Atheists: How do you reconcile your views with your lifestyle choices?

Originally posted by micmerci
.....These morals vary from culture to culture. Some cultures allow multiple sexual partners, some condone honor killings, etc.
So, the question remains- what is the standard of right and wrong? What is the measuring stick, if you will?

This is false. The cultural aspects you mention above are each tolerated because of the predominate religion in that particular region. That doesn't mean it is morally right and in each of these cases, I'd argue the opposite. These are all instances where religion is used to derail what society would generally considered morally right.

If it weren't for religion, what woman would feel comfortable sharing a husband? If it weren't for religion, what group of people would condone or accept honor killing?

In my opinion, atheists, in general, have the highest moral and ethical values because they don't have a religion to fall back on. I can't screw up and then go to confession on Sunday to wipe the slate clean, Jesus didn't die for my sins, I am personally responsible for them.

Star and Flag for you, good thread.

Here's a link to a video of a lecture called The Superiority of Secular Morality, by Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience. There are six parts to it, and you can find the rest at the links to the side.

part 1
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by snowspirit

I completely agree with you in that religion has absolutely nothing to do with the moral standard. I believe where we differ is that I believe God set the standard (God does not= religion)

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by micmerci

 

Society dictates what is right and wrong...not religion or a belief.

If people were born without morals....how have we evolved to the place we are today?? If only being religious blessed you with these traits how comes we were not wiped out long before religion was invented??

Murder is wrong, you dont have to be religious to know taking someones life is wrong. If non believers arent born with morals how do you explain the society we live in today??

Your argument seems to only be in FAVOR of religion. But, how do you even assume we'd be wiped out? You'll need to elaborate.

No, you don't have to be religious, but it's not ingrained in our nature. A child doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

Originally posted by snowspirit
reply to post by micmerci

 

For society to not fall apart in anarchy everywhere, there has to be rules.
The reason I don't think religion had anything to do with it, is because of things like the crusades ( forcing people to be Christian), and the witch burnings, and more recent times - all the churches misdoings.
Religion judges people very harshly, ignoring their own teachings.
Too many things, religion has done wrong.

Plus in the past, and still in some cultures, there's the blood sacrifices (animals) to the gods.

You know what the problem is with using a word like 'Religion'? It focuses on the Christian beliefs, and their God. No one thinks of Hinduism, or Buddhism, or much less the Islamic beliefs when they hear that word; which is evident by the examples you gave.

And yea, you're right on one thing; Religion does judge people very harshly. Unless you're talking about Christians, in which case they are no longer under the Law.

You act as if Religion has only done wrong, and never has once been beneficial to society; that is where you would be very wrong.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by snowspirit

 

I completely agree with you in that religion has absolutely nothing to do with the moral standard. I believe where we differ is that I believe God set the standard (God does not= religion)

So, if god says something is good, then it is? For example, he asks you to sacrifice your son by placing him on an altar and stabbing him through the heart.... all for the good of mankind. Is that good?

I know this thread is going to explode from both ends soon, but as its already been stated; morality does NOT derive from religion.

I do not believe in our "earth gods" but i believe there is a higher governing power of inexpressible magnitude.

Morality comes with intelligence. I firmly believe that as a being becomes more intelligent and conscious, their amount of empathy sharply rises. Why? Because you are more aware of your actions. It's very simple to understand that you do not want pain, and after that simple understanding, you also understand that neither do others.

I fail to see how this comes from anything other then consciousness/intelligence and every single human being is born with the potential to understand that. Those who hurt others be it physically or emotionally are disgracing not only life itself, but the entire race as a whole.

While i do not believe in the above mentioned gods, i do believe in all religions and i believe every single one of them, even the cults, in fact everything in existence, negative and positive, offers a learning experience.

Everything has an equal and opposite, there can be no good without evil and no evil without good. Personally it's about finding the equilibrium of peace and acceptance of the possibility of both good and evil and admitting that, we as humans do not have the answers and to say we do just fuels mankind's current tragedy.

Originally posted by Hydroman
So, if god says something is good, then it is? For example, he asks you to sacrifice your son by placing him on an altar and stabbing him through the heart.... all for the good of mankind. Is that good?

I don't believe that's ever happened. Citation?

reply to post by jimmysinger


Everyone keeps going back to religion!! I in no way think that religion is the moral standard in our world today or throughout history for that matter. Please do not tell me what is not the standard. I already know that. The question is what is the proper standard of right and wrong? It cannot be society because societies are different and right for one is sometimes not right for another. I think we can drop the semantics and agree on that. It can't be personal because there are 7 billion personalities on this planet. Still agree?
So then, what is the standard? The guide, the measuring stick?
As an example, the law of gravity is the same for everyone on this planet, whether we agree with it or not, gravity wins. So what is the law of morality? Where did it originate?

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Hydroman
So, if god says something is good, then it is? For example, he asks you to sacrifice your son by placing him on an altar and stabbing him through the heart.... all for the good of mankind. Is that good?

I don't believe that's ever happened. Citation?

Abraham and Isaac?

Next, if he condones slavery, is slavery good?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Hydroman
So, if god says something is good, then it is? For example, he asks you to sacrifice your son by placing him on an altar and stabbing him through the heart.... all for the good of mankind. Is that good?

I don't believe that's ever happened. Citation?

Abraham and Isaac?

Oh, the same Abraham and Isaac in the Bible, when God sent an angel to stop him, because it was all a test of faith? You made it sound as if he actually sacrificed his son in cold blood to appease a bloodthirsty God.

My apologies.

What does that have to do with morals, again?

Next, if he condones slavery, is slavery good?
edit on 28-11-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

The Bible never condones slavery. You're assuming that because it isn't clear if it outlaws it or not.

The Leviticus verse that most love to throw around is taken out of context; but to be clear, Slavery in biblical times is not the same as slavery that has been practiced in recent centuries; such as racial slavery, the sex trade, etc. It was more of a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves, and the Bible was clear as to how to treat these people (Deut 15:12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Col 4:1). They were more like serfs who had food, shelter, and were even greatly compensated after they were relieved.

And let's not forget, the OT and NT both condemned the practice of "man-stealing", which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to America to work on plantations/farms, etc.

Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

In the NT, slave-traders are listed as "ungodly and sinful", and are in the same category as those who kill their parents, murderers, adulterers, perverts, liars, etc (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

There is no right or wrong.

There is what you perceive to be right and wrong, and there are entities (individuals and or groups of people or organizations...same thing) that tell you what is right or wrong.

Some of those groups are in a position to stop you from doing what they think is right or wrong.

It is in our nature to be selfish. Doing things because they make us feel good is selfish and that is a natural thing.

Altruism, "giving yourself up for the greater good" is sacrifice. Doing something you don't want to do. That is slavery.

Because this is the internet, I will have to clarify the previous statement.

Someone who joins the Military because they feel good serving their country is doing it for a selfish reason. That is natural. Someone who is drafted against their will is merely a slave of the state to fight the states war.

Im not going to continue arguing over why people dont kill everyone they see....but i can tell you a sky fairy has nothing to do with it.

A book can guide you if you dont feel strong enough to get through life without a crutch to fall back on. Some...well most of us do perfectly well without it.

If we were not born with some kind of morals then there would be no human race. A god/creator has nothing to do with it. I forget the term for it as im half asleep...but there is evidence that shows throughout time we have developed social skills in order to progress as a race. Much like every other animal.

Social skills...morals...pretty much the same thing. In order to thrive as a race you need to get along and work with the other people within your society.

If everytime you saw someone you didnt like you murdered them....there would be no people left..leaving us as a race, extinct.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Oh, the same Abraham and Isaac in the Bible, when God sent an angel to stop him, because it was all a test of faith? You made it sound as if he actually sacrificed his son in cold blood to appease a bloodthirsty God.

My apologies.

What does that have to do with morals, again?

No, the blood thirsty god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham must have thought that this was something that his god would legitimately ask of him as he was going to carry it out. Is that not correct? Also, have you heard of Jephtah, who actually sacrificed his daughter to god, and was not stopped? Speaking of a blood thirsty god, this god did require blood in the form of innocent animals. He even required the blood of an innocent human, Jesus. Remember that story? That is a human sacrifice which he required. Is it different because it was Jesus? It's still a human sacrifice.

reply to post by Lionhearte


I admit, the examples I gave are about when religion goes wrong. They're the things I think about when I think about organized religion and it's sometimes lack of morals.

There are good things that come from churches also, food banks, organizing charities and the like. Socialization for some people.
There's both good and bad in most religions, people are sometimes very flawed beings.
That's why I don't think morality is taught by any religion.
Maybe we're born with a sense of right and wrong. Some more than others.

There's also a sense of doing good attracts more good stuff coming your way. Karma.
Doing harmful stuff, sends more harmful stuff your way. Again, karma.

I don't know very much about a lot of religions, I admit. Some are interesting though. I need to read up more on Hinduism. The Mahabarata (sp?) seems like a very interesting read.
I also like the Buddhist bunch, from what I've seen. They believe in a higher power, but they don't like to call it "God".
I think it could be a matter of semantics there.

I'm the polar opposite, I used to be atheist, but now I know that there is some higher course, I do not believe Christianity is spot on, I believe all religions are partially true, like pieces of a big puzzle. We are all unified and one at the core.

love and light

Originally posted by Lionhearte


The Leviticus verse that most love to throw around is taken out of context; but to be clear, Slavery in biblical times is not the same as slavery that has been practiced in recent centuries; such as racial slavery, the sex trade, etc. It was more of a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves, and the Bible was clear as to how to treat these people (Deut 15:12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Col 4:1). They were more like serfs who had food, shelter, and were even greatly compensated after they were relieved.

This is out of context? Can you put it in context for us?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

And what about this? I'd hate to be a serf of this house!

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Oh, the same Abraham and Isaac in the Bible, when God sent an angel to stop him, because it was all a test of faith? You made it sound as if he actually sacrificed his son in cold blood to appease a bloodthirsty God.

My apologies.

What does that have to do with morals, again?

No, the blood thirsty god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham must have thought that this was something that his god would legitimately ask of him as he was going to carry it out. Is that not correct? Also, have you heard of Jephtah, who actually sacrificed his daughter to god, and was not stopped?

Obviously Abraham was in no place to question it, which is why he was going to go through with it. That was all that was needed as a test of faith. One could argue, God, knowing everything, would not need to put him through the test, because he knows what he would have done; but then we wouldn't even be discussing it and have learned from it.

Yes, I've heard of Jephtah, but if you rememember; God never commanded Jephtah to take his daughters life, it was Jephtah himself who made that vow, a vow to God which was highly warned about in Deuteronomy 23:21-23:

21 “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, be prompt in fulfilling whatever you promised him. For the Lord your God demands that you promptly fulfill all your vows, or you will be guilty of sin. 22 However, it is not a sin to refrain from making a vow. 23 But once you have voluntarily made a vow, be careful to fulfill your promise to the Lord your God.

In other words, don't make vows to God that you don't plan on keeping. You'd be guilty of lying, for one.

Speaking of a blood thirsty god, this god did require blood in the form of innocent animals. He even required the blood of an innocent human, Jesus. Remember that story? That is a human sacrifice which he required. Is it different because it was Jesus? It's still a human sacrifice.

Actually, yes. It was different. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins. The reason 'innocent animals' were required, is because they were innocent. Just as Jesus was. Isaac was not.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Obviously Abraham was in no place to question it, which is why he was going to go through with it.

Exactly. People believe that if god says something is good, do it. Don't even think about it, do it.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Yes, I've heard of Jephtah, but if you rememember; God never commanded Jephtah to take his daughters life, it was Jephtah himself who made that vow, a vow to God which was highly warned about in Deuteronomy 23:21-23:

Yes, and a substitute was not provided for him, as it was with Abraham who also said he would sacrifice his son.

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Actually, yes. It was different. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sins. The reason 'innocent animals' were required, is because they were innocent. Just as Jesus was. Isaac was not.

Which is good, right? Because god says so? Sacrificing an innocent animal is good, because it was what was needed for remission of sin. So today, you'd be perfectly comfortable sacrificing animals if it were still required, correct?

What is disgusting, imo, is the requirement to shed blood for the remission of sin. To you, you may not think so because your god says it is good. Right?

In other words, when my children wrong me, I don't have them kill a kitten so that I can forgive them. Yet, this god required blood to be spilled as a payment for sin.

Any other god in history requiring sacrifice would be disgusting and barbaric in your eyes, every god except yours that is.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Lionhearte


The Leviticus verse that most love to throw around is taken out of context; but to be clear, Slavery in biblical times is not the same as slavery that has been practiced in recent centuries; such as racial slavery, the sex trade, etc. It was more of a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves, and the Bible was clear as to how to treat these people (Deut 15:12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Col 4:1). They were more like serfs who had food, shelter, and were even greatly compensated after they were relieved.

This is out of context? Can you put it in context for us?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

And what about this? I'd hate to be a serf of this house!

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That's the verse I was referring to, actually. I was certain to be clear in my last post.. read it again. Also, in some translations, they are actually referred to as 'servants and maids', because that's what they were.

The rich purchase servants/maids, and the servants/maids follow orders of their "masters" and their "master's children", and so forth. As I said before, slavery isn't used in the same context as it was referred to in the recent centuries. Hell, one of the most famous stories; Moses leading the Hebrews out of slavery, was because God condemns that form of slavery. Hint; they were there against their will.

Seriously.. read my post again. It's like you ignored it.

However, if you want another way to look at it; you could say that, although it was not condemned (and certainly not condoned), it was still permitted. Slavery is not a God-ordained system, but an invention of fallen men. God still 'allows' it to exist, just as he does murder, lying, theft, etc.

That's why there are verses that show how to treat such a servant/maid.

...as I said in my post.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
A person doesn't have to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. to have morality and honor.
The inverse of that can be said also.

Don't fall for the lies and stereotypes that atheists are amoral hedonists with no respect for anything.

edit on 11/28/2011 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

I did not expect this many replies so quickly! I haven't read through them all, but I want to reply to this post right now just to set the record straight before I can look at the rest.

I am a staunch atheist. I consider my reasons for not believing in any sort of god to be very well thought-out and amply supported, and I'm postive I will never be a man of faith again in my life. I also think it's absurd to conted that atheism is dull or short-sighted.

I'm feeling conflicted not because I worry that atheist have no morals, but because I'm questioning why I feel this way about certain moral qualms, not morality as a whole. I've been pretty content with my definition of morality for some time, but certain things have come to light which have put me at odds with that definition.

Resume!