• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The atheist and morality

skeptigirl said:
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? ...
Click to expand...
This thread is well over 100 posts now, but I believe what has been determined is that to have an established 'moral' code requires a grand "authority" that everyone can agree is 'the boss' to set the code. It also seems to be a common trait (not absolute) that many people feel comfortable if the rules are written down someplace. Makes them feel 'secure'. Atheist certainly break this mold in the theist world view.
 
CrossHair said:
This thread is well over 100 posts now, but I believe what has been determined is that to have an established 'moral' code requires a grand "authority" that everyone can agree is 'the boss' to set the code. It also seems to be a common trait (not absolute) that many people feel comfortable if the rules are written down someplace. Makes them feel 'secure'. Atheist certainly break this mold in the theist world view.
Click to expand...
Nonsense (re the grand authority and the written code). Sounds to me like rationalization for the claim morals come from religion. If it were true then where is this written code? As far as I can see everyone's version differs. Death penalty and abortion, homosexuality and the Golden Rule, divorce or no divorce, where are these rules?

It never ceases to amaze me what Christians believe the Bible says Jesus supposedly said or God says or both. The stuff ain't in there or it's vague, or it's directly contradicted in the Bible as well.

So if this grand written code is a myth, the idea it is behind morality is a myth as well.
 
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics.
(Albert Einstein)
 
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.
Click to expand...
The only fact - if any exists on this issue - is that people may trust in the importance of religious concepts, or because someone they admire, care about, or are attracted to advocates it, but the vast majority of people, especially Americans, practice rational self-interest. The internal logic of consumerism is materialism, and materialism is in line with the belief in no objective form of purpose and meaning or human destiny (other than what humans create for themselves) - it exalts the conditional as well as desirable things, and rewards those who successfully create more superficial that make an otherwise meaningless existence meaningful. If you hold any belief, it is probably that atheists/materialists are in the minority - they aren't. Just look under the surface at their priorities. I hate to quote M-chael M-ore, but what it [sic] said was apt: "We live in fictitious times.."

Few people these days are concerned with the well-being of other people, fewer go out and try to uphold and defend public personal and moral responsibility. Both Richard Dawkins or Randi could pass as spiritual men - both, deep down believe in human dignity or feel that it matters - and their interest in the greater public good affirms it.
 
SirPhilip said:
If you hold any belief, it is probably that atheists/materialists are in the minority - they aren't. Just look under the surface at their priorities. I hate to quote M-chael M-ore, but what it [sic] said was apt: "We live in fictitious times.."
Click to expand...
You could be right here. This would help to explain why the survey that shows atheist as 'the most distrusted minority' seems really out-of-whack.
I suspect it just isn't accurate and that a shift towards atheism may be easier than we suppose.

SirPhilip said:
Few people these days are concerned with the well-being of other people, fewer go out and try to uphold and defend public personal and moral responsibility.
Click to expand...
My theory on this is that this is because people are much more empowered thus independent than ever before. People used to have to have much more personal interaction on a daily basis and rely on others far more. People were more dependent on each other and consequently favours were returned and everyone more socialy helpful. In today's world everyone can be more of an 'island' yet accomplish more (for themselves).
 
thaiboxerken said:
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".
Click to expand...

Thats a good point. The law is a first order approximation at people coming to a consensus on secular morality. I would say though, that even for atheists, morality goes beyond what is legal.

There are things that are legal, and I believe should remain legal, that are nevertheless immoral (in my opinion, as an atheist). For example, lying to someone who trusts you. I think in many cases such lying can be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal, because I don't believe the law should be about enforcing thought crimes. Of course certain lies are illegal (perjury, fraud, slander, filing a false police report, etc), but there are many immoral lies that should be legal.

There are also situations in which breaking laws would not be considered immoral by most people, but it would still be illegal. But we still have to enforce and respect the law, because we can't write in a bunch of ambiguous exceptions and loopholes to try to catch every case.

So in my opinion, while the law is a very rough approximation of secular morality, it is not the same as a system of morality, even for atheists.
 
Errata said:
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.
Click to expand...
The majority of people living within a community already agree on morality to a great extent so it's not like there is that much to do unless you are those immoral atheists the religious fundies were talking about. I was thinking I could get atheists to become more interested in moral theory, but I am convinced it is pointless with some of the atheists on this board. Still I know some will hear me and think about it so I am happy and don't need Iammes help.
 
CrossHair said:
You could be right here. This would help to explain why the survey that shows atheist as 'the most distrusted minority' seems really out-of-whack.
I suspect it just isn't accurate and that a shift towards atheism may be easier than we suppose.
Click to expand...
The repelling effect of "atheist" is not so much figurative as it is natural; the universal acknowledgement of an omnipotent, ominescient, and omnipresent "something" is as much a part of balance in human existence as hunger, intelligence, and sexual activity are. It's nature's idea of accomodating intelligent life with an ultimate goal.

My theory on this is that this is because people are much more empowered thus independent than ever before. People used to have to have much more personal interaction on a daily basis and rely on others far more. People were more dependent on each other and consequently favours were returned and everyone more socialy helpful. In today's world everyone can be more of an 'island' yet accomplish more (for themselves).
Click to expand...
This is why a universal goal that encompasses morality "for the sake of it" is important to teach in schools. Not everyone - in fact very few people, are altruistic for the sake of it, especially when clearly there are no real rules or stop signs on the road of life.
 
J. Robert Openheimer: Ethical Culture Society

OK, I bought a biography of J. Robert Openheimer the other day. Somehow I just couldn't resist it sitting there on the book store shelf. Boy, does it make you feel humble... Anyway, I am starting into it and I find that, as a child, J. Robert was educated by the Ethical Culture Society. Apparently they are still around. Here is their Belief:

"What We Believe

Ethical Culture is a Humanist and Ethical movement inspired by the ideal that the supreme aim of our lives is to create a more humane society.

We stand for separation of church and state. We believe acting morally does not require belief in a god. We place our faith in the demonstrated capacity of people to do wonderful things. We believe in the worth and dignity of all living beings."

Anyone have more information on this?
 
SirPhilip said:
The repelling effect of "atheist" is not so much figurative as it is natural; the universal acknowledgement of an omnipotent, ominescient, and omnipresent "something" is as much a part of balance in human existence as hunger, intelligence, and sexual activity are. It's nature's idea of accomodating intelligent life with an ultimate goal...
"Universal"? Not if this board is any indication.
This is nonsense and is tantamount to positing a "god instinct".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks to all for some interesting posts.

I am already planning a trip to expand my library with some of the good book recommendations.


Scottie
 
Noodly Appendage Insinct..

"Universal"? Not if this board is any indication.
This is nonsense and is tantamount to positing a "god instinct".
Click to expand...
Nah, you're just in denial like Santa's evil twin pictured at the top of this site. You know, being a hedonist or a romantic, having your priorities set very low, or just enjoying a sustainable cocaine habit - all can obscure one's undefiled true nature. What's this "God instinct" anyway, does it attempt to explain why women instinctively invoke Him during intercourse as well as the universal tendency to demand that he damn things when the other orifice is penetrated.
 
Women do not instinctively invoke gods during intercourse. If they never head of such a thing, they would invoke something else. My wife is an atheist and she invokes my name during sex and never any gods. There is no such thing as a god, now STFU.
 
Errata said:
Thats a good point. The law is a first order approximation at people coming to a consensus on secular morality. I would say though, that even for atheists, morality goes beyond what is legal.

There are things that are legal, and I believe should remain legal, that are nevertheless immoral (in my opinion, as an atheist). For example, lying to someone who trusts you. I think in many cases such lying can be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal, because I don't believe the law should be about enforcing thought crimes. Of course certain lies are illegal (perjury, fraud, slander, filing a false police report, etc), but there are many immoral lies that should be legal.

There are also situations in which breaking laws would not be considered immoral by most people, but it would still be illegal. But we still have to enforce and respect the law, because we can't write in a bunch of ambiguous exceptions and loopholes to try to catch every case.

So in my opinion, while the law is a very rough approximation of secular morality, it is not the same as a system of morality, even for atheists.
Click to expand...

Pardon me for not following this entire thread, and please correct me if I get far off track.

I think if you're going to talk about the morality of the law, you have to consider the political process of making the law. Not all law is about morality. Some laws are about how much risk a society is willing to accept. This can create a patchwork of restrictions which on the outside could seem illogical, but from the inside it is an accepted political compromise.

This is particularly evident in drug laws. Example: A and B are both drugs that create social problems. Morally speaking, they are the same, but A is legal and B is not. Why? A causes measurable social problems, but we allow it in the interest of personal freedom, but if B is the same, we should also allow it in the interest of personal freedom. But society has decided that it is willing to cope with the social problems created by A, but they are unwilling to deal with the social problems of A+B. To outlaw both A and B would be too restrictive of personal freedom, so society makes a compromise, and B is out.

So the law isn't so much a morality, but the result of moral considerations and political compromise. Also, observance of the law is compulsory, while I think a morality must be thought out and accepted by the individual.

An atheist morality, though, could be lined out and generally agreed upon-- though it is no more possible to make it unversal than it is for religious morality to be universal. The atheist morality needs to: 1) be logically sound, 2) cover the basic foundation of the morality, so we can be free to compromise and reach political agreements on the higher points, and 3) of course, acceptance must be voluntary. Acceptance may be highly advantageous, but you can't force a person to accept a logical argument if he hasn't been convinced.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Women do not instinctively invoke gods during intercourse. If they never head of such a thing, they would invoke something else. My wife is an atheist and she invokes my name during sex and never any gods.
Click to expand...

Dude, you walked right up to the punchline but failed to deliver.
 
God & Using Your Noodle

Women do not instinctively invoke gods during intercourse.
Click to expand...
Wrong, they just don't with the likes of you. Next time try to hit the g(od)-spot, that is, if you can, you absolute disgrace.

If they never head of such a thing, they would invoke something else.
Click to expand...
[Meanwhile, in universe 555^21030312398012372154751023958123095 A couple is engaged in lovemaking, a half hour has passed, with release only a few moments away. Let's watch...]

Female: "Ooh...oooh..(!)...ooooooooh, oh my flying spagetti monster....oh...flying..spagetti...monster.."
Male: "Will you please cut that out, now I can't get that image out of my head..."
Woman: "Fine, sorry for invoking His noodly appendage..."
Male: "That isn't the only noodly appendage you invoked, you stup[beep] b[beep].."
My wife is an atheist and she invokes my name during sex and never any gods. There is no such thing as a god, now STFU.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the laugh Ken. I don't know about you, but I find the idea amusing of an atheist female consciously trying to avoid saying "God" during lovemaking.

PS: Who said the almighty hung out in spaceland, I was just saying that the basic concept of God is the logical conclusion to human ambition, affirmed in everything from mythology to comic books to cheap cartoons showing how the Japanese secretly hope to compensate for their collective penis size like in the example you have as your avatar.

PPS: Ew, you knocked boots with an atheist/rational thinker/intellectual?
 
My wife doesn't consciously try to avoid saying "god" during sex, she just doesn't. It never enters her mind. There are people that absolutely don't believe in gods and never invoke them at ANY time. Those people are called atheists. Now, stfu, you tard.

Your entire premise seems to be one of "everyone believes in a god, whether they admit it or not." It's insulting, wrong and just plain stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom