moral atheist? Yes. We are wired that way. It is this fact that angers God botherers most about Dawkins. He is one of the world's leading lights on genetics, hence the rearguard action as such a learned man is such a powerful enemy of superstition. Next. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:29 AM (#3007773) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Thanks Bill, That was just what I was looking for. Steve and Foolestroupe, I didn't know about the hand wringing. I am curious about the hand wringing. Did you study philosophy like Bill? Did you have to look at every aspect of life to come up with a guide for yourself. How much weight did you give to the various outside stakeholders, your family, your community, your country, the world? What I wanted to know is what process your hand wringing entailed. Joe, Thank you. It is interesting to see that your morality needs to go beyond its religious base. I have a hard time reconciling a lot of the bible in my moral code. In the Old Testament the genocides led by Joshua and some of the attitudes toward women by St. Paul are notable points of concern. Amos, I didn't say that Bill and Steve and Foolestroupe COULD not be followers of Jesus' philosophy. What I meant to say was that from what they had written in this forum, that I didn't think that they were. I am pretty sure that none of them were offend by my saying that I did not believe that they could be followed of Jesus, even philosophically. I was talking about them, not people in generally. Certainly I believed it was possible to be Atheist and look to Jesus as a guide because I was and did. One observation I will make from what I have read on this thread is that it seems much harder work to form one own morals based upon one's own thoughts than on instruction from religion. I imagine that for those with the time and the intellectual energy that is a good thing. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 10:45 AM (#3007782) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Steamin, I didn't ask whether there could be a moral atheist. I asked, given that morality is based on ideas of right and wrong, where an atheist gets morality. I don't think that animal herd behavior is morality. Unlike termites humans are not born with their behaviors hardwired. Humans have to learn to do what is best for their survival and for their societies. As long as you are bringing Darwin's principles into the discussion, consider this. In human society, do value systems compete as organisms do in nature where those most suited to the existing environment thrive and those that don't whither and are extinguished? |
|
15 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM (#3007794) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw Jesus is a bit like a poet - he has the knack of hitting the nail on the head, like poets occasionally do with their bon mots, of articulating things that are hard to articulate. That doesn't mean I have to be a follower or take him as an infallible guide (I'm not keen on the bit about turning the other cheek for starters, and I do think that just a little providing for the morrow is no bad thing). It would be a pretty idiotic atheist who failed to recognise the goodness in Jesus' teachings. Or the committee that was Jesus, or whatever it was. What a shame we have to have it all mixed up with son-of-God claims and miracles which insult the intelligence. But, when we say that, we get the knee-jerk accusation that we're cherry-picking, of course. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM (#3007808) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor "and I do think that just a little providing for the morrow is no bad thing" I don't think he was telling everyone to go be the grasshopper and stop being ants. I think he was saying that if you go out and preach the gospel you will be provided for. I think that is true even today. You don't see many Pastors and Priests starving to death. "Turn the other cheek" worked for Ghandi and for Martin Luther King. Look how much they accomplished without bloodshed. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM (#3007826) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Personal responsibility and choice is hard work, but it sure beats the alternatives by a country mile. A |
|
15 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM (#3007858) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bill D "....Martin Luther King. Look how much they accomplished without bloodshed." Well, King needed 2-3 more cheeks..... |
|
15 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM (#3007865) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Neil D I agree with Smokey's 5 year old. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 01:46 PM (#3007908) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Arthur C. Clarke once said something like The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the hijacking of morality by religion. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 02:04 PM (#3007919) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer For the most part, religious moral codes are quite rational, too. Seven of the ten commandments make good sense to everyone, even atheists. "Turning the other cheek" may not appeal to everyone, but there's a lot of sense in it - using something other than combat for conflict resolution would seem to be a good way to preserve the species. It seems to make better long-term sense than "an eye for an eye." But yes, there are problems in religious moral codes. Since people tend to obey religious codes without thinking out their own moral decisions, there is a tendency for the understanding of religious moral codes to drift toward absurdity. When you do things only because you were told to do them, you can end up doing some pretty stupid things. -Joe- |
|
15 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM (#3007959) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger Which Seven, Joe? Jesus said some pretty destructive things in the bible as well, such as if you don't believe in him you'll wither and die. The problem King had is that he based his principles on religion. This ultimately has the effect of holding back the advancement of the Civil Rights Movement. This is what Stokeley Carmicheal and Malcolm X were talking about. Non-violence is always the best policy. This doesn't mean passivity. And it doesn't necessarily mean religion either. No, Jack but you see a lot of Pastors and Priests starving other people to death. particularly in Theocratic countries. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 03:26 PM (#3007965) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Wesley S I've always thought that the "eye for an eye" quote has been taken out of context. It doesn't mean that you are justified to take an eye for an eye. It means that an eye is the maximum you can take in retaliation. It dosn't mean you should - it just gives you a limit. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 04:03 PM (#3007977) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger Morality is a built-in societal concept that comes naturally but is extended by thought. It has to do not necessarily with a Manichean view of good and evil but a code of workable ethics. Animal herd behavior depends on which animal. Human? It turns out that apes have a certain moral code. This is shown by behavioral studies. Check out Franz de Waal at Yerkes Primate Center. An interesting book is his "The Age of Empathy". Evolution has to do with the ability to rationalize and determine what is moral and ethical. The human brain has evolved to take care of this. As to the survival of value systems, it depends entirely on what they are. The fact that we have value systems at all is evidence that Darwinian evolution has made us capable of this ability to create them. I can't prove it but it is possible that war is our specialization that could lead to the extinction of our species and this is certainly based on a value system. Our ability to survive and adapt may depend on our ability to seek alternatives to war. I think that war is immoral. It has been lauded and utilized by every religion in the world except for maybe Janism and some pacifist religions such as the Friends. The "eye for an eye" quote is subject to a variety of interpretations. Wesley, yours is just one of them. Its usage today generally refers to revenge. It may not mean you should retaliate with violence but it does give you permission to do so. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM (#3008060) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Jack, you've said you used to an atheist. How did you make decisions about right and wrong before you got religion? Taking off on something that was said up-thread a ways, how can a Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Bible decide what's moral? Given the contradictions and horrors in the Bible, it seems like it would be pretty hard. The best answer so far about how to choose between right and wrong is "with my brain". In most cases it's not really that hard to figure out whether or not an action is good or evil. Sometimes you have to think about it for a bit, though. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM (#3008075) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe "an eye is the maximum you can take in retaliation" That limit was to stop endless blood feuds. (The typo said blond feuds...) Medieval monks lived so well that the obese monk became a stock figure - they just didn't eat red meat at times, just any other living thing such as dolphin, oysters, etc no way were they 'vegetarian'! QUOTE I asked, given that morality is based on ideas of right and wrong, where an atheist gets morality. UNQUOTE ... which logically and semantically assumes the starting point that they can't (because they can't have those concepts), only the theists can (cause only they can have those concepts). QUOTE your morality needs to go beyond its religious base UNQUOTE Nope - you've got it back-asswards again. It doesn't need to go as far as a religious base. "followers of Jesus' philosophy" Sadly, he can't hold a patent on any such ideas - due to the principle of 'previous disclosure' in history ... :-) hence the statements about the 'arrogant ignorant smugness' of such self deluded professed followers... |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM (#3008114) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: michaelr This is a quote from a film the name of which I forget. Ben Kingsley utters the following: It's not hard to do the right thing -- it's hard to know what the right thing is. But once you know, it's hard not to do it. That's ethics. You got `em or you don't. Morality (by which I mean a set of externally defined rules of conduct) doesn't come into it. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM (#3008134) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: kendall The film was Gandhi. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM (#3008139) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Oh - and Medieval Religious based 'fasting' had nothing to do with 'not eating' - merely 'what to eat' not 'less to eat' - it was social control, pure and simple, allegedly red meat 'inflamed the passions' but the Hanseatic League made political submissions to the Pope to increase the amount of fish in the diet, so they could make more money - nothing 'religiously moral' about that ... even Muslim 'fasting' merely means to not eat solid food during daylight hours, you can stuff yourself comatose after sunset. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM (#3008142) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Actually, if Atheists were the sort of people that those who decry and try to obliterate them are, they might note that the use of quote marks around the word 'moral' in this thread title could be taken as a deliberate put down by the anti-atheists. :-) |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:32 PM (#3008150) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Janie Good question, Jack. It is a question I have personally explored for myself, having arrived at the conclusion I am atheistic in my perspective only a few years ago. I found myself cruising definitions of "atheist." Wikipedia seems to sum up the various definitions well enough. Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6] full article here I have, over the past several years, arrived at the position that I have an absence of belief that deities exist. I also like Wikepedia's concise definition of belief, i.e. "the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. I don't hold my premise to be true. I consider it a rational and logical conclusion based on the information available to me to the extent I have the tools and capacity to comprehend the information available to me. I think concepts of good and evil are just that - concepts. From an evolutionary perspective they are essential constructs, especially for creatures who have evolved to be social creatures. I don't think existence has any moral basis. I think it just is. I try to operate in the world from the notion that all existence has intrinsic value. I choose that only partially, because I am willing to eat, which means I am willing to kill other life-forms, be they animal or vegetable. I think any moral imperatives are evolutionary in their origin and their function, and have to do with adaptation and survival. I think concepts of right and wrong/good and evil are relative because what it takes for a species to survive depends on an infinite number of variables. Beyond that, what it takes for an individual within a species to survive and perpetuate it's own particular genes adds another layer of complexity. I have a very clear sense of values that govern the way I operate in the world. Most of these are inherited cultural and familial values. Many of them continue to make very good sense after examination, and I tend to operate from them pretty automatically, treating them as truth. I also have an innate drive to survive individually. What I often experience as moral dilemmas arise out of the complex matrix of adaptation on a species-wide basis vs. adaptation to foster the continuation of my own particular gene pool. Most of my values are socially inherited and programmed. The vast majority of those values are ones I think most individuals and cultures in the world hold in common - at least within our own families, tribes, cultures. All a very long-winded way of saying "What Ed T said." |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:15 PM (#3008168) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: michaelr Kendall -- sorry cap'n, the film was The Confession, made long after Gandhi. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM (#3008224) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer Stringsinger sez that Jesus sez: if you don't believe in him you'll wither and die. It ain't in my Bible, Frank. I'll admit Jesus was pretty hard on fig trees that don't bear fruit, but it's unclear exactly what the application of the fig tree story should be. It seems to me to be teaching that if you have faith, you can do superhero stuff like moving mountains and withering fig trees. I think fig trees are ugly, and they make me itch; so I don't get particularly offended by the story. You'll find the story in Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14; Mark 11:19-25. My wife the gardener is a lover of all living things, and she always wants to give her failed plantings a second chance. As a result, we have a number of dead trees and bushes in the yard..... As for the Ten Commandments, the first three (or four, depending on how you count) have to do with worship of God, so I don't think they'd be particularly pertinent to atheists. The final seven (6?) make good sense for most everyone - you know, the ones about honoring your parents, killing, adultery, stealing, telling lies, and coveting. Pretty usual stuff for moral codes, I'd say. If you do those things to your neighbor, your neighbor is likely to be upset with you. Still, I get peeved at people who insist it's a good idea to post the Ten Commandments on publicly-owned property in the United States. -Joe- |
|
16 Oct 10 - 12:00 AM (#3008228) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Joe, I've never been into coveting my neighbor's ass.... |
|
16 Oct 10 - 12:28 AM (#3008237) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer See? And it's a darn good thing you DON'T covet it, Robin! Covetousness doth not a satisfied soul engender....[The Book of Joe 23:316] -Joe- |
|
16 Oct 10 - 01:14 AM (#3008251) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe Well, he doesn't own one anyway .... |
|
16 Oct 10 - 06:37 AM (#3008332) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mr Red can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil? well now can an deeply religious man be moral? let us start with Colin Myler - editor of numerous Newspapers, one in New York well US anyway) Rupert Murdock was forced to sack him from editorships of Newscorps papers three times for publishing news and pictures that turned out to be scandalously false. The implication is knowingly false. Given the re-employment at the next newspaper. And what we observe of Bruno Merde's track record. And this is a man who goes to church not just on Sundays but several times mid-week too. Morals is for the common man. Amorality is not a word that has currency with the amoral. And the ME generation are in the ascendancy. Thinking of the neighbour is not in the cannon of the ME people. Religion has the propensity to define and control morality, and the propensity for excess of it. But it is propensity as a statistical artefact. Not as absolute as its other dicta. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM (#3008364) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. Arthur C. Clarke |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM (#3008443) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Interesting definitions, Janie; especially the "at least one..." clause. At the other end of the spectrum, or all the way around the circle depending on how you weigh such things, is presumably the notion that trillions of deities exist. I am reminded of the common greeting used by the members of Michael Valentine Smith's church in Stranger in a Strange Land: "Thou art God". I kinda like that view of things. A |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM (#3008454) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Bill D **pedant alert** Valentine Michael Smith **end pedant alert** (I liked "Stranger" a lot...it was quite an influence on my generation.) |
|
16 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM (#3008530) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong? |
|
16 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM (#3008544) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: SINSULL Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse. In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 03:59 PM (#3008610) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong? I dearly wish I could say yes to that, but it appears not necessarily to be the case, although, I suppose, knowing the difference and acting on that knowledge are two separate things. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 05:07 PM (#3008643) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: gnu SINS... "Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse. In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled." That is absolutely priceless!!! |
|
16 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM (#3008653) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Penny S. There was discussion of this subject on the British Christian radio station Premier today. I was not convinced by the speakers, who seemed to start fom the premise of the title of this thread, that religion is necessary for morality, and stay there. One comment referred back to an interview with Richard Dawkins (who holds that altruism has been essential in the evolution of humanity - the speakers felt this meant he contained contradictions within himself). In this interview he had been asked what would be the case if we had evolved to consider rape to be a good thing, and it was reported that he had had no very convincing answer. Apparently, he said that if that had happened, then that would be what we believed. My first reaction was to think that there is plenty of evidence that there has been, and still is, a strand of human development with exactly that belief - a leader in the Congo explains his men's behaviour as due to being human, for example. As the debate moved on to abortion, as it always does, without considering it to be a very, very difficult issue, it occurred to me that insisting on rape victims bearing any child conceived that way is not going to reduce that attitude. Perhaps a trivial reaction to what is a horrendous dilemma, but one the debaters did not spot. When we discuss atheism, I feel that we need two words. One for the people who bother to describe themselves as such, who are prepared to discuss morality. These are likely to have thought out their morality, and probably have done so by regarding other human beings as as fully human as they are themselves, and as deserving of consideration and respect as they are themselves. (That is all other humans, not only the ones resembling themselves.) The other sort are not simply atheists, but people without any awareness of the issue of whether to believe in God or not, or, possibly, of any need to think of others. When the religious start this sort of debate, they assume that all atheists are the second sort, who probably do not know the word. Penny |
|
16 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM (#3008683) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Yes, indeed, we all can; it's how we have such a thing at all, despite efforts to disguise the provenance. But there is also a wide spectrum of counterforces available in the human breast and some folks are more swamped by them than other folks. A |
|
16 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM (#3008707) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: CapriUni Ed T.: My parents raised me with Kant's Catagorical Imperitive as the core of our family's moral code. ... My father, especially, talked about the Imperitive, and how he believed its First Formulation (paraphrased as: "Act in such a way as you would like to see become univesal") was a step higher on the moral ladder than even the Golden Rule as spelled out by Jesus of Nazereth. The Golden Rule, he said, was still rooted in solipsism -- everything is judged according to your own limited desires and needs, but the Catagorical Imperitive requires you to step back from your own Id, and look at the world as a whole, and act according to the benefit of others. Many years later, I came across the Second Formulation, and I really like the way that is worded: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end" And I also really like this passage from The Vatican Sayings, a 14th C manuscript collecting 80 maxims from Epicurus, and later philosophers of the Epicurean School: While we are on the road, we must try to make what is before us better than what is past; when we come to the road's end, we feel a smooth contentment. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 09:00 AM (#3009064) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T CapriUni Very interesting. I suspect very few people have had the benefit of such broad thinking early in life. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 12:44 PM (#3009208) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: kendall Sinsull nailed it. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM (#3009221) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor "Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong?" I would say that the answer to that would be "Yes. Of course." but my question deals with atheists use their intelligence to decide that. Dawkins, seems to me to be very Naive about the issue when he often argues that there is no logical path from atheism to committing atrocities. (I know that is a paraphrase, but it is close enough and brief enough to serve this discussion.) The very basis of what one considers to be an atrocity seems too wrapped up in one's knowledge to allow one to independently what is right or wrong. I don't endorse any of the practices to be described. I am saying there is no "LOGICAL" reason not to engage in them. 1. One could eat the meat, properly screened for pathogens, of humans not slaughtered for that purpose. 2. One could have non-child bearing sex with close relatives. 3. As a society people with genetic flaws and low IQs could be sterilized or terminated. 4. One could use the meat generated in 3. to feed people in 1. Or as spare parts for transplants, No Mr. Dawkins would seem not to be the best spokesperson for Atheism because of his stunted imagination. That is an odd thought for me because I thought that most scientists would have at least a basic knowledge of speculative fiction. There is no biological reason not to do any of the above. There is good historical evidence that people can come to think these things. So why do these ideas seem so repulsive? In this thread Foolestroupe and Shaw, like Dawkins seem to be defining their own beliefs in terms of their differences from and criticisms of popular religion rather than from any morality or set of beliefs separate from religion. They are actually "anti-theists" rather than atheists. I will say to them as I would say to the Republicans and Tea Party about politics. It is easy to cherry pick criticisms and rage for something better. The true test of an Atheist might be to come up with something that IS better and showing how and why it is better. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM (#3009231) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse. In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled. << I believe in evolution and the natural history and pre-history of man as described by science. The formation of early religion is nicely described by Joseph Campbell. in the myths and legends of hunting and gathering people. When man depended solely on the bounty of nature and the seemingly random migration of game, his religion reflected that. As technology progress, man's goals changed, society evolved. A big part of religion is giving individuals the ability to see beyond the pleasures of right here and right now and to defer pleasure, and to work for the larger good and for the society. The small societies with the "better" ie the more survival and growth suited values grew and prospered and the ones that were less so whithered and died or were assimilated. Ancient Greece was great incubator of such ideas, hundreds of small states each trying different values, societal norms, different versions of and perspectives on their Gods, DIFFERENT IDEAS OF MORALITY, DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, until one small state went out and conquered most of the known world. Note that the Spartans and the Athenians had very different concepts of right and wrong when it came to the treatment of women and children and both sets of values seemed to work within the short term goals of each society and their ideas were assimilated into the values of the Macedonians after Phillip and Alexander came along. I guess what I am saying is that there were many different chickens, many different eggs and the scrambling was far from a singular process. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM (#3009276) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Cannibalism is usually seen as wrong, not because we can catch diseases from the meat,but because it is wrong to kill people for food. If they die of disease, it *is* stupid to eat them. If they die of natural causes, why eat them if there are other meats around? And if there aren't, then it isn't a bad thing to do, look at those rugby players whose plane crashed in the Andes. Nothing reprehensible about *their* cannibalism. The funniest thing about cannibalism is that the brits apparently pronounce it canNIBBLEism. Sex with close relativers is usually gross to people, which is a great biological holdover from the days before contraception. It's generally a bad idea to do things that are gross; we got wired that way for a reason. With adult consent and all, I wouldn't think you were IMMORAL for sleeping with your sibling, but I would think it gross. It may well *be* immoral for people with genetic defects to insist on having children. But it's definitely immoral to impose sterilization on them for that reason. And anyway, who *doesn't* have a genetic defect? I am of the opinion that it is a biological(rather than moral) imperative for people with good vision, good teeth, and good senses of humor to have many, many, many children - to prepare for the fall of civilization. And if you want organ banks, read Larry Niven's tales of known space - people pass laws calling for the death penalty for jaywalking, as long as the condemned go into the organ banks. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 02:29 PM (#3009288) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos Well there ya go. Mrrzy clearly pinpoints the difference between moral codes (sets of agreements about what is allowable) versus the life individual sense of ethics which generates real moral sense. Viva la difference. A |
|
17 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM (#3009326) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T I suspect the reason sex between close relatives is generally viewed negatively in most societies (but not in all scoieties) is mainly because it weakens the gene pool. It is likely that more genetic abnormalities resulted and was seen as a bad thing to do. As to incest, the same reason likely was a factor, and obvious other reasons based on the parents role in raising their children. incest Here is some information on cannibalism and its history in many societies. cannibalism |
|
17 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM (#3009340) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: CapriUni Jack the Sailor -- Can I just say that, just as not all Christians agree with Pat Robertson, not all atheists agree with Richard Dawkins. Just because they talk louder than everybody, doesn't mean they talk for everybody. Personally, I put Dawkins and Robertson in the same camp; they're trying convince us that: "Anyone who doesn't agree with my world view is either evil or deluded." Robertson believes, at his most charitable, that those who disagree are deluded by Satan. Dawkins believes those who disagree are deluded by Robertson. Sounds like the same song, to me, albeit in a different key. ...And it's more tiresome than "100 bottles of beer." |
|
17 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM (#3009408) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: The Fooles Troupe "They are actually "anti-theists" rather than atheists." Actually I'm a 'non-theist' (constantly misrepresented as an anti-theist) - a 'non-something' is defined as just saying 'no to the concept'. The 'a' bit means 'not part of' from the Latin to mean away'. It is simply represented by a Venn Diagram having a circle inside of an area. Inside the circle is all 'theism' (where the 'theists' live) all outside the circle is 'non-theism', which is where the 'a-theists' live. Never the twain shall (and can) meet or overlap, but they both exist simultaneously, if one lets the other live... What part of just saying 'no' to a whole concept cannot they who are brainwashed to have the concept so deeply embedded in their thought processes understand? One wonders whether they are consciously trying to pervert the meaning of things they are uncomfortable with, or whether they don't even have a clue... perhaps they NEED to misrepresent Logic - oh wait, they obsessively believe in non-logical things 'beyond all human understanding', don't they, so their brains just can't work any other way ... ~~~~~~~~~~ On TV at the moment... "You'll look more like a man with a quarter pounder in your hand" |
|
17 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM (#3009542) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor No Foolestroupe you are anti-theist, represented by a ven diagram of a circle representing all theists and a cartoon of you beating that circle with a metaphorical stick and tarring it with the same metaphorical brush. We are known by our actions. Those are your actions. Capri-Uni, I agree to a degree. But I don't think that Dawkins has been discredited to the same degree that Robertson has. But give him time and let him speak and he will. The more he speaks the more people will speak against what he is saying as I have. Mrrzy, I am well aware of Niven, who writes as Foolstoupes, concept of a non-theist would. Theism is simply not a part of his visions of a future Earth. Niven certainly does have the imagination to draw many lines from non-theism to atrocities. In short, Niven's writing refutes Dawkin's argument. I think I have made the point that different versions of morality can be generated from different personal circumstances. I don't think that I will get ideas from Steve or Foolstroupe how they see morality independently form their dislike of Christian practice. Other people like Bill and Capri have given logical and satisfying answers so obviously the flaw is not in Atheism as a whole. I think my question has been answered as much as it is going to be. Thanks all. It has been a stimulating and informative discussion. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 10:17 PM (#3009552) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Jack, your comments aren't really making any sense to me. Your wording is a bit obtuse, and the only meaning I can draw from it is weird. Are you really saying there is a logical path from atheism to atrocity? More so than from any other position on the existence of god(s) to atrocity? |
|
17 Oct 10 - 11:30 PM (#3009570) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: dick greenhaus Has anyone encountered Rousseau's concept of a social contract? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 03:24 AM (#3009618) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Howard Jones This thread is founded on two misconceptions. The first is that morality can only be founded on a religious code. The other is that adherence to a religious code necessarily results in moral actions. Neither is true. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:44 AM (#3009659) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Patsy The majority of sane rational people should know the difference between right and wrong and have a moral code whether they are religious or not. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 11:04 AM (#3009829) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Dawkins main argument is that there is NO logical path from atheism to atrocity. None at all. He keeps repeating that point. Therefor Atheism is superior. I am saying that Dawkins does not know what he is talking about in that there are plenty of paths from Atheism to atrocity. People are people. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM (#3010098) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. Atrocities seem to be attributable to idealist beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM (#3010099) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Dawkins main argument is that there is NO logical path from atheism to atrocity. Well, there isn't any logical path there. The two aren't really related in any way, and even the most cursory look at the question tells us that lots of people, religious or not, are capable of atrocity. Are you sure Dawkins wasn't saying that there isn't AUTOMATICALLY a connection? That would make some kind of sense if used in response to the common Christian belief that the only way to have any moral sense is through belief in god. Otherwise, trying to draw any connection between disbelief (or belief) in god and the willingness to commit atrocity is both offensive and ignorant. Or perhaps he was saying that religious belief lends itself more readily to the kind of thinking that causes people to commit atrocity? I don't think that's a logical conclusion either, but there's probably more evidence for that than for the other. I'm not really very concerned about what Dawkins thinks anyway, since he's not part of this discussion. What do YOU think? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:40 PM (#3010116) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Right - without god, how do you justify killing all the jews, for instance? Or Sep. 11th? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM (#3010120) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM (#3010230) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: michaelr 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. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 08:58 PM (#3010250) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM (#3010255) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Ah, it's been Voltaire I've been misquoting all this time. I knew it was somebody... |
|
18 Oct 10 - 09:35 PM (#3010271) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 10:06 PM (#3010284) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Could you be one of the folks mentioned in this article? Anyone volunteer that they are? Could you be one of these? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 04:36 AM (#3010397) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:00 AM (#3010468) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Patsy 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM (#3010561) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:54 AM (#3010665) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:33 PM (#3010774) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:52 PM (#3010791) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM (#3010801) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 01:19 PM (#3010808) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy True, subjective is not irrational; but even if it were, I stick with my above rationale. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM (#3010820) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Penny S. 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 03:40 PM (#3010913) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 04:33 PM (#3010955) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 04:48 PM (#3010966) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 05:36 PM (#3011002) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 05:36 PM (#3011003) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 06:21 PM (#3011032) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM (#3011056) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:06 PM (#3011073) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM (#3011086) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM (#3011088) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Oops, no respect to Atheists, I should also have added or chose none. :) |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM (#3011101) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM (#3011102) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. There appear to have been no gods beginning with 'w', so I will hereby posit the God of Rock and Roll, Wopboppalula. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM (#3011105) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM (#3011113) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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 . . . |
|
19 Oct 10 - 07:57 PM (#3011122) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM (#3011144) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
19 Oct 10 - 09:03 PM (#3011161) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:07 PM (#3011189) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:26 PM (#3011196) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor That should read: C.S. Lewis and billions of others call it God OR Allah. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 11:08 PM (#3011203) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: bobad Morals Without God? - A NY Times essay by Frans de Waal http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:13 AM (#3011291) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Patsy 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. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 07:15 AM (#3011343) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM (#3011441) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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! |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM (#3011559) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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". |
|
20 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM (#3011707) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 03:59 PM (#3011728) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos "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 |
|
20 Oct 10 - 04:54 PM (#3011767) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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? |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM (#3011803) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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". |
|
20 Oct 10 - 06:15 PM (#3011824) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy "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. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 06:39 PM (#3011837) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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 |
|
20 Oct 10 - 06:52 PM (#3011850) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
20 Oct 10 - 07:34 PM (#3011873) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Amos, again, all the definitions you w |
|
20 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM (#3011874) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 10:05 AM (#3012183) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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? |
|
21 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM (#3012195) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T 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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM (#3012212) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM (#3012231) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Bingo! |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM (#3012238) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM (#3012240) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM (#3012257) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
21 Oct 10 - 12:08 PM (#3012267) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>>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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 01:22 PM (#3012324) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw I'd rather have a rudder than a crutch any day. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM (#3012331) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T amour French: a love affair, esp a secret or illicit one. "The amoural atheist" Sounds like a good boock to me. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM (#3012333) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "boock" I was mix'in the thread up with LH's "let's talk like a scotsman" thread:) |
|
21 Oct 10 - 04:53 PM (#3012477) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jeri 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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 07:17 PM (#3012578) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM (#3012597) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM (#3013005) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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? |
|
22 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM (#3013011) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 10:38 AM (#3013012) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
22 Oct 10 - 10:56 AM (#3013026) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jeri "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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 11:05 AM (#3013037) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM (#3013049) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jeri 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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM (#3013050) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
22 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM (#3013061) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy ???Fear and anger are immoral? What planet did you evolve your emotions on? |
|
22 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM (#3013074) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM (#3013085) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM (#3013101) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM (#3013121) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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... |
|
22 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM (#3013131) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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? |
|
22 Oct 10 - 04:35 PM (#3013265) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "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 |
|
22 Oct 10 - 04:50 PM (#3013278) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy 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? |
|
22 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM (#3013396) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos 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 |
|
23 Oct 10 - 01:47 AM (#3013519) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
23 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM (#3013686) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 10:26 AM (#3013690) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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? |
|
23 Oct 10 - 10:39 AM (#3013696) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. <<<< |
|
23 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM (#3013706) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM (#3013713) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM (#3013726) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:07 PM (#3013744) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Well, except that we have very good evidence that Nietzsche was actually lived at some point and actually said things . . . |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM (#3013750) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Oops, "actually alive at some point" |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:33 PM (#3013759) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM (#3013765) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM (#3013773) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 02:08 PM (#3013797) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM (#3013804) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 03:29 PM (#3013826) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 03:33 PM (#3013827) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 03:47 PM (#3013836) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM (#3013839) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 07:35 PM (#3013948) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P 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. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 08:16 PM (#3013960) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: dick greenhaus Just think of all the bandwidth that could be saved if folks would agree on definitions of the terms they use. |
|
23 Oct 10 - 09:09 PM (#3013971) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Every path has its puddle." Proverb |
|
23 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM (#3013992) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Dick, I agree, it would be easier, but people would still find things to argue about. ;-) Thanks John P. You make a lot of sense. |
|
24 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM (#3014081) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Ok Jack, I hear you. But please accept that I am not convinced your curiosity is quite as objective as you feel it is. regarding good and evil. I am minded to use everyday examples of what is good and bad for me, or you, or a lady in Iran, or a petrochemical engineer in Alaska. But then I thought of hornets that get into a beehive and kill off the bees for no apparent reason. They are not interested in the honey, they do not (or should not) see the bees as competitors. They just kill. Cats can do the same. Orca whales appear to play tennis using dead baby seals as a ball. They don't wait for a seal to die first either. Maybe the departure into physics in the other atheism thread is not a bad idea after all, as it appears to me that right / wrong, good / bad, saintly / evil is all relative? Relativity seems to answer most things in the non quantum experience if you ask me. |
|
24 Oct 10 - 06:41 AM (#3014117) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Howard Jones How are they different from the religious commandments we see all around us? Why should they be different? Just because one religion or another has laid claim to certain principles doesn't mean that you have to believe in a god in order to see the good sense in them (or some of them, anyway). |
|
24 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM (#3014189) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>But then I thought of hornets that get into a beehive and kill off the bees for no apparent reason. They are not interested in the honey, they do not (or should not) see the bees as competitors. They just kill. Cats can do the same. Orca whales appear to play tennis using dead baby seals as a ball. They don't wait for a seal to die first either.<< I just used that point to say that there was no good and evil in nature. Are you taking the piss? |
|
24 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM (#3014314) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger Dick, just think of all the wars that could be avoided if people agreed on definitions. The problem is that words are often used as weapons or tools to convince sometimes by condign means. Definitions then become irrelevant. "Morality" is one of those words that is used as a weapon of accusation or promulgating convictions. Many of the words offered by religionists must be questioned in terms of the definitions that they are given. The Manichean view of "good and evil" must be continuously be redefined or in some cases outright rejected. Asking for agreement on definitions in a way is impossible. You can go to Oxford and Websters and still not find agreement. A lot has been said about "agreeing to disagree" but maybe not enough about "agreeing to find agreement". For the latter to occur, you have to have an open mind and a willingness to listen and evaluate a point-of-view that you might not agree with. Even when people are pitted against each other ideologically there are elements in counter-arguments that are potentially points of agreement. I think this is what Jon Stewart is trying to promote. We can all "get it" wrong and we can all "get it" right. |
|
24 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM (#3014391) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor I think Jon Stewart is trying to promote his show. He has said as much on his publicity tour for "Earth" in interviews with Terri Gross and Larry King. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 03:29 AM (#3014754) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Well, actually no, Jack. I don't think I was taking the piss. I genuinely thought that noting wanton destruction without motive in creatures other than humans undermines many theological arguments. Likewise, altruism in other creatures, (including plants) tends to throw the "in his image" into a cocked hat. I don't know what the answers to life are, and goodness knows I try to to take an interest, hence the fascination in quantum mechanics. But I will say this much; Religious scriptures, whether portrayed as truth or parable, are all based on the concept of intelligent intervention. Advancement in our understanding of the universe in which we "live" does not vindicate those scriptures. As people in general become more educated, they question more, so religion as a mainstream part of peoples' lives becomes less. Sadly, the revivals tend to be at the more fundamental end of a belief system. I deduce from that the control of the masses tool that religion can offer is thankfully taken by those in power, hence religion perpetuates. Nowhere do I see an argument that religion and morality are hand in hand. The stories make good analogies for people to base their own decisions on, and for that, religion can be a worthwhile comfort blanket. But the control elements of religion are neither needed nor relevant in an educated society. Neither are they the answer when society is breaking down. Morality and religion may share an entry in the odd dictionary and in the minds of those for whom the relationship is useful to sustain a system, but they are also mutually exclusive. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:30 AM (#3014903) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T ..."We believe that there is no absolute truth, excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth". Steve Turner, from Creed |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM (#3014904) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "I believe in everything - a little bit." Marilyn Monroe |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM (#3014905) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor I do not think that animals are capable of evil. Having lived with cats, having watched a mother cat training kittens to hunt, I came to the conclusion that while a cat playing with a mouse seems cruel to me, it seems to serve a training role for the cat. I have faith that most behavior that we see in nature that we perceive as cruel serves a purpose to the animal. Charles Darwin said he lost faith when he saw one insect being cruel to another. "To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs." Why he did not see the same thing much earlier in man slaughtering sheep is a wonder to me. The man knows the sheep suffers. The wasp does not known the same about the caterpillar. I probably should mention the story about eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil here. But would you understand that I take it as a clever little story that illustrates a profound philosophical point rather than a factual account of a talking snake? I think that Charles Darwin was much smarter than me and before he went on the Beagle he studied theology. I wonder why he didn't see that philosophical point? I think that maybe he did but he was looking at each new aspect of nature he discovered and asking "Does this evidence support the God I have learned about or does it not?" Lucky for me, I live in a time when the average person has access to far more information about nature than Darwin did, including 150 years of the study of his own theories. I don't feel qualified to question God. I feel awe and wonder at the fact that so much can be explained by a few simple theories. Gravity, inertia, natural selection, the phases of water, the "shape" of the carbon atom. In "A Brief History of Time" I think I remember Hawking saying that he saw God in elegant laws. I'm not saying that I do. I don't know. I can't know, I am not equipped to know. I do know this about belief and Atheism. If Jesus came back today, leading a host of angels and killed all of his enemies with a wave of his hands and if he brought peace and prosperity to the whole world curing all wants and greed and evil lust. A lot of people would still be skeptical. They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely. Or they would think it was an illusion or a hoax or a coincidence. They might even question their own mental health. People can't be argued into believing. They can't be argued into not believing. To the ardent atheist I would say that railing against someones beliefs is counterproductive and in the long run erodes society. Most people do not have the time or inclination to seek the answers for themselves. Most people need and want reinforcement of what they do believe. In an increasingly atheist society, the closest thing to filling the role of religion and The Church is the popular media. Most of the message of popular culture is in advertising. Is it really less desirable for people to believe in an invisible God who loves them than believing that if they drink "Lite" beer they will be surrounded by beautiful, available women? And when the beer destroys their libido and plumps up their bodies, the is a little blue pill, and liposuction..... People are inclined to fill their minds with crap. Be it Pat Robertson Crap or Brittney Spears crap or for this forum maybe Bob Dylan crap or murder ballad crap. If you don't like the effects of religion, offer something better that fills the same needs. Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists. Apparently some fill religious needs with elaborate rituals and codes of behavior. But note that this did not come without a price. The price in the not so distant past, being a caste of heavily armed warriors chopping the heads off non-conformists. RINGO STARR lyrics - It Don't Come Easy (Richard Starkey) It don't come easy, You know it don't come easy. It don't come easy, You know it don't come easy. Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues, And you know it don't come easy. You don't have to shout or leap about, You can even play them easy. Forget about the past and all your sorrows, The future won't last, It will soon be over tomorrow. I don't ask for much, i only want your trust, And you know it don't come easy. And this love of mine keeps growing all the time, And you know it just ain't easy. Open up your heart, let's come together, Use a little love And we will make it work out better. (ah -) (ah -) (ooh-ooh) (ah-ooh-ooh) Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues, And you know it don't come easy. You don't have to shout or leap about, You can even play them easy. Peace, remember peace is how we make it, Here within your reach If you're big enough to take it. I don't ask for much, i only want your trust, And you know it don't come easy. And this love of mine keeps growing all the time, And you know it don't come easy. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:39 AM (#3014913) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Well, If Steve Turner believes it, it must be true. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:48 AM (#3014917) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Who would have thunk it, that Ringo Starr thought that deep. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM (#3014920) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely. We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM (#3014922) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Turner's Creed An excerpt from Ravi Zacharias' book "Can Man Live Without God?" Steve Turner says "No!"...But we try all the time.... Creed by Steve Turner We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge. We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy's OK. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there's something in horoscopes UFO's and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same- at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation. We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn We believe in Masters and Johnson What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors . And the Russians would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good. It's only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 10:16 AM (#3014942) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods.<< We do NOT have hard evidence that there is OTHER sentient life in the universe besides ourselves and maybe dolphins. We have "probabilities" of intelligent like based upon some very dodgy assumptions. We also have the respected "atheist" thinker Einstein and everything he wrote about cosmology implying that it would take them (the aliens) hundreds of thousands of years to get here, unless they can bend the immutable laws of nature to their own ends. And if they can do that, who is to say that they are not "gods?" Who is to say that one of them is not Jesus if he/she/it says so? We have no way of knowing. Just as we have no way of knowing what (or who) started the big bang. Because the big bang supposedly began with a singularity and up to now at least, with our current information, we cannot know what is within a singularity. I really, really, really do not have much use for Ravi Zacharias', time and resource wasting ministry of arguing for God. But can't we at least open our eyes to the nonsense on both sides of the debate? Invisible God, act of faith and wishful thinking, defying evidence and laws of physics. Visits from aliens, act of faith and wishful thinking, defying evidence and laws of physics. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 10:29 AM (#3014952) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>>Who would have thunk it, that Ringo Starr thought that deep. I actually think that it is pretty deep. These lines put a slick little "Beatle-esque" twist on the rest of the lyrics adding a spiritual dimension to what apparently is a love song. Peace, remember peace is how we make it, Here within your reach If you're big enough to take it. I still don't know if Ringo was ever that deep. The website where I got the lyrics said that George Harrison "helped" him with the writing. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM (#3014979) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Yes, if truth is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive. Ravi Zacharias I was just reading some quotes of his. When it it not wrapped up in long arguing sermons, some of the things he says are pretty clever. The above quote made me think of some of the discussion on this forum of this topic. I think I have been not sufficiently undergirded. I must try harder. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM (#3014984) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Yeah, and who helped him with the drumming? Hang on sailor.. What was all that about this Jesus dude slaying his enemies? As christianity goes, that sounds more like Crusades than my mother in law running the local Sunday School. If not having an imaginary friend makes me an enemy of his, then pass me some nails, I'm off up the ladder! Darwin studied theology, yes. I have read the odd comic myself for that matter. Darwin was learned in such matters for two reasons as I saw it; 1. It served as the critical friend for his research. 2. It got him a shag with his pious cousin. The laws of physics are defied all the time. Mainly because we have to have two sets of laws; the laws we can experience and measure, and the laws governing quantum mechanics. Now.. the laws of physics for the observable universe have been honed and tested over the years, so it holds that Newton got it right regarding what we can see, but the main plank of The Principia, that of constant state, proved to be wrong, although with the tools and prior knowledge he had available to him, we can forgive him that one. Max Planck saw that things were down to small quantities (quanta) rather than continuous but it took others to see beyond that, Einstein leading the way. if the work of Newton, Galileo, Planck et al was revered in the same way as many would want the bible, q'ran or tora to be respected, I doubt we would have got much further in advancing knowledge. Of course, the dolphins have their own creed. Smells a bit fishy to me..... I looked up a definition of sentient; my dog is a sentient being. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 11:42 AM (#3015026) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T The Misconceptions of Ravi Zacharias |
|
25 Oct 10 - 11:53 AM (#3015037) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Willie, I am in awe of your dog. But I doubt he is what John P had in mind. Don't you? Don't get your shorts in a twist about Darwin, I only mentioned that he studied Theology to show that he knew more about it than me. I guess you realize that I was not denigrating the state of our knowledge. I was pointing out that the current state of the art of our science makes Aliens visiting us just as unlikely as Jesus being sent to us unless you see the Apostles as less reliable witnesses than a bunch of hippies hanging around Roswell, unless you see Billy Graham or the Dalai Lama as less reliable than Shirley McLaine. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM (#3015065) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos "Invisibility" is of course a function of the detector being used; it would be pretty arrogant to assume that something with the attributes of God (omnipresent, permeating all existence, etc.) had to operate in the bandwidth of .5x10 -6 to 10-8 (i.e., visible light) or else it did not exist. We have no idea what space looks like to, say, a terahertz sensor or above, except in the crudest way. Furthermore, the notion that some frequency of detection would enable you to see this "God" stuff is problematic and rests on the assumption that all perception is constrained to physical vibration, which is a brash assumption. A |
|
25 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM (#3015094) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Ed did you watch that video by any chance? It accuses Ravi Zacharias of mis-defining "Enlightenment" by misusing the word defining and it does so in a very boring , tedious and self-righteous manner. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 01:24 PM (#3015112) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Ed did you watch that video by any chance?" I watched it, but, outside the music and some of what what you mention...there did not seem to be much content to match the time taken to do the production. But, not knowing much about Ravi Zacharias (whom someone else raised earlier), or where the debate in the video comes from, I suspected others would understand the issue that seem to be raised. But, on reflection, possibly not. IO will read up more on this person. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM (#3015113) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy A line spoken in a fictional future universe (also, a future fictional universe) where nobody believes in deity any more, or if you do, people think it's silly: Kill the wise one! Maybe, to find that as roaringly funny as I did at the time, you had to be watching the show. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM (#3015117) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Invisibility" is of course a function of the detector being used" Exactly. Consider all the cell phone and other happenings passing one by (and, luckly so), if you do not have a detector (cell phone). It is reasonable that we have not yet perceived all the "detectors" possible to be used and more may be revealed in the future. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:02 PM (#3015153) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Are you saying that God may only be detectable by a large vat of water at the bottom of a mine? Or a supercollider? |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:26 PM (#3015173) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T Hilary Putnam-Brains in a Vat |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:30 PM (#3015178) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon Jack, one thing I do believe is that we are unlikely to be able to create a "god detector box". |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:33 PM (#3015182) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Ed, I think he must be a writer for Futurama. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:35 PM (#3015185) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Jon, Do I have to improve my communication of irony? ;-) |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:44 PM (#3015190) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T God in Futurama |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM (#3015191) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Ed, I was thinking about the heads in the jars. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM (#3015192) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. - J.B. Phillips |
|
25 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM (#3015293) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. If science was to discover, prove and quantify God, I wonder who would be most disappointed? |
|
25 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM (#3015306) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor If science was to discover, prove and quantify God I am sure that many would reject the proof. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 05:49 PM (#3015309) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Smokey. So am I, Jack, but on both sides. Personally, I'd laugh for a week. |
|
25 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM (#3015318) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Donuel Finding WIMPS at the bottom of a mine shaft laboratory is tedious work. They can only open the detetor and look once per year. In 2008 nothing. In 2009 there were 3 hits. In 2010, the detector box has not yet been opened. Anyway a Boson is not really a God particle. Wealy interacting pariticles maight be dark matter or something unimagined from an entwined dimension, such as dandruf from your 5th dimensional doppleganger. I get that atheists are often exeedingly moral. Some of the worst immoral acts I have personally seen were commited by exceedingly fundamentalist evangelicals who were formally known as Jews for Jesus. I sensed that they had a conscience but were unable to express it properly due to religious doctrine pushing them to do the opposite of their instinct, which in this case was to let a child suffocate in a hot unlocked car because they thought poorly of the father who was a athiest humanist out looking for the child in the wrong direction. |
|
26 Oct 10 - 04:51 AM (#3015563) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Methinks the term "God" is being used freely here. If God is the old guy with the big beard who is displeased by individual humans, then please forgive me when I don't take you seriously. If God is a metaphor for ultimate purpose, then properties of a bosun (to put a positive spin on things, sorry..) or properties of a dimension beyond the four we perceive could, I suppose, if nobody got too excited, be wrapped up in a bundle we call God until we have sufficient evidence to call it something else. The problem is that the metaphor helps perpetuate the interventionist delusion we have crafted from ancient writings. |
|
26 Oct 10 - 08:22 AM (#3015678) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Patsy Most people have a 'moral code' of sorts to live by or we could not co-exist we each other or live in harmony. It is more of an unspoken moral code of kindness, listening, understanding and not speaking out of turn and generally treating others with respect complying to certain rules like not stealing your neighbours bicycle or returning his lawnmower after borrowing it etc. Simple things which makes the difference to everyone, offering to help a neighbour if he/she needs transport to go to a hospital appointment or offer some support. It wouldn't occur to me to ask what someones religion was just because they have been kind or helpful, hopefully I would be able to return the kindness some day. |
|
26 Oct 10 - 08:25 AM (#3015682) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Galileo Galilei I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them |
|
26 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM (#3015826) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon I might these days suggest that God could be both the essence of nature, etc. and a living creature in his own right. I don't think old man with white beard now - does not fit with a timeless immortality.. If he really exists, he is beyond our imagination. |
|
26 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM (#3015851) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger "I get that atheists are often exeedingly moral. Some of the worst immoral acts I have personally seen were commited by exceedingly fundamentalist evangelicals who were formally known as Jews for Jesus." Scott Roeder who was convicted of murdering Dr. Tiller was part of this group. They profess wanting to protect the "unborn" but don't give a damn for actual human life. Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization. The joke is that Jews, by in large, think that Jews for Jesus is an abomination. It runs counter to their belief system. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 01:09 AM (#3016450) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity John P: "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. " Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before??? GfS |
|
27 Oct 10 - 06:36 AM (#3016580) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "I don't think old man with white beard now - does not fit with a timeless immortality" What's wrong with Santa? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 06:40 AM (#3016582) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer What's wrong with Santa, EdT asks. C'mon, Ed, switch the letters around - can't you see it spells Satan ? ....not that I have any idea what difference that makes... -Joe- |
|
27 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM (#3016715) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P GfS: Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before??? I assume you are trying to say that I'm inconsistent or something because I try to live my life according to a precept that Jesus also lived by? And my doing so would be a problem because . . . .?? It sounds like you assume that I hate any idea that also happens to be a Christian ideal. What a jerk. Get your head out of your preconceptions and start paying attention to what's actually going on around you. And, not surprisingly, I seem to know more about Christianity than you do. Jesus missed by a few centuries being the first person to speak the Golden Rule. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 09:43 AM (#3016717) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before???" Can you demonstrate that he was the first person ever to say this, or that people didn't do it until he said it? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM (#3016725) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw Nice timing, John. More than eight hours after he posted and we post the same thought within a minute of each other! You could almost come to think that God had a hand...tee hee. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 10:06 AM (#3016745) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Green Man Someone said they would be interested to hear how an atheist decides what is right or wrong/moral or immoral. Its pretty basic. That which hurts me hurts other people. Don't hurt other people and they (probably) won't hurt you. Likewise moral systems are usually developed by groups as part of their infrastructure. Imposed morals such as churches no matter what church are sometimes looked at as 'a good idea' or not! The common denominator that binds all of us is the thrust toward survival. It is counter survival behaviour to make enemies. Most people don't like pain (physical or mental) and react negatively to it. Whether this means sticking a spear in your back because that's how you murdered his brother or by writing a letter to the press to protest your behaviour. I was brought up in a Christian household. As I grew up I realised that the tenets of this faith weren't generally followed by most people and subsequently I left to look for answers elsewhere. I have travelled extensively and found some answers but not a complete one. Folks is Folks and mainly they are a nice bunch. Religion is a business that causes wars. I want no part of it. I realise that to say I am unaffected is naive as I live in the real world and am far from being a hermit. I ask you, for all the high ideals of whatever church or religion that you belong to, can you say unequivecably that you have found the answer when there are so many that disagree. One mans salvation is another mans hell. I forget who's quote that is but it does sort of sum up what's happening at on our world at the moment. The Koran says that to kill innocents and children in the pursuit of war is sinful and will send you to hell. Thou shalt Not Kill will be familiar to Christians, I could go on and have for far too long so I will end with this. The Journey is the reward. Peace to you all |
|
27 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM (#3016759) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon What's wrong with Santa? I think Saint Nicolas himself would agree he was not God. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 11:54 AM (#3016829) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve Shaw: "and we post the same thought within a minute of each other! You could almost come to think that God had a hand.." Funny, that would come to mind! Anything to get you thinking!!!....well at least honestly! GfS |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:08 PM (#3016840) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: John P Hmm . . . Accuse anyone you disagree with of thinking dishonestly. What a way to move the discussion forward! How mature! Don't respond, of course, to the answers to your statement that atheists are weird for adhering to the Golden Rule or to the fact that Jesus didn't originate it. Care to go for being part of the conversation instead of lobbing insults into it? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:09 PM (#3016842) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>I ask you, for all the high ideals of whatever church or religion that you belong to, can you say unequivecably that you have found the answer when there are so many that disagree.<< I don't see most Muslims or Christians unequivocally saying they have found the one answer. I do see that from the so called fundamentalists. But in spite of their vocal energy and spending on propaganda, they are not the majority. I don't say that I have found The One Answer, I have found the answer that works for me. Sometimes I say to others, "It works for me. It might work for you." Jesus and Paul called us to spread the Word. In the society we live in that is as far as I am prepared to go because of the greater commandment of "love thy neighbor as thy self." Would I want my neighbor telling me that I am going to hell if I don't do things exactly their way? No. So I don't do it to others. I don't advocate terrorism, or stealing treasure or land from natives in the name of "Saving them." I don't believe my tax money should be spent supporting Israeli settlers who burn Palistinian Olive trees to steal land supposedly vaguely promised by "God" through the rantings of old Testament Prophets. The whole thing looked to me like a self fulfilling suicide pact. When I was an Atheist, I had a Catholic put it to me this way. "What if you are wrong? If you are an Atheist and you are right after death there is nothing. If you are wrong you go to Hell." It remains to this day a logical point which did not convince me then or now. But what if you are a Zionist and you are wrong? What if you start World War three over little patch of Mediterranean shore line and the Messiah does not come? Or worse what if he intended to come but on his own timetable not yours. What if your presumption to speak for him has helped to kill a hundred million people including yourself and He is not grateful. What if he is angry? This is what I think of when I see the vocal minority of "so called fundamentalists" and "conservatives" playing their dominance games. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:15 PM (#3016848) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "can you say unequivecably that you have found the answer when there are so many that disagree". I can't see that any person can reasonably say that they have unequivecably found "the answer" on most if not all aspects of life....even you. However, many, if not most, can say that they have found an answer that works for them, at this time. I can't see how you can logically alude to a statement that suggests that finding what works for a person would be based on a popularity test. If that is your case, then I suspect that, given their population, opinions in China and India would rule world opinions. Also, keep in mind that all people that believe in a God do not belong to any organized church, or religion. That leaves them out of a direct relationship with many past misdeeds caused by those claiming to be following organized religions, or those who were not followers of such. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 12:17 PM (#3016851) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor GfS was out of line, He often is. But he only ever speaks for himself. Would the Atheists on this thread please tell me whether or not they think this type of comment is appropriate? It seems like rude mocking and baiting to me. >>You could almost come to think that God had a hand...tee hee.<< |
|
27 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM (#3016933) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Christianity claims to have the "only" answer - the only way to heaven is through him, no? Mocking can be rude, I agtee. But the comment as quoted doesn't seem rude to me, albeit mocking. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 01:48 PM (#3016968) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Jack......I was quoting Steve......have another 'hit'..then at least you have an excuse for being so.....umm...'careless'. (That was the 'polite' word). I surely wouldn't want to upset you to the point that you would start thinking! GfS |
|
27 Oct 10 - 03:31 PM (#3017067) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor >>Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before???<<< I am sorry, I have stopped reading Steve carefully Maybe I missed it? If you can show me where he said the above before you I will apologize. But it looks to me like you were mocking John P's beliefs. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM (#3017089) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Christianity claims to have the "only" answer - the only way to heaven is through him, no?" So, what would that claim, if accurate, really matter to Atheists, anyway? Since, true Athiests, if there is such a thing (and, not infinately defined), don't believe (aka, put much stock in) there being a heaven to go to anyway...let alone a "he/she/it" to make any such such claims? I just don't get the point of some Atheist hang ups with what others believe or don't believe (be they magic, Gods, or Santa). However, I do see a legitimate concern for potential negative impacts of some organized religions and associated actions on societies who do bad under a religious pretense. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM (#3017094) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Amen Ed! |
|
27 Oct 10 - 04:23 PM (#3017113) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "I just don't get the point of some Atheist hang ups with what others believe or don't believe (be they magic, Gods, or Santa)." Well, you could always argue that atheists should shut up altogether I suppose. Or you could accept that thay have valid points to make without your adding, snidely and in kneejerk fashion, that their points of view are hang-ups. It's simple. Believe or don't believe what you like, but once you air your beliefs in public you have to take the flak if flak is forthcoming. You have no monopoly on truth. If I happen to contest your beliefs you should be pleased that I'm interested enough to engage you, not slagging me off for having hang-ups (in other words, because I don't agree with you). As for your short-list, well there's a massive groundswell on this planet for belief in God, which is why this thread exists. I am not prepared at all to give similar respect to purveyors of magic or Santa, or goblins or flower fairies at the bottom of your garden. If I'm irrational at all it's because I don't automatically lump your God in with that lot. Can't you see just how nice we atheists are? Tee hee! |
|
27 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM (#3017128) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos WHen people claim cures for assorted woes such as cancer, and when paid for them deliver something else, we take justice action against them of some sort. To claim one has a sole path to spiritual salvation --as Christ teaches in some versions -- and then largely fail to deliver is comparable, in a spiritual transaction, to offering such cures. A |
|
27 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM (#3017132) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Again, it's the harm. We can't just shut up and "respect" belief any more. The harm outweighs the politeness. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:28 PM (#3017168) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Are some Muslims terrorists or as O'Reilly says, Do we have a "Muslim problem? Are all Christains causing harm? Are all Christians Pat Robertson or Sarah Palin? Is the belief in religion that is causing the problem or is it the fanatical belief in religion? Or worse, the abuse of it. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM (#3017177) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "WHen people claim cures for assorted woes such as cancer, and when paid for them deliver something else, we take justice action against them of some sort". Well Amos, you are kinda comparing apples and peanuts? (BTW, there are plenty of alternative cures that do not face legal actions...check out hemopathy and an assortment of other bogus cures and medicines) Anyway, to go along with the (silly) flawed comparisons...there are no claims for any medical cures that I know of. Maybe a claim for entry to a heaven. If it does not work out, I guess you could lodge a civil suite for damages. But, if there is ever proven to bea hereafter, should Atheists also be liable for a civil suit, for all the lost sould with nowhere to go,since there would be no entry? And BTW, regigion is a belief, not a cure. "To claim one has a sole path to spiritual salvation --as Christ teaches in some versions -- and then largely fail to deliver is comparable, in a spiritual transaction, to offering such cures". Again, no medical cures on Earth, just personal salvation in a hereafter is promised as a reward for belief. Most religions make the same or similar claims, not just the one you mention. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM (#3017200) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "Are some Muslims terrorists or as O'Reilly says, Do we have a "Muslim problem? Are all Christains causing harm? Are all Christians Pat Robertson or Sarah Palin? Is the belief in religion that is causing the problem or is it the fanatical belief in religion? Or worse, the abuse of it." You forgot something. Are all atheists.....? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 07:22 PM (#3017274) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy It doesn't matter if they are all causing harm. I will do what I can to stop those who do. And to alert people to the harm that many seem to be ignoring. And to get people to think, critically if possible. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 07:32 PM (#3017286) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon Is the belief in religion that is causing the problem or is it the fanatical belief in religion? Or worse, the abuse of it. I think it is abuse. A basic Christian "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself" ought only to do good. "Ah but I am a catholic and he is a protestant/ Muslim/ will abbrev to is not like me" seems capable of creating horrors. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 07:33 PM (#3017288) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor Mrrzy I think it matters if you do not blame those who are actually doing harm. Osama Bin Ladin is doing harm. He should be executed or put in jail. The guy with the mustache who runs the BP down the street is just running a gas station. They are both Muslims. Should both be put in jail or executed? |
|
27 Oct 10 - 07:47 PM (#3017300) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor I think it matters if you do not blame ONLY those who are actually doing harm. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM (#3017302) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "Osama Bin Ladin is doing harm. He should be executed or put in jail." Well, we could accord him the full process of the justice system first, and possibly refrain from executing him, which would bring us down to his level. I thought lynching had been abolished. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 10:08 PM (#3017388) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy I don't blame the people doing harm, I blame their reasoning. It isnt' their fault they were brought up to believe what they were brought up to believe; now, though, they should think for themselves, and teaching people not to think for themselves but to accept dogma is harmful to all, and I will fight that too. Fight being a relative term - I am still a pacifist. No, I don't blame all moslems for 9/11, not all christians for the hateful displays at military funeralsmurders of gynecologists, or the imbecilities they put into my kids' history books. I do blame both islam and christianity for fomenting that mentality, though, since without religion, none of the above would be happening. It is immoral, to me, to allow this imbecility to go on. |
|
27 Oct 10 - 10:14 PM (#3017392) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jack the Sailor In that case you may need to find a country that doesn't have freedom of religion in the constitution. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:53 AM (#3017608) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin Somebody should be executed? Where did that come from? I note that in those undeveloped countries where civilisation has not progressed sufficiently, they still murder their citizens rather than keep them out of society's way. As death row in mates in The USA invariably find Jesus during their wait, does that mean all Christians etc etc. Even those who run the local BP garage... Apparently, you can rattle on about all merciful, a love that passeth all understanding, love thy neighbour blah blah blah, but at the same time lick you lips at the thought of a criminal being executed. Dunno about atheist, we seem to fall down at the "moral" part of the phrase... |
|
28 Oct 10 - 08:44 AM (#3017638) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: kendall Was it Rabbi Heliel who, when asked to explain the Bible briefly said, "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do to you. All the rest is commentary." Talk about commentary, there is plenty here. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 10:16 AM (#3017690) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie This thread started with our nautical friend posing a question. I thought it a fair question, objective and straight forward. I suspected his motive, but I am a cynical old sod at the best of times. Has the question been answered? And if so, what was said answer? |
|
28 Oct 10 - 10:40 AM (#3017708) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer Jack the Sailor says this:
Steamin' Willie asks about Jack's original question, which started this thread. Jack's question:
Little Hawk answered the question in the second post - and maybe the discussion should have stopped right there, because again I think that most of us agree. Little Hawk's answer:
1. by following a predetermined set of moral rules (the passive way. Doesn't involve much independent thought) 2. by following the Golden Rule, which is.... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...and also...don't inflict upon others what you would not want inflicted upon you." This means allowing others the same freedom and autonomy and consideration and kindness that you yourself desire. (the active way. Involves much independent thought.) It's pretty simple really. The active way is definitely a more enlightened path, in my opinion. This is the way we all make moral choices, either by following a moral code, or by following more general principles like the Golden Rule. And whether we follow a numbered code or a more general principle, the morality of our actions then depends on the quality of the code or principle that we follow. Can anyone disagree with that? -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 10 - 10:50 AM (#3017714) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: kendall I can't believe that a loving, caring God would give me a good brain and then punish me for using it. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM (#3017750) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Jon Maybe it is our own placement of our "wisdom" that lets us down, Kendall? I really wish I could answer this to sort myself out... .. Whatever, I do say the few mental/drug(including alcohol) got down by it all struggler's I know are (apart from me...) highly intelligent and sensitive people. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM (#3017756) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Mrrzy Freedom of religion should not trump other freedoms, the way it does here in the US. In British courts, belief in the supernatural dpes not trump a child's right to health care; here it does. It also trumps a child's right to an education, if their parents' denying evolution can make the school not teach it. As it can. Or they can opt their kids out of classes that contradict their couter-factual beliefs, rather than requiring the kids to learn the actual facts. That is the harm I fight. Joe, I agree with you, but it doesn't answer the question of how an atheist comes up with their moral code, given the assumption that it takes deity to point out the difference between good and bad. I, of course, challenge that assumption anyway. To me, it is a much more interesting question how a follower of deity, whose dogma preaches something obviously (to most of us) immoral, can come up with their own sense of right and wrong anyway. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM (#3018064) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Stringsinger Back to the original question that Jack posed. "Good and evil" are generally defined by religionists. There is an extreme view of this that is called Manichean. To define "good and evil" successfully, you would have to take it out of a religious context for it to make any sense. You could also use the terms "functional" and "dysfunctional" which removes the religious onus from their meanings. Also "good and evil" must continually be defined and redefined for much of this is in the "eye of the beholder". There is a general societal idea of "good and evil" which has to do with what is workable to maintain a stability in society. This doesn't require any religious belief. Often, this is what some call "common sense". If you violate another by violence or theft, it follows that the same can be applied to you. The original meaning of the Golden Rule predates Christianity and says in historical accuracy, "Don't do to others which you would not like done to you". I think that works for atheists as well as anyone else. (I insist that this concept came before any bible was conceived.) Morality is another problem. This has to be continuously defined as well. It also must be debated rationally. For example, I consider war to be immoral. This debate might last for days but it's still an important one in my opinion. Also, many religions can entertain immoral acts as well as some governments and laws. Again, these must be debated rationally in context. The moral atheist does indeed exist but probably requires definitions and discussions to reveal this. I will conclude by saying that religion and morality are not always compatible. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 06:40 PM (#3018073) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer Mrr, I think Stringsinger gave a pretty good answer. Things are "good" or "evil" for us, according to how they are helpful or harmful to our vision for the way things should be. And I think most of us share a common vision for most things. That's how we have survived as a species. My vision may conflict with your vision in some ways, and that's where we may have problems - but for most people, the (unamplified) Ten Commandments (without the God stuff) and Golden Rule work pretty well. They're basically common sense. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse (or somebody else's), honor your parents, and treat people like you'd like to be treated - can anybody seriously disagree with these? I suppose Cause No Harm might be another way to say it. For most people, it doesn't make a big difference whether they live by an enumerated moral code, or by broader moral principles. One way or another, consciously or not, we choose the way we live according to our vision. Mrr, I know you have some trouble with the God stuff, but I just can't see how it's harmful. We ALL have beliefs that may or may not be true. Like it or not, not one of us is fully "enlightened." And whether there is a God or not, I can't believe we will be punished for what we do or do not believe. It's who we are and how we treat others that makes the difference. When you place so much importance on WHAT people believe, you're talking like the fundamentalists, insisting that we must have proper ideology in order to be "saved." That's nonsense. -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM (#3018088) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Amos I see no reason for religiosity to enter into the question of what is good or evil. People strive for survival, and measure goodness to the degree that it seems to strengthen the future existence of the things they consider are part of them--selves, families, societies, and species, belongings, etc. Because of this common trait, most folks look on productive, cnstructive acts as more good, and destructive ones as more evil, depending on context. No religion involved, but a perfectly good working definition. Why go off-shore? A |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM (#3018093) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Jeri Joe, you know the phrase "Don't make me go all Old Testament on your ass?" There's stuff in there that goes against stuff in other places. The bits about for what causes you should stone somebody to death goes against the "Thou shalt not kill" thing, except I think the literal translation of that is more like "Thou shalt not murder." (Italics are mine.) I said this before, but whatthehell. As someone who doesn't believe in a deity, I think all of the religious teachings, 10 commandments and all, came from people. There were reasons for them at the time, and they still mostly make sense. It isn't the slightest bit ironic that I consider them when evaluating right and wrong. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM (#3018113) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Ed T "Freedom of religion should not trump other freedoms" Is this not more of a political question, rather than a religious one? My observation is that different countries have sorted that out differently, stimulated by changes in their societies. I suspect that anticipation of change would "wake the Genie" within the extreme end of various interest groups on either side on this type of issue. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 08:56 PM (#3018153) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer I really want something to trump the so-called "right" of Americans to walk around with guns in their hands (or wherever), which some people defend with religious fervor (and with reference to religion). The recent Supreme Court decision on guns really bothers me, as does the decision to allow guns in national parks. Now, THAT is against my moral code. -Joe- |
|
28 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM (#3018172) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Donuel To be a normal moral sthiest today is a bit like being Jesus in a village of a few good people living in a small nation of mostly barbarians. I bet you have felt like "why me," why do I seem to be the most moral person amidst all these people who brag about their religiosity while they behave immorally in the basic tenents of life. IF the 10 commandments were an SAT I suppose I got an 800 (after marriage). I never killed, never cheated on my wife never blah blah blah. I suppose I could have honored my parents more but that is scored subjectively like an essay. I do not open carry. The feeling one gets from open carry is somthing hard to describe. It fills a hole their soul. IT grants a feeling of importence with no deserved respect. It is like Cocaine. The feeling at first is like you have just invented something spectacular and powerful only to feel later there was nothing made nothing great. Local laws now allow open carry in bars specificly. Whats the worst that could happen there? Most of the worst shootings are in schools and on the street. What can we do to "upstage the rightoious right"? It has been oratory, demonstrations, dress, art, music, movies and literature. IF there are more or better vehicles for peace than that I would try it. on a day to day basis it is true one act of kindness gets passed down. Even if its only a compliment. |
|
28 Oct 10 - 10:38 PM (#3018205) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Donuel The last but most powerful means of becoming an instrument for moral athiest peace is Martyrdom. Worldwide recognition is essential to be poised as a symbol and a person. Then and only then does martyrdom propel all your efforts far into the future where your own toiling hands can not go. MLK had a history with the church he could use suprerely well. For an athiest to have such a path would probably require a Church of Moralism as well as other humanist organizations for support. hmm the church of moralism could be the ultimate ecumenical church of all. |
|
29 Oct 10 - 01:34 AM (#3018244) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Joe: "The recent Supreme Court decision on guns really bothers me, as does the decision to allow guns in national parks. Now, THAT is against my moral code." Then don't carry one, and the decision becomes meaningless! BTW, Joe, I liked your post: Date: 28 Oct 10 - 10:40 AM!...Especially Little Hawk's: "Most morally strong people decide what is right or wrong one of two ways: 1. by following a predetermined set of moral rules (the passive way. Doesn't involve much independent thought) 2. by following the Golden Rule, which is.... "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...and also...don't inflict upon others what you would not want inflicted upon you." This means allowing others the same freedom and autonomy and consideration and kindness that you yourself desire. (the active way. Involves much independent thought.) It's pretty simple really. The active way is definitely a more enlightened path, in my opinion." In other words, as stated, live within a strong moral code WITHIN YOU, and the rest is of none effect! (Maybe someday our 'leaders' will follow that!..They sure don't represent that, or us!) GfS |
|
29 Oct 10 - 01:44 AM (#3018246) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Joe Offer Sanity, I had guns pointed at me once, and I never want that to happen again. Another man's "god-given right" to carry a gun can profoundly interfere with my right to life and limb. I think my right trumps theirs. -Joe- |
|
29 Oct 10 - 02:14 AM (#3018257) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Joe Offer: "I think my right trumps theirs." Well, at least it puts you on equal footing. Get one, too, and be responsible, which I trust you would be. GfS |
|
29 Oct 10 - 06:26 AM (#3018347) Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist? From: Steve Shaw "*from* Sanity." Right... |