Commandments for Atheists?

[Slowvehicle]

Thanks for your response, I really do appreciate it. I'm not intending to denigrate, sorry you read it that way, I'm just reacting to the tone of your answers. It really comes off as sort of sad, especially your last sentence.

But, of course, you do not intend to denigrate...

BTW, you are reacting to your perception of the "tone" of my answers. I guess that's enough, for you.

Not really helpful when one is debating a believer who is all happy and cheerful due to his 'personal connection to Christ'.

Does your happythetical believer acknowledge that others come to different conclusions in re what "christ" expects? Wonder why the son o' 'god' can't seem to enforce more uniformity, if it is supposed to be an absolute source of "morality".

Xians have used the "teachings" of "christ" to (among other things) subjugate women, keep slaves, commit genocide, and get rich at the expense of others--all "moral" behaviours, I'm sure.

When you use words like 'Gestalt'¹ ; 'experience' etc (I'll ignore pragmatic, since if you were pragmatic you would go along with the crowd in my hypothetical²) it sounds to me like you are reluctantly³ acknowledging that there is no empirical basis for that which is right and wrong⁴. That is your prerogative, I just find it unsatisfying⁵. Could just be a difference in our backgrounds...

1. The correct term to use when one is referring to a composite of multiple factors, no one of which is individually sufficient, but, when taken together, have significance.

2. Utter nonsense. Could it be that you do not know the term? I suggest a bit of self-education...

3. Not "reluctantly admitting". Pointing out that it is in no way as simple as just doing what 'god' says to do; or what 'god' is said to say to do; or what someone else says 'god' is said to say to do. See the post about church-shopping.

4. If there were, in fact, an empirical basis for what is "right", then different societies would not differ so in their judgments of "right" behaviour, nor would a society change its mind about what is "right".
To say nothing about what is "moral" (not the same thing), nor what is "ethical" (again, not the same as either of the above).

5. Learn to live with disappointment.

 

[angrysoba]

Now, you say you do not eat meat.

No. I do not "say" I don't eat meat. I "say" I am a vegetarian.

I do not, in fact, eat meat.

I do not eat meat. I do not think those who do "immoral".

Just for reference, I am talking about this.

 

[angrysoba]

Is there anything in your philosophy that is "moral", but not "right"?

I can't answer that until I understand the distinction you are making between the two terms. It seems to me you think it is an important distinction but have been very Delphic regarding what the distinction is.

It is a choice I make. I choose not to eat meat, particularly the meat of animals raised in CAFOs. I do, in fact, make exceptions, for reasons of my own. I would not presume to tell you that it is "wrong", to eat meat; but I choose not to.

Notice that I do not need a 'god' to tell me not to do something I chose not to do.

Why not tell me what these reasons are? I would be happy to hear what they are.

It seems to me that you made a moral decision at some point. Perhaps it was one that you took from somebody else or perhaps something about the society you grew up in. Certainly these are the factors you think are important in other people getting their ideas about morality, although you seem to make an exception for yourself, so I would be very grateful if you could impart your wisdom for the edification of the rest of us.

And, yes, I took it as a given that you need no god to tell you what to do. Neither do the rest of us or we wouldn't be atheists would we?

 

[stanfr]

If there were, in fact, an empirical basis for what is "right", then different societies would not differ so in their judgments of "right" behaviour, nor would a society change its mind about what is "right".
To say nothing about what is "moral" (not the same thing), nor what is "ethical" (again, not the same as either of the above).

Ridiculous. That is like saying that because there are different arguments/theories for some scientific principle, there is no empirical basis for that principle. Utter nonsense. You are pre-supposing that morality has no scientific basis--that's evasive, and just your unsupported opinion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is it "immoral" to violate the speed limit? Is it "right"?

A great question. A whole thread could be wrapped around it
The answer of course, is that your speed is either illegal or legal. Whatever you might say about right vs moral (which like Angry I believe are synonymous) of course legality is seperate from morality. But it does represent a communal sense of values, so that's where it could get tricky. The believer, having recourse to the 'bible' or whatever, probably wouldn't hesitate in their response, since the ancient texts don't really get into speeding. But is there a right and wrong of proper driving etiquette? If you are driving 80 in a 60 zone along a lonesome stretch of straight desert in daylight, maybe no worries (although you are more likely to negligently bump off some poor unsuspecting jackrabbit...) But when driving through a street being crossed by numerous old ladies, maybe it would be more moral (and right ) to slow down well below the advertised speed limit.

I wonder why you chose not to answer the question...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Just for reference, I am talking about this.

Roll your eyes all you choose.

Despite your implication, I do not "say" I don't eat meat.

I "say" I am a vegetarian.

I do not, in fact, eat meat.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I can't answer that until I understand the distinction you are making between the two terms. It seems to me you think it is an important distinction but have been very Delphic regarding what the distinction is.

Given that you make free to ignore any distinctions I offer, I chose to ask you if you, personally, make a distinction.

You may, of course, continue to choose not to answer.

Why not tell me what these reasons are? I would be happy to hear what they are.

Did you miss the part about CAOFs? If you want to argue vegan/ovo-lacto vegetarian more deeply than that, start a thread for it.

It seems to me that you made a moral decision at some point.

...you are, of course, welcome to your seeming. I would point out that to you, it "seems" that I "say" I do not eat meat; reality notwithstanding.

Perhaps it was one that you took from somebody else or perhaps something about the society you grew up in. Certainly these are the factors you think are important in other people getting their ideas about morality, although you seem to make an exception for yourself, so I would be very grateful if you could impart your wisdom for the edification of the rest of us.

Oooh! snarky...

I guess that'll show me, eh?

And, yes, I took it as a given that you need no god to tell you what to do. Neither do the rest of us or we wouldn't be atheists would we?

I wonder what you think you mean by "we".

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Ridiculous. That is like saying that because there are different arguments/theories for some scientific principle, there is no empirical basis for that principle. Utter nonsense. You are pre-supposing that morality has no scientific basis--that's evasive, and just your unsupported opinion.

Morality does not have a scientific basis, it is an emergent property of how we function as biological beings. It is open to scientific inquiry though, but that does not mean we can pinpoint some kind of optimal scientific morality. You are looking to replace one absolute (God told me to) with another (Science told me to). A differently colored infinite stack of turtles isn't going to provide a better explanation.
Morality is a kind of behavior, and what constitutes the 'optimal' kind of behavior depends on your goals and on your environment. Sometimes option A will help you reach goal 1, in other cases option B is better. But what if two groups exist at the same time, one using A, one using B? Or what if there's another group, striving for goal number 2, sometimes helping group A, sometimes group B, but with a goal that's alien to either? How could you choose what goal and what method is 'better', without siding with one group and invalidating your experiment?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Morality does not have a scientific basis, it is an emergent property of how we function as biological beings. It is open to scientific inquiry though, but that does not mean we can pinpoint some kind of optimal scientific morality. You are looking to replace one absolute (God told me to) with another (Science told me to). A differently colored infinite stack of turtles isn't going to provide a better explanation.Morality is a kind of behavior, and what constitutes the 'optimal' kind of behavior depends on your goals and on your environment. Sometimes option A will help you reach goal 1, in other cases option B is better. But what if two groups exist at the same time, one using A, one using B? Or what if there's another group, striving for goal number 2, sometimes helping group A, sometimes group B, but with a goal that's alien to either? How could you choose what goal and what method is 'better', without siding with one group and invalidating your experiment?

Well said, and sig-worthy.

May I?

 

[Belz...]

Less a "commandment" than a "definition", no?

Well if you want to be pedantic, the thread doesn't make any sense anyway.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Religion/kill_zps11ded851.jpg[/qimg]

Not my mom. She answered that question by telling me that yes, she would kill me if God asked her to, because she knew he would stop her at the last moment. What a rude awakening that would have been.

 

[Belz...]

Says who? If there is no consensus and people disagree about whether or not certain people can be kept as slaves or whether gay marriage should be allowed then is right and wrong determined by a vote?

Yes. Do you believe there is an objectively morality ?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well said, and sig-worthy.

May I?

Thank you, and certainly, be my guest

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We are not at war with Oceania. We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Except for months with no R.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I do not, in fact, eat meat.

No wonder your saw doesn't work.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No wonder your saw doesn't work.

Hey, now...

 

[Frozenwolf150]

For atheists, no. For secular humanists, yes. There's a bit of a difference.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't really see the need for any of these "commandments". Just out of interest, what moral questions does the Golden Rule leave unresolved? It seems pretty simple to me.

Dave

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Ridiculous. That is like saying that because there are different arguments/theories for some scientific principle, there is no empirical basis for that principle. Utter nonsense. You are pre-supposing that morality has no scientific basis--that's evasive, and just your unsupported opinion.

In short - science it in part based on observation, so please tell us, what right and wrong look like? You know color, shape/form and so on, so we know what to look for.

 

[Brian-M]

Just out of interest, what moral questions does the Golden Rule leave unresolved? It seems pretty simple to me.

Yes, it's pretty simple, which is why so many philosophers and religious figures were teaching it long before the Bible was written.

And it's a pretty good rule, with only a few minor flaws.

First of all, it provides no explicit instructions on what type of behaviour is right and wrong. Yes, it can be used to determine what type of behaviour right or wrong, but people have to think it through.

Very few people are likely to take the mental effort to think about how they'd feel if the situations were reversed with every action they take, and so people are less likely to base their behaviour on this rule than they would be with a simple set of explicit instructions.

Second, it assumes that other people would want you to act how you would want them to act if the situations are reversed. This isn't always true.

For example, if you see someone attempting to deliberately set a forest on fire, and you apply the golden rule... you'd conclude that if you were intent on starting a forest fire you wouldn't want anyone to stop you from doing it, and so according to the golden rule you should just let them do it.

Third, a problem with the directive versions of the Golden Rule, such as the Biblical "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or the Egyptian version from around 1800 BC "Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you" is that some of the things you'd want done to you are things you wouldn't want to do to others.

For example, if you'd like everyone to give you gifts of lots of money, then according to the Golden Rule you should give gifts of lots of money to everybody.