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.
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
😕 .........
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!
Originally posted by inimalistNope... but had a quick skim now.
had you seen this?
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 [insert religion] would you be an amoral sociopathic monster?
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 [insert religion] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by queeqThe 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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Agnosticism is an identity problem.
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.
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.