It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Atheists: How do you reconcile your views with your lifestyle choices?
page: 5share:
reply to post by TylerDurden2U
I'm still trying to reach your god but he isn't answering.. Maybe he's to busy screwing up the world. But maybe I'll meet him someday, can't wait. He can start by explaining why his followers are brought up to be so closeminded and why they hate all people except christians. And after he explained (or didn't) I'll happily walk to the devils side. For I rather be there.
I'm still trying to reach your god but he isn't answering.. Maybe he's to busy screwing up the world. But maybe I'll meet him someday, can't wait. He can start by explaining why his followers are brought up to be so closeminded and why they hate all people except christians. And after he explained (or didn't) I'll happily walk to the devils side. For I rather be there.
Herman, I'd personally recommend that you issue a statement that any off topic posts anymore will be marked for moderation. Establishing morality
without a deity guiding it is an intellectual conversation, of high potential.
Over half these posts don't tackle the issue(Tackling other issues such as christian ideals of sin, claims of atheist immorality, ect) It really detracts from the topic. Don't allow such a worthy topic be derailed into bickering.
While there's many claims I'd like to address(correct, disprove, explain, point out to be blatant lies, ect) by some of those bickerers, I will not. I will not contribute to the derailment of this thread.
However, I'm very fond of this topic as I find it to be good brain food. Where you draw the line of inappropriate or off topic is completely up to you. I'm just making a suggestion for you to consider.
Over half these posts don't tackle the issue(Tackling other issues such as christian ideals of sin, claims of atheist immorality, ect) It really detracts from the topic. Don't allow such a worthy topic be derailed into bickering.
While there's many claims I'd like to address(correct, disprove, explain, point out to be blatant lies, ect) by some of those bickerers, I will not. I will not contribute to the derailment of this thread.
However, I'm very fond of this topic as I find it to be good brain food. Where you draw the line of inappropriate or off topic is completely up to you. I'm just making a suggestion for you to consider.
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
I get your point. And I have to apoligize for my own 'derailment'. Now I'll answer Hermans question properly as a sincere excuse.
I would say most of my morals come from my upbringing. Parents telling you what's right and wrong and school teachers putting me in my place. I just have the rule to never purposely hurt someone. And that applies to almost every moral dilemma. Just listen to your heart, yes that sounds corny. But it will help. Do the things that make you feel good and avoid the things that don't. For instance, if you don't feel good about taking drugs don't do it because of peer pressure. If you want to try drugs and have nothing against it then do it even though some people will tell you not to. Listen to yourself.
I get your point. And I have to apoligize for my own 'derailment'. Now I'll answer Hermans question properly as a sincere excuse.
So, my question is this: Atheists, how do you reconcile your beliefs with your lifestyle? Where do your morals come from?
I would say most of my morals come from my upbringing. Parents telling you what's right and wrong and school teachers putting me in my place. I just have the rule to never purposely hurt someone. And that applies to almost every moral dilemma. Just listen to your heart, yes that sounds corny. But it will help. Do the things that make you feel good and avoid the things that don't. For instance, if you don't feel good about taking drugs don't do it because of peer pressure. If you want to try drugs and have nothing against it then do it even though some people will tell you not to. Listen to yourself.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Duckling because: again with the grammar!
One of the craziest things I've heard christians say is "If you don't believe in god, why don't you go kill, steal, and rape people?"
My thought on that is this: "If believing in a god is all that is holding you back from doing those things, then by all means keep believing."
My thought on that is this: "If believing in a god is all that is holding you back from doing those things, then by all means keep believing."
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Establishing morality without a deity guiding it is an intellectual conversation, of high potential.
Actually it's pretty simple, we don't kill people and steal and cheat on our wives etc because there are negative consequences for doing these things, simple self-preservation supplies all the "guidance" needed. Those with poor morality are people that like to gamble on their ability to not get caught. Common sense, really.
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Establishing morality without a deity guiding it is an intellectual conversation, of high potential.
Actually it's pretty simple, we don't kill people and steal and cheat on our wives etc because there are negative consequences for doing these things, simple self-preservation supplies all the "guidance" needed. Those with poor morality are people that like to gamble on their ability to not get caught. Common sense, really.
Internet Piracy, with proper protection to prevent being caught. Especially when you would have bought the works otherwise.
Murder, when it's beneficial for you, and you're guaranteed to get away with it.
Lying to get out of work when your boss won't find out when it's untrue.
Abortion, under the varying circumstances.
When is War justified and when isn't it?
Genuine question(and trying to get this going on track), but how would you rank the morality of these things by "Self-preservation" and "Avoiding negative consequences"? Also, how do you judge the morality of a different person by these as well.
~
Common sense, and gut instinct get us pretty far in our everyday lives. However, I personally feel that reason gives a more accurate portrayal of morality, and is far more skilled at determining issues that are more complex. And I definitely don't substitute morality for, "Whatever is beneficial for me(lacking consequences)".
However, that's me. The point of threads like this is for everyone to elaborate on how they see it, so we can all draw from each other to improve our own.
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Internet Piracy, with proper protection to prevent being caught. Especially when you would have bought the works otherwise.
Murder, when it's beneficial for you, and you're guaranteed to get away with it.
Lying to get out of work when your boss won't find out when it's untrue.
Abortion, under the varying circumstances.
When is War justified and when isn't it?
Genuine question(and trying to get this going on track), but how would you rank the morality of these things by "Self-preservation" and "Avoiding negative consequences"? Also, how do you judge the morality of a different person by these as well.
~
Common sense, and gut instinct get us pretty far in our everyday lives. However, I personally feel that reason gives a more accurate portrayal of morality, and is far more skilled at determining issues that are more complex. And I definitely don't substitute morality for, "Whatever is beneficial for me(lacking consequences)".
However, that's me. The point of threads like this is for everyone to elaborate on how they see it, so we can all draw from each other to improve our own.
Well first we have to define whats really "moral" and what's just being selfish. In any case, each of the things you listed occur in varying degrees, so we can't simply say what is "moral" (which in itself is a relative term) and immoral without taking into consideration the myriad ways a person could find themselves at the crossroads of taking action. And each thing you listed has the potential for negative consequences that dont include the local authorities. Downloading a song-you could get a virus or get hacked. Abortion-you could have health complications/side effects. Lying to your boss-you could miss an important meeting or memo, loss of pay, opportunities missed.Murder-Hmm would we murder Hitler to prevent war? Would we murder any tyrant from history thats slaughtered people? Seems like a good thing to do take 1 life to save millions?
The bottom line is morality is relative, and there doesn;t appear to be any divine force preventing you from doing any of these things, so how can we even begin to believe the idea that morality is the province of divinity when people who believe in the same thing can't always agree on whats right and wrong? If morality was Gods absolute commandment on right and wrong, then why isn't it uniform across the board all over the world and in all times? And why is it that learning morality from your environment comes os naturally and easily, whereas with religion you've got to have these things repeated constantly and with the threat of eternal suffering or divine retribution?
How does this make sense to anybody?
edit on 29-11-2011 by Gigatronix because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Well first we have to define whats really "moral" and what's just being selfish.
Exactly. That's not a simple question. These definitions are needed.
And I completely agree that morality is "relative". Though, I'd much rather use the term 'situational'. As it seems more accurate. However, when is Murder, Theft, ect ok, and when isn't it? Obviously, there are times when it is and isn't, as you've pointed out. But what if you're not content knowing just "sometimes?" Can we make finite rules to determine when certain acts are ok?
Really have to get into the nitty-gritty specifics to know where the line is drawn. That is indeed going into a more intellectual zone.
Here is a quote from an article about morality and free will that made me think.
In Search of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Gazzaniga convincingly argues that morality is an emergent property of minds (brains) interacting with one another. His discussion of the evolution of human sociality is fascinating. Over the eons humans have changed their physical and social environments, which in turn has shifted the sorts of genes, behaviors, and brains that successfully reproduce in a generally more cooperative direction. Gazzaniga cites the hypothesis of primatologists Brian Hare and Michael Tomasello who suggest that humans may have undergone a process of self-domestication in which overly aggressive or despotic individuals were reproductively weeded out—by being ostracized or killed by the group.
In Search of Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by Gigatronix
Well first we have to define whats really "moral" and what's just being selfish.
Exactly. That's not a simple question. These definitions are needed.
And I completely agree that morality is "relative". Though, I'd much rather use the term 'situational'. As it seems more accurate. However, when is Murder, Theft, ect ok, and when isn't it? Obviously, there are times when it is and isn't, as you've pointed out. But what if you're not content knowing just "sometimes?" Can we make finite rules to determine when certain acts are ok?
Really have to get into the nitty-gritty specifics to know where the line is drawn. That is indeed going into a more intellectual zone.
We can't draw a line until we have context. For every seemingly iron clad proverb we have an abberation ready to make us think again. Making general pronouncements is great most of the time, but you have to allow for unique circumstances. Morality is a work in progress, not a template to be followed. If we all just accepted "morality" as handed down to us blindly, we'd still be burning witches and heretics. People figured out that that stuff wasn't really the right thing to do and it stopped.
In summary: Morality is a product of your environment, your experiences, and culture. Religion or a belief in a god can reinforce these values, but good morals can manifest without them. To say that a God is Required to have morals is arrogant, in that anyone making this statement makes the claim that they know without a doubt not only the existence of god, they know gods will, and further that they have the authority to go around telling everyone else what they think they know.Last time I checked the jury was out whether God existed, forget about what denomination this actual god belongs to. You can believe with all your heart and soul, but that doesn't make it real.
Accepting morality as I've explained it is a sensible, positive view to take for anyone. It doesn't exclude god specifically, it just says that you learn right from wrong from experience, not from a magic compass in your head. A believer could simply say that this is working as god intended, however the believer has to prove their god exists before they can prove that morality is derived from it.
Well, they don't HAVE to prove anything, unless they want me to take them seriously
edit on 29-11-2011 by Gigatronix because: bad quoting!
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Internet Piracy, with proper protection to prevent being caught. Especially when you would have bought the works otherwise.
Murder, when it's beneficial for you, and you're guaranteed to get away with it.
Lying to get out of work when your boss won't find out when it's untrue.
Abortion, under the varying circumstances.
When is War justified and when isn't it?
Genuine question(and trying to get this going on track), but how would you rank the morality of these things by "Self-preservation" and "Avoiding negative consequences"? Also, how do you judge the morality of a different person by these as well.
~
Common sense, and gut instinct get us pretty far in our everyday lives. However, I personally feel that reason gives a more accurate portrayal of morality, and is far more skilled at determining issues that are more complex. And I definitely don't substitute morality for, "Whatever is beneficial for me(lacking consequences)".
However, that's me. The point of threads like this is for everyone to elaborate on how they see it, so we can all draw from each other to improve our own.
I agree with you that reason should be the main source of measuring morality and not society or religion.
if your morality comes from society and religion then they are passed as written laws. however, like many other members discussed here is that for every law there is an exemption. Therefore you are bound to eventually commit an unmoral act while thinking it is moral. (ex. crusades, extreme muslims etc etc etc etc)
if your morality comes from careful reasoning then no matter the circumstances you should be able to identify what he moral action is (what action you choose to do is different). This is the reason why I also think that the ability to correctly identify whats moral requires high intelligence and wisdom and is definitely not the result of following some religious doctrine or social rules.
take for instance Jesus's teachings (bare with me non religious members), why do you think he spoke in parables? because he did not want to create laws for morality but to force the listeners to think about the situation and reason by themselves what the message was. It does not matter if you believe in the bible or not, everyone should agree that Jesus (man or deity) was a very wise man and he obviously thought that using your brain was very important.
so cultivate your brains, learn as much as possible
you will eventually make mistakes but learn from them
learn to think logically and do not let the man in the church podium or the man in the courthouse tell you whats good and whats bad
edit on
30-11-2011 by quietlearner because: added some comments
edit on 30-11-2011 by quietlearner because: typo
reply to post by TylerDurden2U
Of course not! Do not those who carry out jihad follow a god as well? They know that they wouldn't have someone slay their family in the name of a god, but they commit the crime nonetheless. They are just as guilty of being hypocrites as christians. If a religion will not allow its followers to follow their better judgement but demand they follow a book written thousands of years ago instead, then it is wrong. You ultimately answer to yourself. To thine own self be true... not to the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, nor dagon in the sea. Not some allah or god or whatever the heck you pretend to follow. You must answer to the hardest critic in your world, yourself.
Oh, by the way: on your reply to Duckling- doesn't your god know all? Therefore, since you speak for him, you speak in error.
My favorite quote from Einstein was " God exists in everything that does exist."
If everybody, and I mean everybody could comprehend the ramifications of that statement, there would be a complete 180 degree turn in thoughts and deeds in the world!!
Of course not! Do not those who carry out jihad follow a god as well? They know that they wouldn't have someone slay their family in the name of a god, but they commit the crime nonetheless. They are just as guilty of being hypocrites as christians. If a religion will not allow its followers to follow their better judgement but demand they follow a book written thousands of years ago instead, then it is wrong. You ultimately answer to yourself. To thine own self be true... not to the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, nor dagon in the sea. Not some allah or god or whatever the heck you pretend to follow. You must answer to the hardest critic in your world, yourself.
Oh, by the way: on your reply to Duckling- doesn't your god know all? Therefore, since you speak for him, you speak in error.
My favorite quote from Einstein was " God exists in everything that does exist."
If everybody, and I mean everybody could comprehend the ramifications of that statement, there would be a complete 180 degree turn in thoughts and deeds in the world!!
edit on 30-11-2011 by volafox because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gigatronix
What is it I need to reconcile? Are you trying to imply that,despite my belief in a godless universe, I am still operating under His system of morality, and in a state of denial about where these warm fuzzy moral feelings come from? Nope sorry. I live the best way I can, I'm not in the habit of second guessing everything I do because some guy with an old book is telling me otherwise.
Perhaps you didn't actually bother to read what I wrote, and instead only read the title of the thread?
reply to post by TylerDurden2U
You forgot the actual 10 commandments, not the "accepted" set.
They are (Exodus 34: 13-28):
Thou shall worship no other god.
Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
The feast of unleavened bread shall be kept.
Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh, thou shalt rest.
Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
Thrice in a year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
Thy shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left unto the morning.
The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt being unto the house of the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
You forgot the actual 10 commandments, not the "accepted" set.
They are (Exodus 34: 13-28):
Thou shall worship no other god.
Thou shall make thee no molten gods.
The feast of unleavened bread shall be kept.
Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh, thou shalt rest.
Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
Thrice in a year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
Thy shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left unto the morning.
The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt being unto the house of the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
reply to post by volafox
Did i say i was gods mouthpiece? I'm just a person that heeded a warning. You are the biggest genius i have met. I will leave you to yourself!
Did i say i was gods mouthpiece? I'm just a person that heeded a warning. You are the biggest genius i have met. I will leave you to yourself!
Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. Perhaps you should read my other posts in the thread and see if you can't gain a better understanding.
Originally posted by Herman
Originally posted by Gigatronix
What is it I need to reconcile? Are you trying to imply that,despite my belief in a godless universe, I am still operating under His system of morality, and in a state of denial about where these warm fuzzy moral feelings come from? Nope sorry. I live the best way I can, I'm not in the habit of second guessing everything I do because some guy with an old book is telling me otherwise.
Perhaps you didn't actually bother to read what I wrote, and instead only read the title of the thread?
Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by novastrike81
actually the list is longer. keep reading.
Thanks for the typical condescending Christian reply. I'm quite aware the list is "longer". I don't feel like straining readers eyes with nonsensical scripture when it can be paraphrased with the same message.
Also, thanks for acknowledging two different sets of 10 commandments and not reconciling it.
reply to post by novastrike81
sorry if i sounded arrogant. Im just a normal person, not a scientist or evangelist, but i do have faith.
sorry if i sounded arrogant. Im just a normal person, not a scientist or evangelist, but i do have faith.