Why Are Atheists Moral

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



DigiMark007
This isn't intended as an open question (though I encourage discussion) but rather a comprehensive analysis of the myths, facts, and reasoning behind atheist morality. It is one of the least understood aspects of atheism by theists, and any atheist has doubtless heard numerous variations on the question, "Well, where do you get your morals from?" from an incredulous and confused friend or family member.

My point isn't to promote atheism, nor to denigrate other philosophies, but simply to shed some light on this perpetually pertinent religious topic.

Various studies and books are cited as needed, and I'd also like to credit Michael Shermer's "Do You Believe In God?" (Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2) essay for compiling many of the statistics contained in the first section.

Testing Morals

Perhaps the biggest myth concerning atheism is that morality becomes an "anything goes" attitude without a god-figure to keep a person in check. For example, a July 1995 poll of 1,007 adults published in George Barna's 1996 Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators found that 60% of Americans believe atheism has a generally negative influence on society. But as it turns out, this hypothesis is testable, and has been tested by numerous credible sources.

- a 1934 study by Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty.
- In 1950 a survey of thousands was conducted by Murray Ross, and found that those who considered themselves agnostics or atheists were more likely to express willingness to aid the poor than those who considred themselves deeply religious.
- A 1969 report (Hirschi and Stark) that analyzed a multitude of crime and cultural data found no significant different in the likelihood of committing crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
- A 1975 report (Smith, Wheeler, & Diener) reported no difference in religious/non-religious college-age students when measuring how likely they were to cheat on tests.
- A similar report from 1962 (Middleton & Putney) reports a noticeable increase in cheating among religious students.
- David Wulff's 1991 novel Psychology of Religion compiles dozens of studies to this affect and finds a positive correlation between "religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on" with "ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks" (219-220).

To my knowledge, none of the researchers cited are atheists. All are researchable for those who wish to see the exact methods and results. It does not prove that atheism or spirituality makes one more moral than the other, but it shows irrefutable evidence that not only that atheism can be moral, but most atheists are moral. But the data is clear: not only does religion not ensure a heightened morality over non-religion, but it is statistically correlated with higher occurrences of immorality.

Why is the data skewed slightly in favor of atheists then? Analysis of the results may vary, but my personal take is that religion in an "in group." In early civilization, the in group was the tribe. Later on, countries, states, and various social groups replaced community allegiances in developed countries. It creates an us/them mentality, and teaches doctrines that say "this is right" where the implication is that "others are wrong." Atheism has similar views, and an atheist may think "I think this is right, which makes others wrong" but there are no atheist churches or, indeed, atheist gatherings (not to mention the low percentage of atheists to begin with). There is less of a distinction between "us" and "them" which leads to a greater acceptance of others. And with no prescribed moral laws that target various aspects of society (unwed sex, homosexuality, other gods, etc.) there is no ingrained negativity in a person based upon their beliefs in an atheist system.

This is but one interpretation only, but even sans an interpretation the data provides ample evidence to "bust" the myth, as they say.


The Argument From Historical Figures

The Institute for Creation Research's museum in Santee, California has a wall dedicated to unsavory figures who were either evolutionists or atheists. Among them: Hitler, Stalin, Issac Asimov. The implication is obvious: that atheism leads to wars, genocide, and all forms of evil (and science fiction novels, apparently roll eyes (sarcastic) ).

Hopefully we can see the flaws in this line of thinking, but it is still a popular argument.

For one, case studies don't make a statistical trend. It's rationally invalid to hold a single person, or even small group, as indicative of an entire group of people, many of whom have vast differences in cultural and philosophical background from the examples put forth.

Second, a list of "good" atheists, philanthropists and missionaries for example, would be equally as invalid, but would hold the exact same weight as such an argument.

A common retaliatory argument is to list religious historical figures who committed atrocities (amusingly, Hitler can controversially be added to that list as well due to his frequent citation of Scripture to justify his actions). It falls prey to they same flawed statistical logic, but the common response is that "Ok, but they weren't actually following the religion. It was a perversion of religion into something totally foreign. The true {insert religion} is peaceful and loving." So it wasn't because of their religion that they did evil, it was because they were evil that they did evil. Fair enough, if that is your argument, but be prepared to concede the same point to atheism. What makes us so sure that Hitler did what he did because he was atheist? Nothing, of course, as atheists will nigh-universally condemn his actions as quickly and vehemently as any theist.


....

DigiMark007

DigiMark007
My apologies, as usual, for the length. I'm proud of this compilation, however, and strongly recommend reading it for anyone who is interested in the topic.

Admiral Akbar
I found it an interesting read. Good Job, thanks for taking your time to post this.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
There is less of a distinction between "us" and "them" which leads to a greater acceptance of others.

That's totally untrue. Many of the atheists viciously attack theists for what they believe. The line between "us" and "them" is just as clear.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And with no prescribed moral laws that target various aspects of society (unwed sex, homosexuality, other gods, etc.) there is no ingrained negativity in a person based upon their beliefs in an atheist system.

Yeah, no atheist would call someone retarded or delusional for having a belief system . . .


I do agree with pretty much everything else though. Especially the "overly aggressive creatures would tend not to survive as much as those who are willing to work with one another" line.

Phantom Zone
Good post cant disagree with any of that really.

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
A rather scientific response might be that certain amounts of altruism are programmed into us by evolution, because overly aggressive creatures would tend not to survive as much as those who are willing to work with one another toward common goals... I have always found this to be a generally satisfactory response when deliberately excluding transcendent reasons.

But it doesn't answer the entire question of why atheism is moral despite the lack of a god. I'm not sure what you're asking here. It sounds like: "Why is atheism (itself) moral despite the lack of a god?" In which case, I would say, "There is nothing, as far as I can see, intrinsically immoral about atheism."

The simplest answer, perhaps, is that any human being can see the joy and value of doing good things simply for the sake of them... This strikes me as a very subjective statement which begs for more objective grounding. Perhaps one could say that feeling good from helping others is a learned response (enhanced by genetic predisposition shaped via evolution).

----------------------------

If I may, I would also like to add this regarding long posts (from anyone): after posting the main body, it would be a good idea, IMO, to summarize in as few words as possible what the main body of the post just said. This would make, I think, the post less intimidating, easier to grasp and would invite more people to read and respond ("Hell, I ain't gonna read all this! Where's the freakin' summary?"wink

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This isn't intended as an open question (though I encourage discussion) but rather a comprehensive analysis of the myths, facts, and reasoning behind atheist morality. It is one of the least understood aspects of atheism by theists, and any atheist has doubtless heard numerous variations on the question, "Well, where do you get your morals from?" from an incredulous and confused friend or family member.

My point isn't to promote atheism, nor to denigrate other philosophies, but simply to shed some light on this perpetually pertinent religious topic.

Various studies and books are cited as needed, and I'd also like to credit Michael Shermer's "Do You Believe In God?" (Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2) essay for compiling many of the statistics contained in the first section.


The Institute for Creation Research's museum in Santee, California has a wall dedicated to unsavory figures who were either evolutionists or atheists. Among them: Hitler, Stalin, Issac Asimov. The implication is obvious: that atheism leads to wars, genocide, and all forms of evil (and science fiction novels, apparently roll eyes (sarcastic) ).

Hopefully we can see the flaws in this line of thinking, but it is still a popular argument.

For one, case studies don't make a statistical trend. It's rationally invalid to hold a single person, or even small group, as indicative of an entire group of people, many of whom have vast differences in cultural and philosophical background from the examples put forth.

Second, a list of "good" atheists, philanthropists and missionaries for example, would be equally as invalid, but would hold the exact same weight as such an argument.

A common retaliatory argument is to list religious historical figures who committed atrocities (amusingly, Hitler can controversially be added to that list as well due to his frequent citation of Scripture to justify his actions). It falls prey to they same flawed statistical logic, but the common response is that "Ok, but they weren't actually following the religion. It was a perversion of religion into something totally foreign. The true {insert religion} is peaceful and loving." So it wasn't because of their religion that they did evil, it was because they were evil that they did evil. Fair enough, if that is your argument, but be prepared to concede the same point to atheism. What makes us so sure that Hitler did what he did because he was atheist? Nothing, of course, as atheists will nigh-universally condemn his actions as quickly and vehemently as any theist.


....

The question "Where do Atheists get their morals?" is asked a lot, and I think the answer to that is that it depends on the culture and society they were raised in. America is 70-something percent Christian, and until pretty recently that figure was in the 90's. So as a result, a lot of laws are based on Christianity. So the American Atheist would agree with the American Christian largely that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. Now the Atheist didn't just come up with all that on his own, he/she was raised among religious people, maybe had religious parents, learned laws that have a base in religion, so all this rubs off onto the person and believe it or not, effects them. So the only real difference between an American Atheist and his American Christian neighbor is that the Athiest has let go of his belief in god, but still klings to the all the godly morals.

A perfect example: my son has a Saudi friend at college who's a closet Atheist to his family and other Saudis. But he still fanatically avoids pork because it was ingrained into him as child that the animal's meat is bad. Its no different than an American Atheist having an aversion to killing another person.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The question "Where do Atheists get their morals?" is asked a lot, and I think the answer to that is that it depends on the culture and society they were raised in. America is 70-something percent Christian, and until pretty recently that figure was in the 90's. So as a result, a lot of laws are based on Christianity. So the American Atheist would agree with the American Christian largely that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. Now the Atheist didn't just come up with all that on his own, he/she was raised among religious people, maybe had religious parents, learned laws that have a base in religion, so all this rubs off onto the person and believe it or not, effects them. So the only real difference between an American Atheist and his American Christian neighbor is that the Athiest has let go of his belief in god, but still klings to the all the godly morals.

A perfect example: my son has a Saudi friend at college who's a closet Atheist to his family and other Saudis. But he still fanatically avoids pork because it was ingrained into him as child that the animal's meat is bad. Its no different than an American Atheist having an aversion to killing another person. So, we must be fair and say that the Christian people didn't just come up with it on their own either. They were raised in society that already saw murder as wrong even before the first Christian's or Jews said so.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, we must be fair and say that the Christian people didn't just come up with it on their own either. They were raised in society that already saw murder as wrong even before the first Christian's or Jews said so.

It was a set and formulized system thousands of years before some guy who was born in Anytown,USA decided that god doesn't exist. But the society's values, norms, and morals still affect his life and outlook.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It was a set and formulized system thousands of years before some guy who was born in Anytown,USA decided that god doesn't exist. But the society's values, norms, and morals still affect his life and outlook. No, you misunderstood. My point was that it was already set and standardized in the society before anyone in Israel/Egypt/Wherever decide that God does exist. The societies values and norms affected Moses and Jesus life and outlook, just as it does with us today.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
My point was that it was already set and standardized in the society before anyone in Israel/Egypt/Wherever decide that God does exist. .

How do you know that? Were you there?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How do you know that? Were you there?

Nope, just assuming exactly like you are assuming.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nope, just assuming exactly like you are assuming.

So basically, you added nothing to the discussion. At least answer the thread starter's question.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's totally untrue. Many of the atheists viciously attack theists for what they believe. The line between "us" and "them" is just as clear.

Granted. But that sort of viciousness runs both ways. We create all sorts of false demarcation lines in our minds, regardless of spiritual leanings, and this leads to animosity toward the "others." It was a possible interpretation of the results, and I stand by it because I think that ingrained negativity toward other groups is less likely to happen in atheists than theists, but it wasn't intended to absolve atheists of any and all flaws, because we all have them.

Originally posted by Mindship
I have always found this to be a generally satisfactory response when deliberately excluding transcendent reasons.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. It sounds like: "Why is atheism (itself) moral despite the lack of a god?" In which case, I would say, "There is nothing, as far as I can see, intrinsically immoral about atheism."

This strikes me as a very subjective statement which begs for more objective grounding. Perhaps one could say that feeling good from helping others is a learned response (enhanced by genetic predisposition shaped via evolution).

I would agree, but the answer was to the question as posed by theists, because a purely scientific explanation (which is likely the best one) is inadequate for allaying fears about the potential evils of a system of beliefs.

The first two sections of my piece were intended to extrapolate on your (correct) statement that atheism isn't inherently immoral (just as religion isn't inherently moral).

In any case, my proposed reasons why atheists are moral are just examples. As there is no formal doctrine for atheism like there is for religions, the reasoning varies, and I wanted to leave my explanations as broad as possible to accommodate such distinctions.

Originally posted by Mindship
If I may, I would also like to add this regarding long posts (from anyone): after posting the main body, it would be a good idea, IMO, to summarize in as few words as possible what the main body of the post just said. This would make, I think, the post less intimidating, easier to grasp and would invite more people to read and respond ("Hell, I ain't gonna read all this! Where's the freakin' summary?"wink

Noted, and thanks. Though I deliberately leave out such summaries often times in this forum (and use them frequently in others) because those who get upset and demand summaries generally aren't my intended audience anyway, especially with a topic this complex because it leads to people reading ONLY the summary.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So basically, you added nothing to the discussion. At least answer the thread starter's question.

It wasn't posed as a question, as I stated in the first line of the thread.

Though I would agree with you that ANY person's morality is largely inherited from their culture, not just atheists.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So basically, you added nothing to the discussion. At least answer the thread starter's question. I did add something to your point. Which was part of the discussion.

ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Without a doubt, Christian members--as well as other religious group members--have claimed that atheists are immoral; but such claims are totally absurd. Not all religious persons--including myself--share this view. Do not stereotype. Atheists can live (and have lived) moral lives, at least, as best as humanly possible. The same applies to Christian members (or other religious group members). But the Christian is saved.

Admiral Akbar
saved from what exactly?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Without a doubt, Christian members--as well as other religious group members--have claimed that atheists are immoral; but such claims are totally absurd. Not all religious persons--including myself--share this view. Do not stereotype. Atheists can live (and have lived) moral lives, at least, as best as humanly possible. The same applies to Christian members (or other religious group members). But the Christian is saved.

I didn't say that all religious people think atheists are immoral. I said it was a common misconception that atheists can't have a set of moral standards because of their lack of religion, and many don't know how atheists can be moral otherwise.

So no, I didn't paint theists in a negative light. My intention, as I spelled out in the opening post, was to shed light on the subject...nothing more.

ushomefree
Okay... cool bro.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by ushomefree
Okay... cool bro.

thumb up

...computer: $2000

...thread entry: 30 minutes

...a discussion that ends amicably between ushome and Digi - Priceless

ushomefree
ha ha ha

dadudemon
I rather enjoyed your post. (I know it was two, but it was the 10,000 character limit that forced your to break it in two.)

I would agree that altruism SHOULD be built into the human species. It has and can be shown that altruism does help a species success...but I cannot find any studies so that point can be thrown out of the window if you want to.

Species of higher intelligences seem to exhibit altruistic behaviors, which tells me that altruism may be incidental to higher intelligence. This maybe due to a "evolutionary success mechanism" (bare with me...that's the best way I could think to describe it)

Also, is there a way to describe WHY atheists seem to exhibit better "good" behavior as compared to their theist contemporaries? There has to be an explanation. Is it because they are held to higher standards, subconsciously, by their theist peers or family? Does this then cause them to tote a better calibrated moral compass than their theist peers?

This is off topic...sort of....but have you ever heard an atheist refer to themselves as a "bright"?

Also, in your reference to Hitler using scripture...

He did that as a form of control. Indeed an atheist can compare that to using scripture on a group of young people to keep them from "sinning". Appeal to the masses through something they use as a moral compass and it should work rather well at achieving you goals.(Though that probably wouldn't work as well nowadays.) Historians attribute Hitlers rise to power to his amazing Charisma.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, is there a way to describe WHY atheists seem to exhibit better "good" behavior as compared to their theist contemporaries? There has to be an explanation. Is it because they are held to higher standards, subconsciously, by their theist peers or family? Does this then cause them to tote a better calibrated moral compass than their theist peers?

This is off topic...sort of....but have you ever heard an atheist refer to themselves as a "bright"?

Also, in your reference to Hitler using scripture...

He did that as a form of control. Indeed an atheist can compare that to using scripture on a group of young people to keep them from "sinning". Appeal to the masses through something they use as a moral compass and it should work rather well at achieving you goals.(Though that probably wouldn't work as well nowadays.) Historians attribute Hitlers rise to power to his amazing Charisma.

Thanks for the comments. I deleted your evolutionary musings, but it's all very reasonable as a template for an explanation of altruism, and similar to my own and Mindship's.

As for the "why" of the data, I offered a possible explanation of my own, but I can't say for certain. When I first converted to atheism, I'll admit that I felt a certain sense of obligation to be even more moral than before, because my shift in philosophical perspective didn't make me feel more inclined to do "evil" things, and I wanted to combat the negative stereotype of atheism. That's only a personal example, though, and still doesn't answer the question. I'd be interested to hear other theories though.

As for Hitler, he and his life are generally worthless as religious anecdote because he was quite clearly just an angry, delusional man with a ton of charisma. To say that any religion (or lack thereof) played a part is silly, to say the least. I only used him to show why the argument from historical figures fails utterly.

Mindship
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for the "why" of the data, I offered a possible explanation of my own, but I can't say for certain. When I first converted to atheism, I'll admit that I felt a certain sense of obligation to be even more moral than before, because my shift in philosophical perspective didn't make me feel more inclined to do "evil" things, and I wanted to combat the negative stereotype of atheism. That's only a personal example, though, and still doesn't answer the question. I'd be interested to hear other theories though.
Almost every atheist I've known was not born and raised as an atheist, whereas most theists I know were born and raised as theists (some of whom then became atheists). In other words, atheism does appear to be largely (at least initially) a reaction to theism.

I could be wrong, but most atheists seem to reject the I'm-better-than-you mindset which often accompanies a belief in a deity, more than the deity concept itself (this seems to come later, as the atheist explores his new POV from a more empirical perspective). Consequently, atheists may be more psyched to better model the ethics religionism espouses but does not, itself, abide by.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
I could be wrong, but most atheists seem to reject the I'm-better-than-you mindset which often accompanies a belief in a deity, more than the deity concept itself

Perhaps that's a result of the religion one is exposed to.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps that's a result of the religion one is exposed to.

I tend to agree with you assessment. Not all theists "were created equal" if you catch my meaning.

Newjak
I tend to find that a person's morals are generally brought up from their degrees of acceptance to various events they have undergone.

Religious, non-religious doesn't matter every human being has the capacity to be both "Good" and "Evil". In fact it's what makes us human. stick out tongue

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mindship
Almost every atheist I've known was not born and raised as an atheist, whereas most theists I know were born and raised as theists (some of whom then became atheists). In other words, atheism does appear to be largely (at least initially) a reaction to theism.

I could be wrong, but most atheists seem to reject the I'm-better-than-you mindset which often accompanies a belief in a deity, more than the deity concept itself (this seems to come later, as the atheist explores his new POV from a more empirical perspective). Consequently, atheists may be more psyched to better model the ethics religionism espouses but does not, itself, abide by.

I'd agree except that atheism is a "reaction" to theism. The vast majority of the population is theistic, so of course most atheists will have been brought up in a theistic family or culture. It's just statistical certainty. It also implies a certain spite against the religion as a reason for leaving. An atheist may not be fully intellectually developed as an atheist when they first leave religion, but I'd like to think that leaving theism is for intellectual reasons moreso than anti-religious sentiment (though that could be what initially sparked it), at least the majority of the time.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd agree except that atheism is a "reaction" to theism. The vast majority of the population is theistic, so of course most atheists will have been brought up in a theistic family or culture. It's just statistical certainty. It also implies a certain spite against the religion as a reason for leaving. An atheist may not be fully intellectually developed as an atheist when they first leave religion, but I'd like to think that leaving theism is for intellectual reasons moreso than anti-religious sentiment (though that could be what initially sparked it), at least the majority of the time.

Of course it's a reaction. The rest of your post after the first sentance explains how.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Without a doubt, Christian members--as well as other religious group members--have claimed that atheists are immoral; but such claims are totally absurd. Not all religious persons--including myself--share this view. Do not stereotype. Atheists can live (and have lived) moral lives, at least, as best as humanly possible. The same applies to Christian members (or other religious group members). But the Christian is saved.
I agree. From a biblical perspective, morality is intrinsic to the human conscience, which is itself a product of the divine image. Since God's character defines morality, and all human beings (including atheists) are made in God's image, we share a transcendent sense of right and wrong. Cultural variations can therefore be attributed to the fallen condition of humanity.

Mindship
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps that's a result of the religion one is exposed to. I suspect it may be more like this: the more any religion devolves into religionism (when theists take on that Me>You / MGIBTYG mindset) the more likely it is to inspire atheism because hypocrisy becomes very apparent.

queeq
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I agree. From a biblical perspective, morality is intrinsic to the human conscience, which is itself a product of the divine image. Since God's character defines morality, and all human beings (including atheists) are made in God's image, we share a transcendent sense of right and wrong. Cultural variations can therefore be attributed to the fallen condition of humanity.

All social beings have morals. Animals living in groups have morals. Morals are helping a social group survive.

xmarksthespot
I'm pretty sure I've already posted this but meh.
http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/pagenum/all/

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements.
Koenigs et al., Nature 446, 908-911 (19 April 2007) for those who are interested.

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The question "Where do Atheists get their morals?" is asked a lot, and I think the answer to that is that it depends on the culture and society they were raised in. America is 70-something percent Christian, and until pretty recently that figure was in the 90's. So as a result, a lot of laws are based on Christianity. So the American Atheist would agree with the American Christian largely that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. Now the Atheist didn't just come up with all that on his own, he/she was raised among religious people, maybe had religious parents, learned laws that have a base in religion, so all this rubs off onto the person and believe it or not, effects them. So the only real difference between an American Atheist and his American Christian neighbor is that the Athiest has let go of his belief in god, but still klings to the all the godly morals.

A perfect example: my son has a Saudi friend at college who's a closet Atheist to his family and other Saudis. But he still fanatically avoids pork because it was ingrained into him as child that the animal's meat is bad. Its no different than an American Atheist having an aversion to killing another person.




You make a convincing point, but it's very generalized and not entirely true for every person.


You don't need religion to have morality. You really don't. It's in your own best interest to treat other people with respect and peace. Simply to avoid conflict...do not hurt others, and chances are they will not hurt you back. In fact, they may even help you when you need it.


I don't need the fear of hell or reward of heaven to understand that hurting someone is wrong, or that the consequences for doing such a thing may be more than I, or anyone else, can handle.

**************************************************
**************



However, I do agree that no matter what, if one grew up with religious influence, there will always be a part of that teaching with you. However, not all of it will stay:


-I do not go to Church, and where I once felt routinely guilty about it, I no longer give if an afterthough.

-I've had repeated sex before marriage, and quite honestly, I don't think I want to get married anyway. Umm...not to mention, I'm a homo...I thnk that kinda disagrees with the Bible a bit...does it stop me though ? Nope no

-I don't stone prostitutes, I don't cut off people's tongues for lying, I don't gauge out my own eyeball for having lustful thoughts, etc.


I am sure there are tons of rules in the Bible that I break every fkn day. So despite the minor influence it may have on my behavior or morality, most of what I have been taught has been quite easily disregarded.


Same goes for most people who turn away from Christianity or any religious base. You underestimate the power of choice, and the will of one individual.

inimalist
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm pretty sure I've already posted this but meh.
http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/pagenum/all/

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements.
Koenigs et al., Nature 446, 908-911 (19 April 2007) for those who are interested.

had you seen this?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x? prevSearch=allfield%3A%28moral+reasoning+psycholog
y%29

lord xyz
As an atheist, and on behalf of other atheists, I'd like to say that we get our morals from observation. We see something, see it's effect, then decide whether we should do it or not. Gore for example looks gruesome to most, murder creates gore, therefore, don't murder to not see gore.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
As an atheist, and on behalf of other atheists, I'd like to say that we get our morals from observation. We see something, see it's effect, then decide whether we should do it or not. Gore for example looks gruesome to most, murder creates gore, therefore, don't murder to not see gore. As another atheist, and on behalf of others atheists, I'd like to say, don't speak for us mother****er.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
As an atheist, and on behalf of other atheists, I'd like to say that we get our morals from observation. We see something, see it's effect, then decide whether we should do it or not. Gore for example looks gruesome to most, murder creates gore, therefore, don't murder to not see gore.

Al Gore?

http://understory.ran.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/al_gore_i_an_inconv_100607o.jpg

You maybe right. laughing

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
As another atheist, and on behalf of others atheists, I'd like to say, don't speak for us mother****er. I'm sorry.

anaconda
so why should you have the right to speak on behalf of other atheists?

Bardock42
Originally posted by anaconda
so why should you have the right to speak on behalf of other atheists?

That's how I roll.

anaconda
egg roll

Bardock42
Originally posted by anaconda
egg roll Cosmic egg.

anaconda
if the shoe fits...........

Bardock42
..........then the bird can be stoned.............

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
I suspect it may be more like this: the more any religion devolves into religionism (when theists take on that Me>You / MGIBTYG mindset) the more likely it is to inspire atheism because hypocrisy becomes very apparent.

But some people reject God more than they reject religion. In general though you are probably right.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
..........then the bird can be stoned............. Is she dutch?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Is she dutch? It's male.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's male. Err, in the UK bird is a slang term for a woman.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Err, in the UK bird is a slang term for a woman.

Didn't think of that. But you do still have the word "bird"...meaning a bird...as one of those birdful animals...that can fly...or sometimes not.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Didn't think of that. But you do still have the word "bird"...meaning a bird...as one of those birdful animals...that can fly...or sometimes not. Good use of English.

Anyway, it was a pun.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But some people reject God more than they reject religion. In general though you are probably right.

Yeah, it can be either way. In my case, I rejected the idea of God intellectually, and have my problems with religion, but still have close ties to my former parish (social ties more than anything, as I've long since stopped attending mass services)...and I generally have less problems with religion as a social construct than I do with just the idea of a monotheistic God as it is portrayed in the major religions.

That may be the exception though, and most agnostics I have known are like they are because they can inherently see the hypocrisy in much of religion or religious people.

SpearofDestiny
I just think morality can exist on its own with or without religion.



If you hurt someone, no religion or ideology can truthfully claim that you didn't. If you didn't hurt someone, no religion or ideology can truthfully claim that you did.



To me, morality isn't about whether or not we beleive in God, or follow some ancient code of standards. It's simply about how we treat each other and other living beings. That's all it comes down to.


If you hurt someone, you did something wrong. If you are benevolent to someone, you did something right. If you made no action or speech to another, there is no right or wrong there. I don't understand why that is so difficult to get. What's with all the complication about right and wrong ?

anaconda
it can

DigiMark007
I would agree for the most part with SoD's assessment, and if I ever have occasion to revise this presentation I'll probably include a section that deals with how morality exists separately from religion.

Good and evil are such relative terms, and needlessly dualistic, but in more mundane terms one could point to "suffering" not as evil but as what should be considered imperative to avoid....anything that causes suffering, whether "right" or "wrong" by any moral standard, is not good. Similar to the "Right Action" and alleviation of suffering of the Buddha, to throw another bone SoD's way ( wink ).

lil bitchiness
Well thats a sweeping generalization aimed at ''we're better than you.''

Morality is dictated by societies norms. Ethics are universal.

Why are Atheist moral sounds as pretencious as Why are Christians moral, or Why are Muslims moral.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well thats a sweeping generalization aimed at ''we're better than you.''

Its a reverse 'Why Theists are Moral'. Being an Atheist doesn't make you automatically moral.
Morality is dictated by societies norms.

If you mean the thread then I disagree. It's not a generalization as such, just a reaction to Theist claims of Atheists being incapable of being moral.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If you hurt someone, no religion or ideology can truthfully claim that you didn't. If you didn't hurt someone, no religion or ideology can truthfully claim that you did.

But an ideology can argue whether you had sufficient reason to hurt them.

DigiMark007
.

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Similar to the "Right Action" and alleviation of suffering of the Buddha, to throw another bone SoD's way ( wink ).


droolio

DigiMark007
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well thats a sweeping generalization aimed at ''we're better than you.''

Morality is dictated by societies norms. Ethics are universal.

Why are Atheist moral sounds as pretencious as Why are Christians moral, or Why are Muslims moral.

It wasn't intended as pretentious, nor to say atheists are any better than others. It was to combat the widely held belief that without a religious deity acting as a moral compass, atheists can't have an intrinsic sense of morality. A lot of people I have encountered, both in real life and on KMC, hold this belief, and this was intended to debunk such myths.

No slight is intended, and I think my page 1 presentation reflects that.

anaconda
atheist are moral cause they thaught religious about moral

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, it can be either way. In my case, I rejected the idea of God intellectually, and have my problems with religion, but still have close ties to my former parish (social ties more than anything, as I've long since stopped attending mass services)...and I generally have less problems with religion as a social construct than I do with just the idea of a monotheistic God as it is portrayed in the major religions.

That may be the exception though, and most agnostics I have known are like they are because they can inherently see the hypocrisy in much of religion or religious people.

I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.

Originally posted by anaconda
atheist are moral cause they thaught religious about moral

confused .........

dadudemon
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.

Could be....but I was thinking more along the lines of an apathy "problem".

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by dadudemon
Could be....but I was thinking more along the lines of an apathy "problem".

That would be Apatheism.

Agnostics are like those kids in school who aren't sure which group to hang out with.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That would be Apatheism.

Agnostics are like those kids in school who aren't sure which group to hang out with.

HOLY SHIT!!! I didn't know that something such as "apatheism" existed! I just learned something new.

Most of the self proclaimed "agnostic" people I have known were really apatheistic...they were just using the wrong word to define themselves. Now I know. Thanks mate!

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by inimalist
had you seen this?

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x? prevSearch=allfield%3A%28moral+reasoning+psycholog
y%29 Nope... but had a quick skim now.

The authors seem to conclude that there are both innate sub/unconscious morality and conscious decision making morality (something that isn't particularly surprising or revolutionary...) - both of these are likely the result inherent biological instinct and learned behavior imo.

I tend to sway away from pure psychology based articles... they make my head hurt.

-----

Morality is essentially based on the ability to empathize, which is derived from evolution both biological and cultural, the latter of which may have a religious aspect, but is not dependent upon it.

Simply put (to those who think that morals are derived from a transcendent authority) if you had not been taught (as religion is very much taught) about would you be an amoral sociopathic monster?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.



confused ......... How. Some people don't like randomly guessing in matters which aren't decided either way.

queeq
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Simply put (to those who think that morals are derived from a transcendent authority) if you had not been taught (as religion is very much taught) about would you be an amoral sociopathic monster?

Absolutely not. All social beings have morality.

Another thing is cohesion of morality. You can diss religion all you want but at least in a religious group (or any other group bound by a common morality) one can address each other's moral behaviour. Now, there are examples how that religion is used for oppression, but the alternative of each individual having its own personal set of morals is also not very appealing.

It's a debate that is rising and is quite interesting. In our Western society we have a lot of freedom, to chose, to believe in lifestyle but also in moral choices. That is not always in connection to responsiblity. What responsibility does one have to another person in the end if there are no common factors? At least in religion one has to asnwer to a divinity and also to your fellow believers (your brethren). In Christianity that's like a familial bound (god the father and fellow church members as brothers and sisters). You can address family members in their moral behaviour, there is commonality. In Christian there's even a basic commandment: love your neighbour as yourself... and even: love your enemies.

Personally I feel society has not found a proper answer to the lack of commonality in morals yet. Freedom comes with responsibility and you cannot demand or ask people to be responsible if everyone differs in what acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour. Binding factors like religion are not all bad, even though some people like to picture religion solely as a stone-throwing, condemning and dictatorial class.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Absolutely not. All social beings have morality.

Another thing is cohesion of morality. You can diss religion all you want but at least in a religious group (or any other group bound by a common morality) one can address each others moral behaviour. Now, there are examples how that religion is used for oppression, but the alternative of each individual having its own personal set of morals is also not very appealing.

Even in a Religious group people have their own morals. And even in atheist groups one can address others moral behaviour, so that's not that good of a point you are making.

Originally posted by queeq
It's a debate that is rising and is quite interesting. In our Western society we have a lot of freedom, to chose, to believe in lifestyle but also in moral choices. That is not always in connection to responsiblity. What responsibility does one have to another person in the end if there are no common factors? At least in religion one has to asnwer to a divinity and also to your fellow believers (your brethren). In Christianity that's like a familial bound (god the father and fellow church members as brothers and sisters). You can address family members in their moral behaviour, there is commonality. In Christian there's even a basic commandment: love your neighbour as yourself... and even: love your enemies.

How do atheists not have authorities to answer to. Sure they don't have an absolute code, but they still have to function in society as well as according to the laws of their nation. There's no boo-man on top of that that's going to **** you if you don't behave like it (which can be a good, but in this society, sadly, is mostly a bad thing anyways), but they still have to behave in certain ways to cope, regardless of whether they themselves agree with the morals.

Originally posted by queeq
Personally I feel society has not found a proper answer to the lack of commonality in morals yet. Freedom comes with responsibility and you cannot demand or ask people to be responsible if everyone differs in what acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour. Binding factors like religion are not all bad, even though some people like to picture religion solely as a stone-throwing, condemning and dictatorial class.


How does freedom come with responsibilities? I mean really, you get freedom for free, without any strings attached, upon birth.

queeq
Your last remark is troubling.

I am not considering two groups in society religioous people. vs. atheist groups. I didn't even know there was such a thing as "Atheist groups"... what do they do? Sit together and be atheistic?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even in a Religious group people have their own morals. And even in atheist groups one can address others moral behaviour, so that's not that good of a point you are making.

How do these "atheist groups" do that then?

Point is, religious people or even humanist groups have a commonality, Bible, Koran, Vedas, humanist writings... You can discuss these. When someone calls someone else names, you can at least debate if that is fitting to something called "brotherly love". When someone acts like an a$$ in the street and is addressed to it, it';s not uncommon that you get beaten up for 'butting in into other people's affairs.'

But it only works within the groups, because ven between Muslims, Hindu's, Christians there's difference of morals. If one religious groups considers it normal to stone a woman for adultery, another may differ. How does one solve it? Prolly by local law... but law has nothing to do with morality. It may be derived from morality but that's usually a long time ago.

Even in here. Some people consider it rather normal to call people stupid or idiot. I think that's not very civilised, but how do we solve it? How can I convince that person that it's not appropriate behaviour, or how does that person convince me it is? What basis do we have to take each other's feelings into account?

Yes, one has the freedom to spill all the nasty name calling he can come up with. But how does that contribute to a pleasant environment? In here, you can get banned... the law in here limits such behaviour. If you abuse the freedom to post fairly uncensored, you get banned. But there's a great grey area between calling names and being so obnoxious that the 'law' bans you. Morality is mostly about the grey area. And I feel comminalty helps to make the grey area smaller.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Your last remark is troubling.

Nah, just accurate.

Originally posted by queeq
I am not considering two groups in society religioous people. vs. atheist groups. I didn't even know there was such a thing as "Atheist groups"... what do they do? Sit together and be atheistic?

There are groups that are unrelated to Religion. And they work just as well. It's not something that's solely an attribute of a Religion.

Originally posted by queeq
How do these "atheist groups" do that then?

Something like

Atheist A: "I find it disgusting how you could cheat on your husband like this, do you have no shame?"

Atheist B: "Yes, you are right, I feel so horrible, even though I don't believe in God"

Originally posted by queeq
Point is, religious people or even humanist groups have a commonality, Bible, Koran, Vedas, humanist writings... You can discuss these. When someone calls someone else names, you can at least debate if that is fitting to something called "brotherly love". When someone acts like an a$$ in the street and is addressed to it, it';s not uncommon that you get beaten up for 'butting in into other people's affairs.'

And? What does that example have to do with what is being discussed?

Originally posted by queeq
But it only works within the groups, because ven between Muslims, Hindu's, Christians there's difference of morals. If one religious groups considers it normal to stone a woman for adultery, another may differ. How does one solve it? Prolly by local law... but law has nothing to do with morality. It may be derived from morality but that's usually a long time ago.

You make the mistake to attribute it to Religion. While in fact it is just attributed to a group, be it secular or not.

Originally posted by queeq
Even in here. Some people consider it rather normal to call people stupid or idiot. I think that's not very civilised, but how do we solve it? How can I convince that person that it's not appropriate behaviour, or how does that person convince me it is? What basis do we have to take each other's feelings into account?

If you are friends the person would likely listen to you. If you aren't, you could try to use reason. But even if you both are Christians (even of the same denomination) you will have just as hard of a time as with an atheist...so, your point again, is not thought through.

Originally posted by queeq
Yes, one has the freedom to spill all the nasty name calling he can come up with. But how does that contribute to a pleasant environment?


Yes, one has the freedom to be always polite and nice and as helpful as they can be. But how does that contribute to a charged and aggressive environment?

Originally posted by queeq
In here, you can get banned... the law in here limits such behaviour. If you abuse the freedom to post fairly uncensored, you get banned. But there's a great grey area between calling names and being so obnoxious that the 'law' bans you. Morality is mostly about the grey area. And I feel comminalty helps to make the grey area smaller.

I take you mean "communality", and I agree. It helps. Being religious only helps because of it being a community though, not because of an intrinsic value in being spiritual. A Christian group has that just like a sports club would have it or a clique of friends.

queeq
Why do I get the feeling you don't take me serious at all?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, just accurate.

Someone who feels he has no responsibilities to his environment and the people around him, is a frightening element to society. IMHO OC.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are groups that are unrelated to Religion. And they work just as well. It's not something that's solely an attribute of a Religion.


Something like

Atheist A: "I find it disgusting how you could cheat on your husband like this, do you have no shame?"

Atheist B: "Yes, you are right, I feel so horrible, even though I don't believe in God"

I meant how as in ... how ...logistically? Where do these atheist groups gather? How do they unite, what do these groups talk about? I'd really like to attend one of these meetings, must be very interesting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You make the mistake to attribute it to Religion. While in fact it is just attributed to a group, be it secular or not.

I agree... I didn't EXCLUSIVELY attribute it to religion. I just stated it because COMMUNALITY (thanks for the correction BTW) is an integral part of religion. At least in Christian, Jewish and Islamic religion communion with fellow believers is an essential part of being religious. I'm not to familiar with hinduism and boeddhsim but what I do know is that I see a lot of them come together in a temple as well. So their religious outlook on life, including it's morals, is what binds them together AS A GROUP...

That's exactly my point. Secularism has broken down such groups as cohesion factors in society and so far we have not had anything that replaces this feeling of belonging and being part of a group. I'm also not suggesting it's impossible without religion, but so far I only see a growing individuality and indifference to the fellow man. Common enemies like countires with supposed mass weapons help to creat that group cohesion for a while, but it doesn't last. Enemies always go away eventually.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you are friends the person would likely listen to you. If you aren't, you could try to use reason. But even if you both are Christians (even of the same denomination) you will have just as hard of a time as with an atheist...so, your point again, is not thought through.

(...)

I take you mean "communality", and I agree. It helps. Being religious only helps because of it being a community though, not because of an intrinsic value in being spiritual. A Christian group has that just like a sports club would have it or a clique of friends.

We agree more than you think. I think a group of friends will do exactly the same as a religious group: there's a common set of values usually and one can discuss unappropriate behaviour. Trouble is, these groups are usually fairly small.

Although I do disagree that a religious group does differ from a sports club. The communality there is created by a game. Not by a common set of morals.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Why do I get the feeling you don't take me serious at all?

No idea.

Originally posted by queeq
Someone who feels he has no responsibilities to his environment and the people around him, is a frightening element to society. IMHO OC.

Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that you are born free and without responsibility.



Originally posted by queeq
I meant how as in in... how? Where do these atheist groups gather? How do they unite, what do these groups talk about? I'd really like to attend one of these meetings, must be very interesting.

They are friends. Or they are in Clubs. Or in a family. It's just any group that doesn't share the same religious values. Some religious people only go to Church once a week and don't do anything else, how do they fit in then?

Originally posted by queeq
I agree... I didn't EXCLUSIVELY attribute it to religion. I just stated it because COMMUNALITY (thanks for the correction BTW) is an integral part of religion. At least in Christian, Jewish and Islamic religion communion with fellow believers is an essential part of being religious. I'm not to familiar with hinduism and boeddhsim but what I do know is that I see a lot of them come together in a temple as well. So their religious outlook on life, including it's morals, is what binds them together AS A GROUP...

Yes. We agree. Group dynamics help create a similar moral understanding as well as the ability to go along.

Originally posted by queeq
hat's exactly my point. Secularism has broken down such groups as cohesion factors in society and so far we have not had anything that creates this felling of belonging and being part of a group. Common enemies like countires with supposed mass weapons help to creat that group cohesion for a while, but it doesn't last. Enemies always go away eventually.

Seems unbased. Society hasn't gone to shit in the last few years, so apparently it doesn't seem to do harm.

Originally posted by queeq
We agree more than you think. I think a group of friends will do exactly the same as a religious group: there's a common set of values usually and one can discuss unappropriate behaviour.

I don't necessarily think we disagree. I just feel you portray a general view in a very biased and pro Religious way often.

Originally posted by queeq
Although I do disagree that a religious group does differ from a sports club. The communality there is created by a game. Not by a common set of morals.

I believe in aq Religion it is also less the Morals and more the company that many people value. They come together for their worship (even though their different morals still), but are together more for company. It's the group and the friendships that give another person influence on you, not the set of morals.

queeq
Well, it shouldn't be. But you are right.

We may disagree on the influence of secularism on society, but I do see it and I see it seeping through in religious groups as well.

But let me try to share hwo this issue gets complicated. I live in Holland, the most progressive country in the world.. hehehe... , but we have this issue currently with a politician who's about to relase a short anti-Quran film. Politicians and government have been screaming about the dangers of this film for months now. And it's about to be released: no one knows what's in it or what it's about, except that it's some kind of protest against Islam.

So what are the issues:
1. Can he do this? Yes, there's freedom of speech, he can say or make whatever he wants.
2. Is it moral to release a film that could insult a group of people that care about the Quran? Dunno...
2a. Is criticising a book an insult to a group? Dunno... could be interpreted as such and fundamentalistic muslims will certainly see it as an insult of the Word of Allah and therefore of Allah himself.
2b. Is it moral to the rest of the country to release a film that could give rise to terrorist attacks? Good question...
3. Can a government ask this politician NOT to release the film? Dunno... ask...yes. maybe
4. Can they prohibit this film? Possibility A. Yes, it creates hate against certain groups in the population (mind you: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler is also forbidden in Holland) Possibility B. No, tehre is freedom of speech.

There are many more questions. But you see: the law gives room for this action, but whether it's moral to do so (yes, we have no idea what he's gonna be saying or how) knwing you will insult people and maybe endanger our country.... that's a moral issue. And I don't know how to answer it or even how to address this politician about it. Can't ask everyone in Holland opposing this action from whatever moral background he has, to become friends with this guy first.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Well, it shouldn't be. But you are right.

We may disagree on the influence of secularism on society, but I do see it and I see it seeping through in religious groups as well.

But let me try to share hwo this issue gets complicated. I live in Holland, the most progressive country in the world.. hehehe... , but we have this issue currently with a politician who's about to relase a short anti-Quran film. Politicians and government have been screaming about the dangers of this film for months now. And it's about to be released: no one knows what's in it or what it's about, except that it's some kind of protest against Islam.

So what are the issues:
1. Can he do this? Yes, there's freedom of speech, he can say or make whatever he wants.
2. Is it moral to release a film that could insult a group of people that care about the Quran? Dunno...
2a. Is criticising a book an insult to a group? Dunno... could be interpreted as such and fundamentalistic muslims will certainly see it as an insult of the Word of Allah and therefore of Allah himself.
2b. Is it moral to the rest of the country to release a film that could give rise to terrorist attacks? Good question...
3. Can a government ask this politician NOT to release the film? Dunno... ask...yes. maybe
4. Can they prohibit this film? Possibility A. Yes, it creates hate against certain groups in the population (mind you: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler is also forbidden in Holland) Possibility B. No, tehre is freedom of speech.

There are many more questions. But you see: the law gives room for this action, but whether it's moral to do so (yes, we have no idea what he's gonna be saying or how) knwing you will insult people and maybe endanger our country.... that's a moral issue. And I don't know how to answer it or even how to address this politician about it. Can't ask everyone in Holland opposing this action from whatever moral background he has, to become friends with this guy first. The law is just a set of morals that are the standard of a country. Some people (like me) find it moral to have more rights than most countries offer nowadays others (like you apparently), think it gives too much rights and they might have to be limited. Again, it's just a question of morals.

As for your point, it is totally different to what we discussed before. Yes, moral issues can be complicated...but they are complicated whether you believe yourself to be an atheist or a christian or whatever.

Mindship
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.
Gotta disagree here. Since, ultimately, no one knows whether or not "God" exists (despite how fervently one may believe one way or the other), "I don't know" is therefore the most honest position one can take. Any decisions made from that point on depend on what that person is looking for in a reality map.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It wasn't intended as pretentious, nor to say atheists are any better than others. It was to combat the widely held belief that without a religious deity acting as a moral compass, atheists can't have an intrinsic sense of morality. A lot of people I have encountered, both in real life and on KMC, hold this belief, and this was intended to debunk such myths.

No slight is intended, and I think my page 1 presentation reflects that.


West is largely developed on Christianity, and broke free within the boundaries of religion later on.
That doesn't defeat the fact that what you deem as ''moral' wasn't ultimately developed from Christianity with ruled over it for 2 000 years.
(Or Judaism, as Christian morals are ultimately Jewish)

Chinese never had a deity, but their morals differ enormously.

Its a culture of one religion, not the deity which makes differance.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
The law is just a set of morals that are the standard of a country. .

That is so wrong. The law is not a set of morals, it's a set of rules. It is in fact completely opposite of morals since morals are the unwritten laws of human behaviour. The laws are prolly derived from morals, but they are not morals by themselves. You don't have to be moral to be law abiding and you don't have to be immoral to break the law. Some people break the law because they have moral issues with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for your point, it is totally different to what we discussed before. Yes, moral issues can be complicated...but they are complicated whether you believe yourself to be an atheist or a christian or whatever.

You'd like it to be different. But it's not. Because making and showing this film is solely a moral issue, not a legal one. But there's no proper cohesion to discuss it. Cohesion and morals was my original point. Legally he is completely in his right to say a lot of terrible things about the Quran. But is that moral? And how do you discuss it? There is no way to discuss this, because all groups in society have different moral. And there are many many many small groups these days taht all have their own little set of morals that often clash.

So to take it to your statement that moral issues can be complicated, what I've been trying to say, and obviously I am not making myself clear - sorry for that - , I think that downfall of social cohesion (as a more or less result of secularisation) is making it worse. More and more sitautions will be increasingly morally complicated. And frankly, that does not help the stability of society.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
West is largely developed on Christianity, and broke free within the boundaries of religion later on.
That doesn't defeat the fact that what you deem as ''moral' wasn't ultimately developed from Christianity with ruled over it for 2 000 years.
(Or Judaism, as Christian morals are ultimately Jewish) Do you really think that the most basic morals upon which society has established it's laws can't or don't predate Judaism?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Chinese never had a deity I don't understand this part... ancient Chinese polytheism...

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
The law is just a set of morals that are the standard of a country. That is so wrong. This reminds me of our debate about whether people should be allowed to say hurtful things. Your argument was "It's illegal to hurt people physically, not verbally" which is just plain stupid. Especially for a self claimed anarchist.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lord xyz
That is so wrong. This reminds me of our debate about whether people should be allowed to say hurtful things. Your argument was "It's illegal to hurt people physically, not verbally" which is just plain stupid. Especially for a self claimed anarchist. If the law isn't morals institutionalized via legislation... then what exactly do you propose it is?

-----

This news article and the studies it refers to offer some interesting information on the biological basis for "morality."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

queeq
They are rules, laws... If laws are broken there are official punishments issued. In case of morals there's no such thing as an official punishment.

If you think the law serves as your set of morals, then I'm afraid you're morally fairly poor.

lord xyz
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If the law isn't morals institutionalized via legislation... then what exactly do you propose it is?

-----

This news article and the studies it refers to offer some interesting information on the biological basis for "morality."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html A code of living within the state. Or is that the same thing?

queeq
It's not even a code. It's a law. You have to obey, if not: you are punished... (Well, when caught).

Laws are about what is legal or not. Morals are about what is right and wrong. Laws are impartial and universal (within a state), morals are subjective and even partial.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
That is so wrong. The law is not a set of morals, it's a set of rules. It is in fact completely opposite of morals since morals are the unwritten laws of human behaviour. The laws are prolly derived from morals, but they are not morals by themselves. You don't have to be moral to be law abiding and you don't have to be immoral to break the law. Some people break the law because they have moral issues with it.

Yes, there is a difference between laws and morals. What I meant to say is that laws are caused by one specific set of morals and you can derive this set by looking at the laws. In fact laws of a country define a specific set of morals. Besides, you are talking about your own morals again, by your moral standards some things that are illegal are not morally wrong and some things that are legal are. That was exactly my point...morals are like assholes. But by one specific set of morals...the one the laws are based on...everything that is illegal is morally wrong and everything that is legal is morally right.

Originally posted by queeq
You'd like it to be different. But it's not. Because making and showing this film is solely a moral issue, not a legal one. But there's no proper cohesion to discuss it. Cohesion and morals was my original point. Legally he is completely in his right to say a lot of terrible things about the Quran. But is that moral? And how do you discuss it? There is no way to discuss this, because all groups in society have different moral. And there are many many many small groups these days taht all have their own little set of morals that often clash.

So to take it to your statement that moral issues can be complicated, what I've been trying to say, and obviously I am not making myself clear - sorry for that - , I think that downfall of social cohesion (as a more or less result of secularisation) is making it worse. More and more sitautions will be increasingly morally complicated. And frankly, that does not help the stability of society.

No, it is actually different to what we discussed earlier. Moral issues were always as complicated. Just that in earlier times a few large groups took it to themselves to proclaim what is absolutely moral for everyone. But that was a good thing or bad thing. Your morals might be similar to those that used to be the de facto authority on them earlier, but as for my morals and many others, it is much better now that we can mostly decide for ourselves. Your point that groups (not just religious ones) have influence on a person's morals I agree with completely, whether that was a good thing in the times when Christianity in specific had this authority on the whole is debatable and I, for one, would disagree.




Originally posted by queeq
They are rules, laws... If laws are broken there are official punishments issued. In case of morals there's no such thing as an official punishment.

If you think the law serves as your set of morals, then I'm afraid you're morally fairly poor. That's your believe again, you think people that see the laws as their morals are wrong. Others don't. Yes, laws are rules, but this word "official" is an empty phrase. Laws are the morals of a society/government that has taken itself the right (by force) to punish who does not behave according to them.



Originally posted by lord xyz
That is so wrong. This reminds me of our debate about whether people should be allowed to say hurtful things. Your argument was "It's illegal to hurt people physically, not verbally" which is just plain stupid. Especially for a self claimed anarchist.

Certainly was not my argument. Please stop lying. It reminds me of the time you didn't know what the **** you were talking about (the last 16 years)

xmarksthespot
I didn't say the law serves as my set of morals, I said the law is a set of morals institutionalized via legislation. In the process specific punishments are attributed to specific violations. That doesn't deny their origin.

Is there some mutual exclusivity that prevents something from being a moral, while being a rule of society?

Officially if I recall correct, violating religiously deemed morality results in eternal damnation.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
It's not even a code. It's a law. You have to obey, if not: you are punished... (Well, when caught).

Laws are about what is legal or not. Morals are about what is right and wrong. Laws are impartial and universal (within a state), morals are subjective and even partial.

You are sucking up to authority here. It's a problem we have that we put our governments on a pedestial. The government is nothing else than a group of people. If the vatican would decide now to punish everyone that doesn't live according to their morals, it would still be morals.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Certainly was not my argument. Please stop lying. It reminds me of the time you didn't know what the **** you were talking about (the last 16 years) I'm not lying. I will find the post.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact laws of a country define a specific set of morals.

I disagree. I think laws are derived from a set of morals. There were morals first and then the law as an operationalisation of morals to ensure societal stability.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But by one specific set of morals...the one the laws are based on...everything that is illegal is morally wrong and everything that is legal is morally right.

What set is that?

The law is basically a poor version of morality. And for two reasons: 1. it's an operationalised VERSION of morality and is universal. Morality may differ from person to person. If you throw a stone through my window I am legally in my right to sue you for damages. And even morally. But if you happen to be mentally challenged, I am still entitled to suebut morally I may refrain from doing so.

If someone gets convicted for murder by jury, even though he is innocent, it's still very legal, but morally rejectable. It shows the very difference between law and morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
whether that was a good thing in the times when Christianity in specific had this authority on the whole is debatable and I, for one, would disagree.

I never said that. I said social cohesion is stronger in societies with a more common morality. Religiously strong societies demonstrate that. It's not by definition better, but I think we can objectively conclude that social cohesion is strongly subject to erosion in our day. And tehrefore societal stability. I have no idea if it's for better or worse. But I do see the lack of social cohesion creating a lot of social unrest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's your believe again, you think people that see the laws as their morals are wrong. Others don't. Yes, laws are rules, but this word "official" is an empty phrase. Laws are the morals of a society/government that has taken itself the right (by force) to punish who does not behave according to them.

They are not morals. They are rules. If you just follow the rules, then you refrain from thinking yourself about what is right and wrong. Dodgy lawyers than know any little hole in the law and know how to dodge the laws in every way are acting legally, but hardly morally. Because laws are made with certain intentions, but in "being legal" all you have to do is see if you can get caught, not if you act in the spirit of the law (which is the initial moral).

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not lying. I will find the post. Fair dos.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are sucking up to authority here. It's a problem we have that we put our governments on a pedestial. The government is nothing else than a group of people. If the vatican would decide now to punish everyone that doesn't live according to their morals, it would still be morals.

I am not sucking up. I am trying to show the morally poorness of laws.

Once the Vatican starts issuing punsihment to certain acts, it becomes a lawgiver. Not an institution that does a moral appeal.

Deja~vu
Atheists are moral cause their mama's taught them to be??

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
I disagree. I think laws are derived from a set of morals. There were morals first and then the law as an operationalisation of morals to ensure societal stability.

Oddly enough I said that in the sentence before the one you quoted that you conveniently cut. Peculiar.


Originally posted by queeq
What set is that?

The law is basically a poor version of morality. And for two reasons: 1. it's an operationalised VERSION of morality and is universal. Morality may differ from person to person. If you throw a stone through my window I am legally in my right to sue you for damages. And even morally. But if you happen to be mentally challenged, I am still entitled to suebut morally I may refrain from doing so.

If someone gets convicted for murder by jury, even though he is innocent, it's still very legal, but morally rejectable. It shows the very difference between law and morality.

You have to start realizing that your morals are not the standard for everything. Laws are certainly based on specific morals that see everything as morally acceptable that is legal. That you find some of those wrong, is your opinion.

Originally posted by queeq
I never said that. I said social cohesion is stronger in societies with a more common morality. Religiously strong societies demonstrate that. It's not by definition better, but I think we can objectively conclude that social cohesion is strongly subject to erosion in our day. And tehrefore societal stability. I have no idea if it's for better or worse. But I do see the lack of social cohesion creating a lot of social unrest.

I can agree that a strong moral authority in a society might give stability. Whether it is for the good or bad is dependent on the case.


Originally posted by queeq
They are not morals. They are rules. If you just follow the rules, then you refrain from thinking yourself about what is right and wrong. Dodgy lawyers than know any little hole in the law and know how to dodge the laws in every way are acting legally, but hardly morally. Because laws are made with certain intentions, but in "being legal" all you have to do is see if you can get caught, not if you act in the spirit of the law (which is the initial moral).

If you just follow the morality of your Religion you refuste to think yourself about it as well.

And you are incorrect. In the law you do something illegal, whether you get caught or not, you just get punished if you are caught obviously. Same with Christian morality, just that their punisher is all-knowing so there are no loop holes.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair dos. It appears I'm wrong. I'm sorry.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.

Could be, but you also assume a lot about every religious group I've ever seen you talk about. Most know enough to know they don't know anything for certain, and agnosticism is the logical response to such revelations. I see it as equally justifiable as atheism from an intellectual perspective.

Mindship said it just as well back on page 4.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
West is largely developed on Christianity, and broke free within the boundaries of religion later on.
That doesn't defeat the fact that what you deem as ''moral' wasn't ultimately developed from Christianity with ruled over it for 2000 years.
(Or Judaism, as Christian morals are ultimately Jewish)

Chinese never had a deity, but their morals differ enormously.

Its a culture of one religion, not the deity which makes differance.

Fair enough, but you're also presuming that my morals are Christian (the 2nd sentence there). There are certainly "base" morals that nearly any system includes, so there's overlap between mine and ANY system of morality based in altruism. But all this is saying is that societal tendencies greatly affect relative morality of the culture, which I agree with...my presentation on atheistic morality doesn't contradict this statement.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oddly enough I said that in the sentence before the one you quoted that you conveniently cut. Peculiar.

Sorry about that then. I didn't mean to misquote you. It just seemed you felt laws are equal to morals. I disagree very much.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have to start realizing that your morals are not the standard for everything. Laws are certainly based on specific morals that see everything as morally acceptable that is legal. That you find some of those wrong, is your opinion.

I didn't realise I was forcing morals on anyone. Didn't mean to. I don't say laws are wrong, but they are not suitable for everyday assesments for what is right or wrong. They judge what is legal or illegal. There are things that were illegal 50 years ago and are legal now. It says nothing on whether either situation was right or wrong. That is a moral issue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you just follow the morality of your Religion you refuste to think yourself about it as well.

It's not a cut-and-paste thing with anything written to daily life. But other than laws, it's not always easy to see how to properly apply morality on an everyday basis. Just like morality differs between groups, it also differs internally per situation. The morality about what is right or wrong is extremely fluid. Personally I think it's more challenging to have a (peer)group and religious of philosophical writings to help and find teh asnwers. Other than maybe being guided by the moment, which is acting on impulse and not on assessing a situation or your ways on how to act morally.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you are incorrect. In the law you do something illegal, whether you get caught or not, you just get punished if you are caught obviously. Same with Christian morality, just that their punisher is all-knowing so there are no loop holes.

I think the loopholes make the difference. Lawyers that are great in finding loopholes for their clients, even though they are guilty, which is legally correct, but morally debatable. Why is it that suckers with little money committing minor crimes get easily condemned and major crime lords are so adept at avoiding punishment? It's legal, not doubt there. But is it morally acceptable? Isn't the law the same for everyone?

Bardock42
I don't really feel like getting into it more, but the point of loopholes is that the person is not guilty. You can't find loopholes if the person is guilty or it would be agains the illegal. And the law is the same for everyone, what you seem to have a problem with is the court system which is a different thing.

queeq
No, it has to do with laws. To get someone convicted you have to follow laws... laws of presenting evidence, following procedure etc... They are all meant to secure a morally just course of events. And yet they don't.

Plus... one cannot debate laws... one can debate morals.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
No, it has to do with laws. To get someone convicted you have to follow laws... laws of presenting evidence, following procedure etc... They are all meant to secure a morally just course of events. And yet they don't.

Plus... one cannot debate laws... one can debate morals.

One can debate whether laws should be changed. One can debate whether someone's morals should be changed.

One cannot debate what laws do exist at the moment. One can not debate what morals a certain person or institution holds.

You are comparing different things to one another to show a difference, it makes no sense.

"They are all meant to secure a morally just course of events. And yet they don't."

This sentence is the whole problem with your argument you say they do not secure a morally just course...but that's your opinion, they do, in fact, secure one morally just course, the one they are defining. That may not be your morals, or mine or that of the church, but it is morals nonetheless.

Mark Question
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So Why Are We Moral?




My personal response (please note this is just me I speak for now): All things are subject to our subjective interpretation of them. Nothing is so until we perceive and interpret it as such. In that sense, we have great power over how we view reality, and how we let it affect us. Nothing is inherently "depressing" or "joyful" for example, unless we make it so. Nothing is intrinsically "loved" or "hated" until we decide to love or hate it. To that end, it is possible for us to be joyful, loving, etc. at ALL times about ALL things. In practical terms, this is impossible to always achieve, but it becomes a way of looking at the world that maximizes the tolerance and love I have for others, and increases the happiness both within me and (I hope) in others. To me, it goes beyond religious labels of Good and Evil and simply loves all of it.


That is the problem, most can't look beyond petty individual differences and see that we are all one.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Mark Question
That is the problem, most can't look beyond petty individual differences and see that we are all one. Or the problem is that some do too much acid and can.

queeq
Maybe we should all drop acid.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by queeq
Maybe we should all drop acid.

We are not? confused

Mark Question
Originally posted by Bardock42
Or the problem is that some do too much acid and can.

Give me a break, i only did it once.

Deja~vu
WE ARE ONE

The voices told me so... eek!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Deja~vu
WE ARE ONE

The voices told me so... eek!


blink

Quark_666
Originally posted by Mark Question
That is the problem, most can't look beyond petty individual differences and see that we are all one.

People should be able to look past theological differences, but I'm personally not going to accept the idea that we are all one.

queeq
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not? confused

That actually explains a lot.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Deja~vu
WE ARE ONE

The voices told me so... eek! Are you debbie?

Deja~vu
What acid doesn't do this to you???. confused

DigiMark007
A non-dualistic, unified philosophy of morality seems to me inherently the best of possible systems, because it doesn't differentiate between anything as being good or evil....ALL things receive love, tolerance, and acceptance, and it makes sense to do so based on the subjective way we interpret all existence.

Myths, many of them central to religions, often carries variations on this same theme, even Western ones that would seem to be at odds with such thinking, and it's only when they become dogmatic instead of metaphoric that people lose sight of their meaning.

Now, the danger comes when people take a philosophical approach to morality and try to take it too far. I've seen similar mantras as the basis for "holistic" pseudo-science more times than I can count, and it infects alternative medical practices more than anything but can be applied to other realms of influence ("The Secret" anyone?).

Mark Question
Originally posted by Quark_666
People should be able to look past theological differences, but I'm personally not going to accept the idea that we are all one.

I'm not implying we are linked as one... I'm leaning towards Tabula rasa, at the core all humans are essentially the same.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mark Question
I'm not implying we are linked as one... I'm leaning towards Tabula rasa, at the core all humans are essentially the same.

That's not really scientifically tenable unless you qualify it rather heavily.

We share a remarkable number of genetic similarities with the entire population of humans. Yet we see how the small percent difference (anywhere between 0 to 10%, ranging from identical twins to distant cultures) accounts for a surprising number of differences.

The nature/nuture argument, from which the tabula rasa argument stems, is mostly a moot question nowadays, as most are able to see naturally that it is both things that influence us. Genetics provides the hardware, while culture is the "software," to made a crude analogy to modern cpus. The analogy actually works quite well, imo, as you could imagine computers as people. Dell computers could be Italians, maybe, and HP is Norwegians. Similar in basic areas but cosmetically different. Then the software we install onto the computer, that actually personalizes it for us, is how we live our lives.

Mark Question
Not talking about genetics. If you raise 5 kids of various ethnic groups together, they will not have any innate cultural or religious differences towards each other, so IMO the latter is illogical.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mark Question
I'm not implying we are linked as one... I'm leaning towards Tabula rasa, at the core all humans are essentially the same.

That's stupid. Plenty of people are utterly different at their core.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mark Question
Not talking about genetics. If you raise 5 kids of various ethnic groups together, they will not have any innate cultural or religious differences towards each other, so IMO the latter is illogical.

By latter you mean genes? But there's still differences in both the physical complexion as well as other characteristics (brain size, aptitude for various motor reflexes which would help with sports, lung capacity, even possible variations in aggressiveness and/or docility, etc.). Granted, the similarities outnumber the differences, but to ignore genes in favor of solely cultural aspects of our person is to grant "nuture" far too much weight, and to simplify the causal forces behind a human being simply for the sake of your argument.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Bardock42
How. Some people don't like randomly guessing in matters which aren't decided either way.

How? Because they're not exactly sure where they fit in, or how to classify themselves. It's like they're wandering in a religous no-man's-land. "Do I believe?....Or is it nonsense??"

Originally posted by Mindship
Gotta disagree here. Since, ultimately, no one knows whether or not "God" exists (despite how fervently one may believe one way or the other), "I don't know" is therefore the most honest position one can take. Any decisions made from that point on depend on what that person is looking for in a reality map.

See above.

Devil King
It isn't whether god exists or not that is the issue. It's how human he needs to be to satisfy our understanding of him that actually fuels the debate.

Is he a force, or a single entity, or one made three dependant of each other, or simply order from chaos that eventually reduces itself back to it's original state?


What he absolutely is not, is what anyone expects him to be. He isn't vengeful or judgemental or petty or considerate. He isn't partial or impartial, much less gracious or vindictive. These things are human constructs and irrelevant to what happens when a life no longer is. Toss out eternal immovable understanding of the self and add karma to the list of dismissable human concepts.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Devil King

What he absolutely is not, is what anyone expects him to be. He isn't vengeful or judgemental or petty or considerate. He isn't partial or impartial, much less gracious or vindictive.

Those are assertions.

What convinced you that he is none of those things?

Devil King
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Those are assertions.

What convinced you that he is none of those things?

The overwhelming hypocrisy and inconsistancy of his actions.

"I AM THAT I AM" was as far as it needed to go. After that, it all became human conjecture and maneuvering.

Many christian sects profess that god is unknowable and beyond true understanding, and then rushes to fill the void with a set of rules and laws that he apparently handed down.

The idea that morals and standards are exclusive to those with a religious prerogative assumes that morals are somehow beyond human, which is a contradiction. In fact, most religiously espoused morals stem from an inability to know what they can't. There is nothing in this world or in our lives that is beyond human. In fact, this is the lens though which most humans percieve the world, and explains why we think we are set apart from the rest of reality; special beyond our mandate. We can't be animals if other animals are inferior and base.

What good is a god that doesn't judge our actions? And what good is judgment if we aren't the ones passing it?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How? Because they're not exactly sure where they fit in, or how to classify themselves. It's like they're wandering in a religous no-man's-land. "Do I believe?....Or is it nonsense??"

No, it's not because they aren't sure how they fit in, or how to classify themselves, it is because they realize that believing either is a blind guess...and since it doesn't have any influence on this world as far as we can see, they choose not to pass a judgement that could feasably be either way. You must see merit in that.

queeq
Originally posted by Devil King
The overwhelming hypocrisy and inconsistancy of his actions.


You seem to know Him quite well. I have some questiions for Him, care to pass them along?

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
You seem to know Him quite well. I have some questiions for Him, care to pass them along? Well, according to Christianity, "He" chose to reveal himself in the Bible, so, if your questions aren't addressed in that book you might be out if luck.

queeq
But DK believes the Bible is all made up and fiction, so I suppose that book doesn't serve as a very reliable document to him. I'm sure he must have better sources at his disposal to draw such conclusions.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
But DK believes the Bible is all made up and fiction, so I suppose that book doesn't serve as a very reliable document to him. I'm sure he must have better sources at his disposal to draw such conclusions.

Well, I believe Sherlock Holmes is all made up and fiction, that doesn't mean that the books he is in aren't a reliable document of him (as a fictional character). I figure you also realize that and just play dumb for the sake of it.

queeq
But Sherlock doesn't tell us how to live, so who cares if he is an inconsistent hypocrite.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
But Sherlock doesn't tell us how to live, so who cares if he is an inconsistent hypocrite.

Indeed. So it sucks that this inconsistent hypocrite is so popular. Whether he exists or not.

queeq
In case of Sherlock there's no question about his existence.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
In case of Sherlock there's no question about his existence. Grass is green.


Now that we got our random statements out of the way, can we focus on this discussion?

queeq
Last time I did you said you didn't want to discuss it anymore.

Mindship
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How? Because they're not exactly sure where they fit in, or how to classify themselves. It's like they're wandering in a religous no-man's-land. "Do I believe?....Or is it nonsense??

There are, no doubt, agnostics who "wander" because they haven't given sufficient time, thought, or study to the question of whether or not there is a "God." But then there are those who have, whereupon the most logical, most honest conclusion seems to be: No One Really Knows. This puts a person in a position to make an informed decision.

For some, "I don't know" ends the search, and they walk away satisfied as is. Perhaps the question of "God's" existence is just not that important to them, or they feel this is a matter for others to ponder. Some seekers are drawn to atheism, which, from a purely empirical POV, is very compelling; while still others may lean toward some form of theism because they see advantages in expanding their reality map.

Whichever path is chosen, it is chosen because that person feels empowered by it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Last time I did you said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Was a different topic, wasn't it? One that we discussed for a page. It reached its limit. This one is just developing. Well, it was, until you said random, unrelated stuff.

queeq
That's very positive. Usually it's because people lose interest and don't bother to really look into it. Or it gets too personal.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Mindship
There are, no doubt, agnostics who "wander" because they haven't given sufficient time, thought, or study to the question of whether or not there is a "God." But then there are those who have, whereupon the most logical, most honest conclusion seems to be: No One Really Knows. This puts a person in a position to make an informed decision.

For some, "I don't know" ends the search, and they walk away satisfied as is. Perhaps the question of "God's" existence is just not that important to them, or they feel this is a matter for others to ponder. Some seekers are drawn to atheism, which, from a purely empirical POV, is very compelling; while still others may lean toward some form of theism because they see advantages in expanding their reality map.

Whichever path is chosen, it is chosen because that person feels empowered by it. Personally I believe that agnostics are just more honest about it. Because neither Theist nor Atheists really know...they both have faith. Of course you can have that faith, and search for the truth, but it would be quite good for everyone to just admit to themselves "Damn...even though I really, really believe I am right...I might just not be". It's the truth afterall...for everything, obviously.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
Personally I believe that agnostics are just more honest about it.

More honest? Some judgment call.

Saying "I don't know" is honest, but it's also a bit easy. It helps one to avoid any discussion and not take any stance, or just plain object to everything you don't like. I wonder how many self-professing agnostics did do any real searching.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
That's very positive. Usually it's because people lose interest and don't bother to really look into it. Or it gets too personal. Well, I think losing interest is part of that. I am just not interested anymore in endless debates with the same person. I think you can understand that, at some point the arguments are just the same and get repeated endlessly. It's a mood thing, too, you know?

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
More honest? Some judgment call.

Saying "I don't know" is honest, but it's also a bit easy. It helps one to avoid any discussion and not take any stance, or just plain object to everything you don't like. I wonder how many self-professing agnostics did do any real searching. It doesn't really. You will still discuss the same things. Take me for example, I'm agnostic. Would you say I chicken out of debates constantly?

Mindship
Originally posted by queeq
I wonder how many self-professing agnostics did do any real searching. That would be an interesting statistic. My first/gut reaction is to say, most haven't, which may be why agnostics are (apparently) often seen as indecisive or taking the easy way out.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Mindship
That would be an interesting statistic. My first/gut reaction is to say, most haven't, which may be why agnostics are (apparently) often seen as indecisive or taking the easy way out. I would guess about the same percentage as atheists and theists that haven't.

Mark Question
Originally posted by DigiMark007
By latter you mean genes?


No. Theology, racism, cultural bias, etc...not logical

Mindship
Originally posted by Bardock42
I would guess about the same percentage as atheists and theists that haven't. Yeah, I had the same thought. It would also be interesting to do a breakdown by age, economic class, educational/cognitive level, religious affiliation, etc.

Mark Question
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So Why Are We Moral?

The simplest answer, perhaps, is that any human being can see the joy and value of doing good things simply for the sake of them, or for the sake of other humans beings that we love and value. Why does a deity have to be present for altruism to be emotionally beneficial to the person who gives it? It doesn't, though it can be a difficult way of viewing it from a theistic perspective.




We're are born with that spirituality and sense of brotherhood. We all are capable of having that empathy towards each other. Like Dawkins said: if you asked someone if they would rape or murder if they knew no god existed, most would say no.

queeq
Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't really. You will still discuss the same things. Take me for example, I'm agnostic. Would you say I chicken out of debates constantly?

No, I wouldn't. But would you call yourself representative of every agnostic?

There is a difference though with theists... you can always ask what they believe and how they apply that in daily life. Their belief system should be of some influence on how they make choices. In case of agnostics or atheists, I doubt agnoticism and atheism says anything about their lifestyle, nor does it make sense to assume any correlation between the two.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
No, I wouldn't. But would you call yourself representative of every agnostic?

There is a difference though with theists... you can always ask what they believe and how they apply that in daily life. Their belief system should be of some influence on how they make choices. In case of agnostics or atheists, I doubt agnoticism and atheism says anything about their lifestyle, nor does it make sense to assume any correlation between the two. I agree with that, atheism and agnosticism don't have any rule systems to go by so it makes sense

queeq
Nor does it have anything to do with morality... the agnosticism and atheism themselves that is, not the people.

Bardock42
Originally posted by queeq
Nor does it have anything to do with morality... the agnosticism and atheism themselves that is, not the people. Well, yeah. Being atheist or agnostic..or also deist or theist as such are just descriptions of your believes. Because of them you might or might not live your life a certain way and hold certain morals.

Mark Question
Categorizing ones morality by faith is nonsense. It's more fundamentalist Christian Right bullshit...that's why atheist are vilified. For many years in the United States, atheists were not allowed to testify in court because it was believed that an atheist would have no reason to tell the truth. It's absurd.

queeq
It is.

But in Europe the tables are nearly turned and are believers considered dogmatic and are less and less taken serious in political circles. Both ways suck.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>