The morals of an atheist

catefrances

angelica wrote:

Oh, it's definitely not unique to athiests. However some athiests believe they are outside the bounds of universal governance and cause and effects. And this thread is addressing whether athiests are moral or not.

what is universal governance?

angelica

Jeanie wrote:

Sorry angel, couple of things gave me pause here.

Firstly are you saying that because people are athiests they behave this way?

I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.

Because I would say that all of the behaviours in the first paragraph are just as applicable to the faithful in given circumstances.

I fully agree people of faith do similar types of things. I'm speaking about athiests, since this thread is about the morality of athiests. And it's a different situation when someone is saying they don't have to do something because they don't believe in God, than a Christian being called on not living up to a belief in God. Although obnoxious behaviour is the same, the situations and the justifications are different.

Ok and secondly, people do suffer randomly in life. Life is random. So I think it's perfectly understandable for people to wonder "why me?" Sometimes bad things happen to good people, for no reason at all other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or just because. I agree there are things that people have control over and that many times during a life you will not see how your actions can have consequences. But I also believe that random awful things do happen to people not because of anything they've done or not done, just because "shit happens". Never forget the universal law, "shit happens".

Fair enough. I personally see that people believe things are random. I understand that in their experience things seem random. I say that absolutely everything, 100% happens for an exact and specific reason on all levels.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

what is universal governance?

I've discussed that indepthly in a few of these threads. Some of it on pages 2 and 3 of the Mauldin thread, for example. I refer to the finely synchronized laws/principles, etc of the universe, where for our each action in thought, word or deed, we receive exacting consequences.

Ahnimus

There is nothing random. But I don't buy the karma kick.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There is nothing random. But I don't buy the karma kick.

If you truly believe nothing is random, there is no "but".

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

It's hilarious that you guys think that way.........

Sorry ahnimus, I keep forgetting this is all about you.
My mistake. Shouldn't have bothered, you're right, I am stupid and delusional, I keep expecting more from you and I'm always disappointed when you are incapable of delivering.

Ahnimus wrote:

.........Have you seen my youtube videos? Body language and tone make up some 80% of communication.

Same would apply to every one else that you are communicating with, you can't see them, you don't know them so 80% of what you are responding to is an unknown to you. Doesn't seem to stop you laughing at people, or labelling them. If you don't want people to respond negatively to your words then perhaps choose them more carefully? Another dumb suggestion of mine.
Continue to ignore me.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.

these so called atheists are not representative of ALL atheists. they are just using their nonbelief as an excuse to justify their actions. but i don't see it as them making a mistake. they are conscious of the decisions they make. and they need to take responsibility for them. whether they are a believer or a disbeliever is irrelevant.

Jeanie

angelica wrote:

I have heard arguments from athiests saying their non-belief in a higher power gives them license to behave as they choose. They have, in essence, denied having a standard to live up to. This is their justification. That fact that people do unethical things is because they are humans making mistakes and not related to athiesm.

Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.

angelica wrote:

I fully agree people of faith do similar types of things. I'm speaking about athiests, since this thread is about the morality of athiests. And it's a different situation when someone is saying they don't have to do something because they don't believe in God, than a Christian being called on not living up to a belief in God. Although obnoxious behaviour is the same, the situations and the justifications are different.

I would agree with this mostly, except that how is the obnoxious behaviour of a person of faith using that faith as a justification any different to an athiest using their non belief as a justification for obnoxious behaviour?
The motivation is the same, belief or disbelief so that therefore the "rules do not apply" to the individual. To me a silly motivation. Perhaps not to others.

angelica wrote:

Fair enough. I personally see that people believe things are random. I understand that in their experience things seem random. I say that absolutely everything, 100% happens for an exact and specific reason on all levels.

Ok, well I would disagree with that I think, if I'm understand you correctly. :)Too many things that cannot be explained happen in this world for things not to be random or without reason.
And I dislike the idea that when things do happen to people that are random that they are somehow responsible for it. Feels like blaming people to me.
I think some things do happen for a reason and I think other things are random and just happen.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

these so called atheists are not representative of ALL atheists. they are just using their nonbelief as an excuse to justify their actions. but i don't see it as them making a mistake. they are conscious of the decisions they make. and they need to take responsibility for them. whether they are a believer or a disbeliever is irrelevant.

I would never say it was all athiests. I know more than a few athiests who hold themselves to a very high standard.

What I mean about mistakes, is that people are flawed and make them all the time. I can understand that. I can even understand when people make mistakes and have them pointed out to them and are still in denial. I always agree that people are to be held to account for what they do, denial or not, or whether they hide behind justifications. I can understand their point of view, and still they are accountable for what they do.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.

me too jeanie. i treat people and live my life to a very high standard. and it is MY standard. i'm not swayed by what other people, even those who love me, deem appropriate.
what is a deliberate mistake? sounds like an oxymoron to me.

angelica

Jeanie wrote:

Ok well I'm an athiest, and I do behave as I choose, but I choose to believe that I do have standards to live up to. My own. And those of the people that love me and have invested in my life to some degree.
But I agree that people do unethical things because they make mistakes, sometimes deliberate ones, but that is not always related to athiesm.

as I said, I refer to when they use non-belief as their justification.

I would agree with this mostly, except that how is the obnoxious behaviour of a person of faith using that faith as a justification any different to an athiest using their non belief as a justification for obnoxious behaviour?
The motivation is the same, belief or disbelief so that therefore the "rules do not apply" to the individual. To me a silly motivation. Perhaps not to others.

They are different types of situations. Different equalling different.

Ok, well I would disagree with that I think, if I'm understand you correctly. :)Too many things that cannot be explained happen in this world for things not to be random or without reason.
And I dislike the idea that when things do happen to people that are random that they are somehow responsible for it. Feels like blaming people to me.
I think some things do happen for a reason and I think other things are random and just happen.

If you stepped off of a curb at an odd angle and twisted your ankle, and you realized that the twisted ankle was a consequence of stepping of the curb at an odd angle, would you blame yourself for doing so?

The idea of truly understanding cause and effect is actually void of blame, as Ahnimus and I point out. The current psychology families operate from at this point where cause/effect is not appreciated and understood, blame is taught to us from birth, when it's actually inappropriate. Both Ahnimus and I, who see non-randomness around us, as well as the philosophers, scientists, etc, Ahnimus quotes on determinism, advocate releasing this blame/judgment paradigm so persistent and detrimental in our society.

When we can acknowledge our behaviours simply, on all levels, we can use this cause and effect to make changes and empower ourselves--meaning to fix problems. People are so bound up in blame and shame as things are, it's hard to see around it to the simple issues that we can learn from in our lives.

Heatherj43

I have been reading this post, at least trying, but for me it gets too philsophical with lots of weighty words and ideas, and I just hate having to think that hard as to why i am moral and don't have the fear of god or hell in me.
I feel its a lot simpler than all that weighty stuff.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
There are even things that are not laws, like eating dogs, that is just an unwritten norm in our society that we then don't do, not because of any God, but because society tells us what is right and wrong.
I do believe man is inherently good. We are born with a clean slate, (tabula rosa). Anything after that is learned. Whether belief in God or not, that is how we begin as humans and we learn from within our society what is acceptable. People do not have to believe in any supreme being to do what is right. Society tells us from that very beginning on our clean slate.

I do know this, belief in a higher power alone does not keep people moral. Lots of people do heinous things to others and will say they believe in a higher power. Likewise, there are many who have no belief and have very fine morals and values and live within societal norms or mores.
I don't get why some people think belief in a God has anything at all to do with morals or not when all evidence on what we see various people do show no evidence that their belief system had anything to do as to whether they kill, be immoral or not.
I don't think belief is factor at all. I do not believe people live by morals because of their beliefs in a god. They may, but evidence shows otherwise.
All that belief tends to do is make them feel guilt or fear, yet doesn't stop them.

Look at the evidence. Lots of people who believe in god kill, rape, steal. etc. Not all, of course, but many. Lots of people without any belief don't do these things. Again not all, but I think its a quite even amount, thus taking the whole belief thing out of it, and I feel its more society that determines our morals and values and some people just go against that regardless of their belief.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

angelica wrote:

If you truly believe nothing is random, there is no "but".

catefrances

Heatherj43 wrote:

Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.

now this concept interests me. one could also say that laws FORCE morality upon us.

in the early days of the colony of new south wales, it was the morality of the anglican church that was forced upon the convicts and free settlers of this fledgling society. catholics were forced to worship along the guidelines of the anglican church. catholic services were outlawed.
the lower classes were expected to follow the morality of the ruling class. in the lower classes, it was acceptable for a man and woman to live in a defacto relationship. and many had done so for much longer than some married couples. this was seen as anathema to any civilised society. and so these couples were discriminated against and either forced to marry or ostracised. upon death of the man, the woman was also denied her rights as the surviving partner.

i now take great pleasure, even though i am an atheist, in being able to take in the sight of the largest house of worship in that colony of sydney now being a catholic church.

Heatherj43

catefrances wrote:

now this concept interests me. one could also say that laws FORCE morality upon us.

in the early days of the colony of new south wales, it was the morality of the anglican church that was forced upon the convicts and free settlers of this fledgling society. catholics were forced to worship along the guidelines of the anglican church. catholic services were outlawed.
the lower classes were expected to follow the morality of the ruling class. where it was acceptable for a man and woman to live in a defacto relationship this was seen as anathema to any civilised society. and so these couples were discriminated against and either forced to marry or ostracised.

i now take great pleasure, even though i am an atheist, in being able to take in the sight of the largest house of worship in that colony of sydney now being a catholic church.

Laws do keep some moral, and yes forced. I guess for those who haven't been able to internalize it for themsleves.

catefrances

Heatherj43 wrote:

Laws do keep some moral, and yes forced. I guess for those who haven't been able to internalize it for themsleves.

oh i agree. laws also make some immoral in the legal sense, though not in a conscientious sense. does that make sense?

Ahnimus

Heatherj43 wrote:

I have been reading this post, at least trying, but for me it gets too philsophical with lots of weighty words and ideas, and I just hate having to think that hard as to why i am moral and don't have the fear of god or hell in me.
I feel its a lot simpler than all that weighty stuff.
Just living in society gives us morals and values. Laws keeps us moral, or at least fear of jail may. An just plain decency. Or what others tink of us. Plus, my reason, I want to live in a nice world. Thus, I need to live how I want others to live so we have a pleasant and safe society.
There are even things that are not laws, like eating dogs, that is just an unwritten norm in our society that we then don't do, not because of any God, but because society tells us what is right and wrong.
I do believe man is inherently good. We are born with a clean slate, (tabula rosa). Anything after that is learned. Whether belief in God or not, that is how we begin as humans and we learn from within our society what is acceptable. People do not have to believe in any supreme being to do what is right. Society tells us from that very beginning on our clean slate.

I do know this, belief in a higher power alone does not keep people moral. Lots of people do heinous things to others and will say they believe in a higher power. Likewise, there are many who have no belief and have very fine morals and values and live within societal norms or mores.
I don't get why some people think belief in a God has anything at all to do with morals or not when all evidence on what we see various people do show no evidence that their belief system had anything to do as to whether they kill, be immoral or not.
I don't think belief is factor at all. I do not believe people live by morals because of their beliefs in a god. They may, but evidence shows otherwise.
All that belief tends to do is make them feel guilt or fear, yet doesn't stop them.

Look at the evidence. Lots of people who believe in god kill, rape, steal. etc. Not all, of course, but many. Lots of people without any belief don't do these things. Again not all, but I think its a quite even amount, thus taking the whole belief thing out of it, and I feel its more society that determines our morals and values and some people just go against that regardless of their belief.

That is similar to my beliefs. I believe in tabula rasa to a degree. Recent research has shown some hard-wired altruism, but I question whether this wiring is innate or due to conditioning. I guess that would depend whether or not prairie vole have societal conditioning. Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.

Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned. For example, honoring age of consent laws is definitely learned behavior. It violates our natural tendencies, as ironic as that may seem. When a woman reaches the age of adolescence they are ripe in the eyes of nature. Therefor the moral obligation prohibiting such behavior is learned.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That is similar to my beliefs. I believe in tabula rasa to a degree. Recent research has shown some hard-wired altruism, but I question whether this wiring is innate or due to conditioning. I guess that would depend whether or not prairie vole have societal conditioning. Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.

Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned. For example, honoring age of consent laws is definitely learned behavior. It violates our natural tendencies, as ironic as that may seem. When a woman reaches the age of adolescence they are ripe in the eyes of nature. Therefor the moral obligation prohibiting such behavior is learned.

Do you notice that learned behaviour has to do with that universal cause and effect? If we aren't born with something, it's molded in us from our environment and therefore is natural, as well. So no matter whether it's from inside or outside, we develop morality as a way of adapting to our lives and our environment and the challenges life brings us. Whether we have societal conditioning or not, we are always being environmentally conditioned.

As for the subject of age of consent, nature considers a woman "ripe" at a certain age, physically, and nature, via humans, has taught us certain life principles through our environments, that have equipped us, naturally, with logical cases that have shown us a woman is not mature mentally or emotionally for "consent" until a later date and thereby we've adapted. Whether something is inherent through universal life flowing through us biologically, or whether we internalize it from what our environments have taught us, it's all natural and for adaptive purposes.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Still, in the most part I think it's a blank slate, though many have disowned this theory as of late. It doesn't seem that either of the alternative theories-innate purity, or original sin-have been owned. It's rather varying degrees of innate morality, in light of new evidence.

Do you have links to some of this new evidence? Or the seeming prevailing theories of this time regaring innate morality?

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

Yet, I still hold that much of what we believe is learned.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902cc81da9173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I can't wait until the biologists inadvertently reproduce the Ten Commandments!

Some questions come to mind: To what degree can the rules for morality be written solely as a function of evolution? It may be an interesting problem to discern between evolved moral traits, and those acquired socially.

I wonder about another component of this. Do animals love, and hate, as we do? Even if animal behavior can all be reduced to this hormone, or that stimulated response, can't human reactions be reduced in a similar manner? Why would we be fundamentally different in how we feel about each other, or about our pets for that matter, as compared to how they feel? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that my cats don't really love me.;)