Athiests, where do you get your moral values?

[dunstable]

This thread appears to be an invitation for the self-righteous.

 

Few things are as humorous as bigotry.

To be self-righteous or to be bigoted means to make claims without giving reasons. You are the only person on this thread I see doing that.

[dunstable]

There is no exclusion clause in bigotry.

Keep it coming. You only prove my point.

How many Phds in biology do you know? I can make up a few names too.

Would you have sex with a lepper? Is this an issue about the morality of sex, or the stupidity of Russian roulette.

But don't you mock the Jews.

You don't know what reality is, and I know you don't.

FNB, your replies seem to have no connection to the points to which you were responding. Not only that, but they seem largely meaningless even if taken as standalone sentences. If you want to get through to people, you need to express your views more clearly and cite reasons for your views.

[dunstable]

Do you really think everything is contained in a collection of writings? You didn't search very far.

You say cryptically that not everything is contained in writings. I agree -- there are our genes, memes, and personal reasoning for a start. What do you see as non-written sources of moral values?

[TaraMaiden]

The title to this thread specifies that the question is specifically aimed at Atheists.

Since FnB is not atheist, all his comments are redundant, irrelevant and off-topic.

What he is doing on this thread is actually questionable...

 

_/l\_

[dunstable]

The title to this thread specifies that the question is specifically aimed at Atheists.

Since FnB is not atheist, all his comments are redundant, irrelevant and off-topic.

What he is doing on this thread is actually questionable...

 

_/l\_

I really did laugh out loud at that. Tara, you have great skill at distilling the essence from any post! I wish I had your perspicuity!

[FleshNBones]

The title to this thread specifies that the question is specifically aimed at Atheists.

Since FnB is not atheist, all his comments are redundant, irrelevant and off-topic.

What he is doing on this thread is actually questionable...

 

_/l\_

Another testamonial please.

[dunstable]

Another testamonial please.

Another meaningless reply from FNB. I don't think you area human being but a computer programmed to spit out phrases selected at random from a list.

[Big Paperclip]

I think to myself, if I didn't feel accountable to God, how would I make my moral judgements?

 

I feel like if I didn't have these moral values based on Christian principles, there would be no "wrong" I could do.

 

Oh, there would, they're just not based on anything written down in black and white.

 

Look, morals existed before the Bible was even written. They're woven into us, into our genes. Almost every human feels that it's wrong to kill, to steal, to hurt, or whatever. It's just that somebody wrote down some of these and they ended up in the Bible.

 

Humans have lived in groups for many thousands of years. It's to our benefit to look after eachother, especially those of us who share our genes. Therefore we look after our friends and family. And in many cases, the impetus to look after eachother extends to strangers. Hence the existence of charities.

 

I would be completely free to do anything without guilt. (doesn't sound too bad actually)

 

I am an atheist and I would feel horribly guilty if I hurt another person, whether that would be physically, emotionally or in terms of their wealth.

[Moai]

There is no exclusion clause in bigotry.

 

Assertion with no evidence. Fail.

 

Keep it coming. You only prove my point.

 

It would be bigoted if I rejected religion/god belief out of hand, but such is not the case.

 

How many Phds in biology do you know?

 

I fail to see what this has to do with anything. How many birthday clowns do you know? SCORE!!!!!!!!

 

Is it a requirement to know authors personally in order to assess if they are an expert in the subject about which they write?

 

I can make up a few names too.

 

And I would imagine you would, since as a believer academic honesty wouldn't be your long suit.

 

Would you have sex with a lepper? Is this an issue about the morality of sex, or the stupidity of Russian roulette.

 

Ask the Pope (do you know him, by the way? Go ahead and lie and say you do...). The Vatican is the only place where people seem to struggle with such questions. See, the Catholic Church is against contraception. So much so, that even within the bounds of marriage AND in case of preventing transmitting disease, they're against it. So much for all that intelligence and study meaning anything or informing rational decisions.

 

But don't you mock the Jews.

 

Sure I do. I may not be mocking them right now, but I have mocked them before and I an sure I will again. I remember posting about the Sabbath on another thread in which there was mocking galore.

 

You don't know what reality is, and I know you don't.

 

Ouch! When you see an opening, thrust home!

 

Is my appropriate retort "Neener neener neener" or "I know you are but what am I"? It's been a while since grade school.

[Taramere]

I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist. But anyway....moral code influences:

 

Upbringing - which generally could be boiled down to the "people will like and accept you if you say and do X....but will dislike and reject you if you say and do Y. If you don't follow our advice, you'll be unhappy and unsuccessful in life." A lot of it I rejected, with a mixed outcome.

 

Empathy - feeling stress, sadness and anxiety when you see a living creature in pain. So it stands to reason that you don't want to inflict pain on something else, because in doing so you would be inflicting all those negative sensations on yourself.

 

Experience and education - for those moments when empathy fails to kick in. Realising that what upsets me doesn't necessarily upset others, and vice versa, and that I should try to allow for this in my social behaviour.

 

There are certain areas in which I lack moral values. Were it not for the fact that I could be thrown into prison, I'd feel little guilt about stealing from a large corporation. It's not that I actively hate large corporations, I just can't have a genuine sense of affection for and loyalty towards them, in the same way that they can't experience those sensations for me. They themselves operate as a-morally as the law permits, so I don't feel protective of them or fretful about the notion of their rights being violated.

 

If my theft from a large corporation would result in direct and significant harm to an actual person, then I'd feel the guilt. The only other thing I can think of (besides criminal law and jail-time, fines) that would dissuade me from stealing from a large corporation would be social pressure from peers who would gauge those actions as a sign that they couldn't trust me on a personal level. If they worked for/owned large amounts of shares in large corporations, that would colour it, their judgement of my actions would seem less pure and would therefore be a bit less effective....but if I liked them, their judgements would still influence me.

 

So the moral code there (if you can call it that) is that I mustn't steal from a large corporation because I'm not prepared to face the likely consequences. In order to avoid face those consequences, I'd have to lie. Lying makes me feel weak, queasy, dirty and uncomfortable about myself, so I'd rather not do it unless a strong sense of self preservation makes me feel there's no other option. I don't think you need to go to Church every Sunday to be a sentient human being who has a sense of right and wrong about certain things. But yes, I might well be a bit less moral than a staunch Christian would be.

[disgracian]

But yes, I might well be a bit less moral than a staunch Christian would be.

I just picked up on this comment, and disagree with the notion that a staunch theist is more moral as a result of that religious devotion.

 

It's more a case of obedience to doctrine, and that is a mixed bag. The same thing that motivates a person to steadfastly keep the 10 commandments is also the same thing that will drive them to commit horrible acts of cruelty and cause harm to others so long as those acts appear to be in line with some interpretation of scripture.

 

The ease with which otherwise "good" people can do this is something I have observed often, and is why I am distrustful of religion and its influence on society and governments.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Taramere]

I just picked up on this comment, and disagree with the notion that a staunch theist is more moral as a result of that religious devotion.

 

It's more a case of obedience to doctrine, and that is a mixed bag. The same thing that motivates a person to steadfastly keep the 10 commandments is also the same thing that will drive them to commit horrible acts of cruelty and cause harm to others so long as those acts appear to be in line with some interpretation of scripture.

 

Well yes, there is that.

 

I suppose by moral, in this context, I mean "governed by a fairly fixed set of rules". That set of rules might be imposed by a doctrine, or the person might formulate them on their own (though influenced by philosophies they've learned, people they've met, experiences they've had etc).

 

My morals stem from emotion rather than reason....though I can usually rationalise them (even if it's just as basic as "if I do this I will feel bad - and it's irrational to make myself feel bad"). A deeply religious person might scorn this mentality on the basis that it's fundamentally all about me and how I feel. That moving beyond contemplation of my own interests would lead me along the path to genuine happiness and enlightenment.

 

Then again, as you suggest, once a person convinces themselves that they're no longer acting out of self interest but are actually committed towards the greater good of society, the potential for them to run amok and perform acts of cruelty might actually increase. If, that is, they can justify those acts as stemming not from their own will, but from the will of some external, all-powerful entity.

[marlena]

The ease with which otherwise "good" people can do this is something I have observed often, and is why I am distrustful of religion and its influence on society and governments.

 

 

 

Yes, the hypocrisy is what is so irksome to put it mildly.

[TaraMaiden]

Another testamonial please.

 

What do you mean, "Another testImonial, please"....?

[disgracian]

I'm sure the answer you get won't be worth your curiosity.

 

Cheers,

D.

[TaraMaiden]

I completely agree.....I just wanted to see if HE knew what the heck he was talking about.

I actually couldn't care less.

I think my comment was valid.....

 

Thanks, D!

[FleshNBones]

Then again, as you suggest, once a person convinces themselves that they're no longer acting out of self interest but are actually committed towards the greater good of society, the potential for them to run amok and perform acts of cruelty might actually increase. If, that is, they can justify those acts as stemming not from their own will, but from the will of some external, all-powerful entity.

More paranoia.

 

Here is a thought. The black neighborhoods were safer when the black community was more religious. They also had a lot more dignity. I bet they were safer back then even under the jim crow laws.

[FleshNBones]

I think my comment was valid.....

And hypocritical.

[TaraMaiden]

Really, that's interesting. Why do you say that?

[TaraMaiden]

More paranoia.

 

Here is a thought. The black neighborhoods were safer when the black community was more religious. They also had a lot more dignity....

 

And the white communities when they were less so.

[FleshNBones]

And the white communities when they were less so.

The white communities were also more religious.

 

Let me explain this to you. I just made a counterargument against your claim that religion (with God) makes people more violent. History says no. In fact, we see the opposite happening. There was a time when people didn't need to lock their doors.

[sally4sara]

Every year in my home state, putting creationism back in public school gets considered and argued. Damn near every street has a christian church on it.

 

My home state has also yielded the highest number of serial killers. History shows THIS to be true as well.

 

[burning 4 revenge]

I get my morals from Loveshack

[anne1707]

I get my morals from Loveshack

 

Well then, anything goes :laugh:

[TaraMaiden]

The white communities were also more religious.

 

Let me explain this to you. I just made a counterargument against your claim that religion (with God) makes people more violent. History says no. In fact, we see the opposite happening. There was a time when people didn't need to lock their doors.

You've done no such thing, actually.

Religion - and its pursuit - made people just as violent in yesteryear, as it does now.

Just a different 'God' (according to those with a theistic faith) and a different interpretation of the beliefs....

 

The reason people didn't lock their doors was not down to religion.

It was down to the fact that the Law considered the victim more than the criminal.

Sometyhing sadly lacking in our societies nowadays, when the punishment does not fit the crime, and the victim is uncompensated and ignored, once the arrests are made......

And you still have not explained why my statement was hypocritical.

It's ok, I can wait......