The atheist and morality

[Dogdoctor]

Ultimately I believe the best and only way to promote atheism(and/or)lack-of-theism is the promotion of critical thinking and thought. Even if the majority of people utilize critical thought, but hold onto some religious belief, then isn't the world much better off already (someone like Hal). You have stated that you have little problem with religion, then would this remove what problem with it you do have?

Unfortunately I do believe that social and political leaders do use religion, or religious like mind games to gather and control power. This has been the most effective (fittest) social structure so far (does not mean it is the best). Ultimately we need a fitter society that does not utilize religion. How do we get there is the question.

I think you might be right.

 

[delphi_ote]

However you might wonder sometimes as I do why aren't there a lot of scientific experts on these boards?

On the JREF? Are you kidding?! The only forum I've participated in that I would think has a higher proportion of experts and working scientists is PandasThumb.

 

[Dogdoctor]

On the JREF? Are you kidding?! The only forum I've participated in that I would think has a higher proportion of experts and working scientists is PandasThumb.

Perhaps I am used to discussion groups with a lot more professionals than these boards or perhaps there are scientists but they lurk or don't post much. It could be they post on the politics forum since I don't read that much. I know I am used to far less hostile inflammatory posts in discussions on the email lists and discussion groups I am on with professional scientists. However I grew up with some of the foulest mouthed people around so I am used to swearing. And I see the total lack of logic involved in swearing and posting other inflammatory stuff.

 

[delphi_ote]

Perhaps I am used to discussion groups with a lot more professionals than these boards or perhaps there are scientists but they lurk or don't post much. It could be they post on the politics forum since I don't read that much. I know I am used to far less hostile inflammatory posts in discussions on the email lists and discussion groups I am on with professional scientists. However I grew up with some of the foulest mouthed people around so I am used to swearing. And I see the total lack of logic involved in swearing and posting other inflammatory stuff.

I don't think you should be surprised that JREF is less professional than professional e-mail lists and discussion groups. It's a wide open forum. Pick another wide open forum at random and start reading. I bet you'll pine for the JREF.

 

[Errata]

I still say those darn red-haired people need to speak up and explain themselves. Whats up, gingers? How can you possibly justify your lack of a consensus on a system of red-haired morality?

 

[The Painter]

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Sounds good.

Does any of this sound familiar? Karl Marx gave atheists a bad name. He ruined it for the rest of us.

 

[CrossHair]

Sounds good.

Does any of this sound familiar? Karl Marx gave atheists a bad name. He ruined it for the rest of us.

Atheism was only a part of his ideas which ultimately led to the communist states. The USSR and many other communist states were found to be not as fit societies, which was unrelated to them being atheistic. Unfortunately atheism did suffer due to the association.

Communist China is interresting in how they have been evolving their society to compete in the world (I do not mean to imply that they are wonderful). People hardly use the term 'communist' with China anymore. Another 'totalitarian' word probably suits them better now?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What do you get from bashing religion?

Entertainment.

We can debate about the definition of atheism. agnosticism is no firm belief about god, atheism is the belief that there is no god(s).

You can debate your definition how you want. However, atheism is a lack of BELIEF in a god. Agnosticism is the position that the existence of gods cannot be known. Agnosticism doesn't answer the question "do you believe in a god?" There are two positions of BELIEF when it comes to gods, atheism and theism, a 1 or a 0.

Have you been religious? Do you know people who were and gave it up? If you are raised an atheist does that mean you will be an atheist. You are wrong.

Yes, I was raised religious. Yes, I am atheist. However, MOST people carry on the religions that they were conditioned to believe. This is a fact.

I am opening dialog about morality so that atheists will learn about it and not treat it as something in the domain of religious people.

Yea, because we all know that atheists only think of morality in religious terms....

Atheism does have a focal point and that is the belief that there is no god.

No, atheism is a lack of belief. Beyond that, there is nothing else to atheism.

If atheists had a lack of belief then they would not be so likely to make a big deal out of religion since they have no firm belief that there isn't a god, they just suspend belief in god without believing there is no god.

That is simply ridiculous. There are atheists that firmly state that there are no gods, however other atheists simply don't believe in any gods. Some make a big deal out of religion, others don't even worry about religion. Again, atheists carry many positions on all issues because atheism is a state of being, not a belief system or philosophical position.

There are a cross section of beliefs within atheists as there would be in any group of people, much of which we would agree on due to the previous influences of society upon our minds. You can point out the differences all you want, it means little.

Do you have ANY statistics to draw your beliefs about what atheists are or do?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Do you have ANY statistics to draw your beliefs about what atheists are or do?

I don't. I am just assuming they are like everyone else only they don't believe in god or believe there is no god. They in theory have similar values and morals to others raised in the same areas. I have read what other atheist philosophers say about it and that is what they say. Other than that I look at the blind defense of status quo I have seen here on this board and make other assumptions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am just assuming they are like everyone else only they don't believe in god or believe there is no god.

BINGO!! Now, if you want to see groups of atheists that have bonded together for common goals, you can google for atheist organizations. However, I doubt that a majority of atheists belong to such groups.

 

[Roboramma]

Dogdoctor, it seems to me that you're just whining about how much atheists whine.

If it annoys you when we whine about theists, why is it you feel the need to whine about us?

 

[delphi_ote]

Other than that I look at the blind defense of status quo I have seen here on this board and make other assumptions.

What are you talking about here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From my previous reply in the skepchick forum:

It's one of my pet peeves that people belive the false premise morals are derived from religious beliefs. If we are only moral because we believe in God then:

Why don't chimpanzees and other primates all go on murder sprees? A lifetime of observations of chimpanzees in Gombe made by Jane Goodall most certainly describe a chimpanzee society with "moral" behavior as it is defined in human society. Likewise all animals which live in social groups behave in ways we would consider moral, with their share of 'good' and 'bad' individuals as well.

Whether you can explain to someone's satisfaction or not why group behavior is "moral", for the most part the evidence that it is moral is clearly there. Group behavior evolved as selection pressures provided a survival benefit to the group members. Some animals hunt alone and others hunt in groups, some survive alone by hiding or swift escape, while others survive with group defenses of various kinds. Natural selection results in any number of survival strategies being adopted. One such group of strategies resulted in primate behavior also called "moral" behavior.

The reason people believe murder is wrong is that we evolved in groups where having other members around was much more beneficial than not having them.

OTOH, why would a belief in God provide "morals" to a social group? This is the thing that is most annoying to me. Explain to me how religion provides any kind of moral framework? If we went by some people's beliefs we might already be in that global holy war Bush and Bin Laden are striving for.

Are we supposed to be modeling God's behavior? :

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible
Injustice in the Bible
Intolerance in the Bible
Biblical family values I sure wouldn't want to see in my family

Are we supposed to behave so we go to heaven? Why? All you have to do is ask for forgiveness after the fact.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Dogdoctor, it seems to me that you're just whining about how much atheists whine.

If it annoys you when we whine about theists, why is it you feel the need to whine about us?

True , You caught me. However rather than pointlessly whining about religious people to a bunch of mostly non religous skeptics, I am complaining directly to the source of my whine and cheese.

 

[Dogdoctor]

What are you talking about here?

Well I am trying to point out that atheists most likely can come to a consensus on morality and I am met with extreme resistance to the idea just because it has always been that way.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well I am trying to point out that atheists most likely can come to a consensus on morality and I am met with extreme resistance to the idea just because it has always been that way.

I wouldn't say that is an accurate characterization of your opposition. That said, how do you you think this concensus might come to be?

 

[Rasmus]

Well I am trying to point out that atheists most likely can come to a consensus on morality and I am met with extreme resistance to the idea just because it has always been that way.

You must be reading a different thread.

Care to point out individual instances of this happening?

Hint: Posts where people say that they see no need for a consensus on a comprehensive moral code don't count.

Speaking of which: why should anyone be interested in a common moral code that goes beyond a few basic ground rules?

 

[Errata]

Dogdoctor, I think you and Iamme should team up and solve all the world's problems. Iamme is the guy who thinks he can get everyone in the world to agree on whether God exists or not, and you're the guy who thinks everyone can get together and agree on a system of morality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well I am trying to point out that atheists most likely can come to a consensus on morality..

This is true, and many atheists feel that a secular system should be in place to enforce the most basic tenets of morality. I call this system "the law". There is no need to come up with a system of morality called "atheist morality".

 

[BPScooter]

Hey folks, I tried to read everything but crapped out about 20 posts ago, it is a danged interesting thread. Just 2 short things from me:

Re: redheads. Mrs. Scooter is redhaired daughter of redhaired mother that went to Catholic school taught by a redhaired nun (Irish, with the accent and everything) who had traveled as a young redhaired nun to someplace in South America. She told the story that redhaired young women in that region were immediately seen as prostitutes. Gives you a new perspective on why nuns cover their heads and travel in twos. So there is an ancient sisterhood of redhaired women who stand up for each other.

2: Here is a good book that I liked a lot--"The Problem of the Soul" by Owen Flanagan. He's a philosophy professor at Duke, I think, and it's a worthy read. I would be interested to know if anyone here has read that, or knows him.