The atheists monopoly of true morality....

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Conversation overheard amongst the Jews while Moses was scratching laws in stone receiving the ten commandments up on Mt. Sinai.

Ha! Ishmael, I just shtooped your wife!
Ha ha! And while you were shtooping my wife I stole two of your goats and a camel.
Hey, here comes Moses. He's going to read god's laws out loud.
What?! No more shtooping another man's wife?
No more stealing from others??? Who'da thunk these things were wrong???

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

Conversation overheard amongst the Jews while Moses was scratching laws in stone receiving the ten commandments up on Mt. Sinai.

Ha! Ishmael, I just shtooped your wife!
Ha ha! And while you were shtooping my wife I stole two of your goats and a camel.
Hey, here comes Moses. He's going to read god's laws out loud.
What?! No more shtooping another man's wife?
No more stealing from others??? Who'da thunk these things were wrong???

edit on 11/16/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

So back then religion had a stronger influence when it comes to morality than today. Either way, it was still morality imposed by society because other cultures had different religions and often came to the same conclusion...some of which didn't even believe in a god.

And since there's no objective evidence for god, and all we have are scriptures (written by MEN) that claim something to be true...well...since it's then MEN putting to paper rules about morality, it's technically still society imposing it. Religion is just the tool of doing so...at least it was back then.

Nowadays morality is clearly not shaped as much by religion..and it's socially acceptable to do stuff that's totally against "insert your religion". Stuff like gay pride, or abortions, or smoking pot...all stuff that one or more religion would never tolerate, yet we see a shift in society's morality.

And that shift isn't religiously driven!! It's driven by society itself changing and adapting in time.

Religion is a phallocentric system of control devised to control the masses. It's a remnant of a time where exploiting humans' consciousness of their own mortality was the most effective way of 'herding' them.

Religion exists today because many still suffer from this same debilitating fear of death. TPTB utilise this in order to maintain the status quo.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Another example would be that whole gay pride stuff. Can you imagine a gay parade during the 50s???

I knew you would come back in lengthy fashion.
Your points are true and your examples are clear and can't be argued. So as for minor fluctuations in morality you've made your point. But as for a source, model of what it is to be a moral man? There's no way in hell we can look to atheism for that.

I wonder if you'll agree.

Take note that I haven't referred to any religion as being that source model either.

I can't imagine a gay parade even now.

Originally posted by BeneathBaseStupidity
Religion is a phallocentric system of control devised to control the masses. It's a remnant of a time where exploiting humans' consciousness of their own mortality was the most effective way of 'herding' them.

Religion exists today because many still suffer from this same debilitating fear of death. TPTB utilise this in order to maintain the status quo.

You can be atheist all you want. But that doesn't mean you have to walk around believing BULL SHEET.

you see with God as the center of rights, laws and morality man naturally would hold himself to accountability to this God. that is the basis for self government.

Atheism removed accountability to A supreme being and puts mans accountability to the govt. This allows the govt to regulate morality and that form of morality would be every changing and evolving morality and relativism. this is the basis of a fascist socialist govt

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Another example would be that whole gay pride stuff. Can you imagine a gay parade during the 50s???

I knew you would come back in lengthy fashion.
Your points are true and your examples are clear and can't be argued. So as for minor fluctuations in morality you've made your point. But as for a source, model of what it is to be a moral man? There's no way in hell we can look to atheism for that.

I wonder if you'll agree.

Take note that I haven't referred to any religion as being that source model either.

I can't imagine a gay parade even now.

edit on 16-11-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

The OP isn't claiming that atheism is the source of morality...

He's saying that atheists are more likely to base morality on logic rather than fixed beliefs that are evidently often not logical anymore as times change.And the motivation for writing down those rules (again: written by men) in scripture have to put into question as well. The problem is, once you start questioning those rules, you automatically question those who are in a position of power (pope, Immam, priest, shaman, etc.)...and we can't have that

For example:

Want to make sure your people will rally up against outsiders that could harm your power? Create scripture, or add a rule to it that says "kill all infidels". Since you control what's in there (and the ruling power always controls that),and only your people follow your (sry, *insert deity*'s rules of course...) rules, they will attack anyone who isn't under the same spell. Logic plays zero role in that. That's why Muslim fundamentalists have no problem killing non-believers...

That was a Muslim example, but you could do the same thing with the hardcore Christian fundie who killed that abortion doctor because his religious belief drove him to.

Every single time they claim something is morally ok because of religion without any regard to logic or rationality...just because some text from hundreds/thousands of years ago based on completely different circumstances and living environments tells them so. That's crazy, I'm sorry, that's absolutely mental. Environments change and with them societies, so morals will change with that. You can't just copy all of the morals from back then and apply them 100% today without any regard to logic.

Not randomly killing people...makes total sense. You don't need to claim a god or gods told you it's not ok to kill to somehow make sure you don't kill. It makes rational sense because you'd have total anarchy otherwise...something that isn't beneficial for any society.

Only man & woman...made sense back then because you wanted your population to grow despite horrible plagues, bad sanitary conditions, and almost non-existent healthcare. A lesbian couple can't create a baby on their own, so that wasn't all that in line with making sure the population grows despite adversity. Today we have arguably way too many people on this planet. Millions are starving, millions more don't have access to healthcare, billions live in poverty...and we are taking down the planet in the process. If there's one thing that isn't our problem it's that the human population isn't growing fast enough. So that argument doesn't make any sense. Oh, and there's tons of orphans and kids without parents that would love to have parents no matter if they're a dude and a girl or 2 chicks. So in today's world, there really isn't a rational argument for not letting same sex couples coexist with the same rights as everyone else.

Wearing a special cap/turban on your head...I'll admit I just don't get it and truly believe it's nuts. I'd like to believe that even if a god or gods created the universe, he wouldn't be petty enough to care about what type of cap people are wearing. It's their moral code, fine...I respect that as long as they don't force it on others that don't want to participate. Why? Because I base my morality on LOGIC, and I don't know what the hell that is, but it isn't logical.

The point is: Some rules from way back are still applicable, but not because scripture tells us so, it's because they are LOGICAL. Others not so much, so they should be discarded because society changed so much since they were written down, they simply aren't logical anymore.

If you base your morality on a fixed belief while the environment around you changes, you are essentially playing 72o like AA in poker just because you had AA one hand earlier. It might work for a round or two...but in the end, time will catch up with you and you will go broke.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
you see with God as the center of rights, laws and morality man naturally would hold himself to accountability to this God. that is the basis for self government.

Atheism removed accountability to A supreme being and puts mans accountability to the govt. This allows the govt to regulate morality and that form of morality would be every changing and evolving morality and relativism. this is the basis of a fascist socialist govt

What?

Atheism makes man responsible for himself.

What does government have to do with anything?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
you see with God as the center of rights, laws and morality man naturally would hold himself to accountability to this God. that is the basis for self government.

Atheism removed accountability to A supreme being and puts mans accountability to the govt. This allows the govt to regulate morality and that form of morality would be every changing and evolving morality and relativism. this is the basis of a fascist socialist govt

What?

Atheism makes man responsible for himself.

What does government have to do with anything?

3...2...1...until the next Stalin comment

To preempt that:

Stalin didn't commit his crimes because he didn't believe in god, he did it because he wanted to obliterate every single power structure that posed a threat to his ultimate status as top dog. It was about power, nothing more, and nothing less. So yeah, the church is very powerful because people's beliefs can be strong motivators...so naturally Stalin would want to wipe them out. Whether he truly believed there is no god was totally irrelevant.

The same goes for Bush when it comes to the Iraq war. He claimed god told him it's all good and to go ahead with his amazing plan and morally justified it in that way. OF COURSE that wasn't the real reason. His Christian belief wasn't responsible for dictating his moral code...MONEY was. Follow the money and you realise how profitable that war was for his buddies. So just like blaming atheism for Stalin's actions, you can't blame Christianity for leading to the death of thousands of civilians.

There are cases where you can blame horrible acts on fundamentalist beliefs though because in some case it really is the driving force...but I dare anyone to present me a case where someone did a horrible act with the true reasons being that he's an atheist. I'm talking about the true reason, not the argument used to justify it

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Interesting thought - here's an apt quote from Arthur.

“One of the greatest tragedies in mankind's entire history may be that morality was hijacked by religion.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Not a huge fan of Bill Maher, but in this case he has a very fitting quote:

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.

Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.

The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting # dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.

And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest.

To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.

Atheism is another institution just as any other religion. I'm right your wrong, I have moral high ground you don't etc... I mean look at the comments here and compare them to people with religious mindsets on other threads, it's pretty ironic

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

But as for a source, model of what it is to be a moral man? There's no way in hell we can look to atheism for that.

Why do animals know how to help each other?

I suspect morality etc existed long before religion, and religion just wrote some of it down then added bits that involved circumcision etc ...

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
A thought ocurred to me today....

Poeple that follow any religion need their religion to tell them how to behave, how to treat others, and what to believe/think.... they are forced into doing good things by their religious doctrine... blackmailed if you will.... or they will never gain access to the "next level"...

Atheists however, have no doctrine.. no guidelines... we are just good people because we know it is the right thing to do.... we don't need to be blackmailed into doing good..... common sense and reason dictate that it is the best thing to do for all parties....

I therefore propose that atheists pratice true morality... not morality born out of threats and promises....

Discuss..

PA.

edit on 15-11-2012 by PerfectAnomoly because: Spelling..

Hold on a second. You're assuming that "good" is something objective. Now, religious people believe God sets the standard for morality. If you don't believe God sets the standards, then man makes the morals. A true atheist shouldn't believe in a transcendental set of standards.

By claiming to be moral, atheists are telling me they haven't really thought through the implications of atheism. (No offense, just calling it like I see it) If you're going to be an atheist, please understand that a moral code is traditionally fundamentally tied to the idea that there are beings that transcend humanity that have a right to tell humans what to do (or something like that.)

Originally posted by Konduit
Atheism is another institution just as any other religion. I'm right your wrong, I have moral high ground you don't etc... I mean look at the comments here and compare them to people with religious mindsets on other threads, it's pretty ironic

Ignorance deserves

The Persistent And Incorrect Belief That Atheism Is A Religion

It is suggested by many people that atheism is a religion. Before we can examine why atheism is sometimes defined as a belief, it is important to understand who defines it as such. Rarely, if ever, will you find another atheist, agnostic, freethinker, humanist, secularist, etc., putting the definition of religion in the context of atheism. Almost without exception, it is the religious who do so. The reason is simple. The religious are are so caught up in their own beliefs that imagining another person without having any religious beliefs is largely incomprehensible. Those who claim that atheism is a religion do not only lack a clear understanding of what atheism is, they also tend to use religious terms to describe atheism.

There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity.

atheists.org...

reply to post by Annee


who will enforce the true morality, each man?

No the natural man would need a govt enforcement.

A man left to himself will devolve into an animal given the freedom and his morality would sink to that of base instinct. which is not moral at all.

Atheists may have the true monopoly of morality, but certainly not when it comes to being humble...

Man by nature has no morality.

Morality comes from an understanding of Knowledge and education. If your education is based on darwinism, humanism or relativism then that morality in and of itself will always be changing like the knowledge base that gave the understanding.

So which man is to give us the correct morals to follow?

Then how are we accountable to ourselves for violation of that moral standard?

And if I violate the Moral standard and I am the one to which I am accountable do you think I will enforce self punishment for my violation?

Morals must come from a place that has a set standard and a way to enforce that set standard.

So who sets the standard and who enforces it?

this argument is a few pages deep at my discovery..

without reading it ALL

i must ask...

Immanual Kant ring a bell? in the absence of a divine command theory, a true secular moral system can still be derived and according to KANT,,, it is the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

please look this up on your own as i am full of too much Beam and Beer to do this work for you.

BUT YES! it is possible to have a SECULAR COMMAND THEORY.

command theories simplify ethics, but but dont quell all arguments, ie what if i can ignore or challenge commands?


but whoever posted this originally, the OP, read some KANT, start with his categorical imperitive, a SECULAR version of a divine command theory of ethics..

im not saying its airtight ( i got an A shredding it in a 300 level philo course) but its a really great head stretcher for the unfamiliar...

ok back to drinkin

booze fueled PS

Kant is saying that rational beings can decide on command parameters that effectively remove GOD (an unkown) from our system of thought. In that absence, we are free to make "moral" choices that reflect our playing field, and not an abstract yardstick of judgement.

The problem with KANT is the infinate nature of human behavior possibility... meaning that it is immoral to kill your brother MOST of the time, and moral to do so in a few select circumstances...

in the absence of GOD, kant DARED to promote an objective moral philosophy... the fact that he FAILED (or is at least subject to A grade attack from state college sophormores is OK.

Kant is a stepping stone..

eventually we will philosophize about enirely NEW things, leaving the mighty men of renknown from the old testemanet out of it all the way.

in the next day, the new day, we will be allowed to philosoph-a-size about whatever we choose, without being burned by the inquisistion...


but to return my drunken attention to the OP for some final PRAISE..

secular morals is WHERE ITS AT...

dont buy it? dig your caveman life...
peace out, i think i got one more xanak to pop..

love ya

mark

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
A thought ocurred to me today....

Poeple that follow any religion need their religion to tell them how to behave, how to treat others, and what to believe/think.... they are forced into doing good things by their religious doctrine... blackmailed if you will.... or they will never gain access to the "next level"...

Atheists however, have no doctrine.. no guidelines... we are just good people because we know it is the right thing to do.... we don't need to be blackmailed into doing good..... common sense and reason dictate that it is the best thing to do for all parties....

I therefore propose that atheists pratice true morality... not morality born out of threats and promises....

Discuss..

PA.

edit on 15-11-2012 by PerfectAnomoly because: Spelling..

sounds like you've had some bad experiences by some evil sounding religions,

my religion doesn't tell me how to think,

my religion doesn't force me to do good...

if you do good because you are forced to do good, is it still good? not really...

any religion that doesn't allow it's members to execute their own free choice is not a good religion, i choose all day long, i sometimes waste my time on forums filled by mundanes (less spiritually inclined individuals), big and small, my religion doesn't force me to do anything, never has never will, like I said you've obviously had some bad experiences with past religious organizations, i personally have not... but i have seen evidence of what you describe, just because your small box of experience has been bad, it doesn't mean all religions are remotely anything you describe, there are good ones out there (and they don't force you to be good), if you aren't naturally motivated to do good for the sole purpose of wanting to without wanting any reward in return, you are likely not doing good but are doing evil perhaps, selfishly helping can easily exist, expecting something out of good doing is the mindset of a less than spiritual person