The Atheists Moral Pledge

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Good and bad are ascribed to both intent and a strict rule set of morality

When you say "strict rule set of morality", what exactly do you mean by that ?

reply to post by CranialSponge


For all we know they travel in packs because their brains release feel good chemicals when they are near one another and feel bad chemicals when they are away from one another. What the chemical's release mechanism is based upon could be nothing more than a sense of smell that makes them fond of their own kind.

It's truly just guesses.

reply to post by CranialSponge


I'd have to agree with you. Lets expand on that though.

Humans have a tendency to reach for the things that they don't understand, in an effort to learn. To KNOW. So we also live to grow, to thrive, and to better ourselves.

Looking at this trend through the centuries before, you begin to see that the human race is a knowledge seeking machine, learning and growing at an exponential rate. \

It's my firm belief that this trend will continue well into the future, and that mankind as a whole will divert from its current religious confines and strive for something more, honing its moral standing along the way.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

For all we know they travel in packs because their brains release feel good chemicals when they are near one another and feel bad chemicals when they are away from one another. What the chemical's release mechanism is based upon could be nothing more than a sense of smell that makes them found of their own kind.

It's truly just guesses.

Okay, now you're just trying to toss in unestablished fallacies completely contradictory to actual established observational data in an attempt to strengthen your own belief system that morality was created through divine influence rather than natural human characteristic.

So basically what we have here is 4 pages of self-inflicted back patting.

Thanks for the clarity.


Note: Since you have atheists in this thread that possess a moral code of ethics with no divine influence whatsoever, then it's clear your own preconceived notion that it cannot be natural is, therefore, obviously flawed.

reply to post by Kryyptyk

It's my firm belief that this trend will continue well into the future, and that mankind as a whole will divert from its current religious confines and strive for something more, honing its moral standing along the way.

Well, let's hope so.

Because there are a number of "divinely inspired" moral codes that are scary as all hell.

reply to post by CranialSponge


A strict rule set of morality: A collection of fixed moral rules and/or practices. In practice, you could add and remove rules, but you cannot alter the rules yourself as they are set by the divine or society or whatever.

To further show that this non religious mode of thinking is on the rise, here is some interesting stuff:

www.theblaze.com...

Losing Our Religion: The Growth of the Nones

en.wikipedia.org...

Over 10% of the current worlds population is considered atheist or non religious. If this was the Middle Ages that 10% wouldn't exist. They would have been stoned, burned, or worse. The amount of free thinking individuals is steadily increasing, and has been for a long time. And these individuals are just as moral or idealistic as anyone can be.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

A strict rule set of morality: A collection of fixed moral rules and/or practices. In practice, you could add and remove rules, but you cannot alter the rules yourself as they are set by the divine or society or whatever.

And that's my point.

There is no such thing as a "strict rule set of morality" because that strict rule set has been changed endlessly over the centuries by whomever is sitting in the power seat at the time.

We no longer live by the moral code that our potatoes can't touch our carrots on our plate, nor do we any longer stone to death our neighbour for working on Sunday.

"Divinely inspired" moral codes are, apparently, interchangeable.

TRUE ethical behaviour (natural human instinct) does not change flavours of the day.

reply to post by CranialSponge


If you need it simplified:

Morality = natural.

Nonspiritial + morality = unnatural because it is illogical - I do not see the logic in it. Would you please explain how it might be logical? Maybe I missed something and it is logical?

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

If you need it simplified:

Morality = natural.

Nonspiritial + morality = unnatural because it is illogical - I do not see the logic in it. Would you please explain how it might be logical? Maybe I missed something and it is logical?

How do your come up with the equation that nonspiritual + morality = unnatural, and therefore equates to being illogical ?!

Now you've completely lost me.

What does morality have anything to do with spirituality ?

Maybe that's where you're getting confused ?

reply to post by Kryyptyk


You're right about the drive to produce good concepts for what we become aware of. I call it [good] concept (re)production. It's everywhere. It's all I can see at times.

But the part about more atheists nowadays isn't necessarily true. As you say, they would be burned if they didn't "believe" during those days, so they would have lied about that. Further into history, we do not have anything remotely worth being called a census for religious beliefs - we can only guess.

I believe the vast majority of people on this planet base their sense of right and wrong on what they have been conditioned to by the society in which they grew up. Even if you grow up in a secular Atheist society, you are still conditioned by authoritative figures (such as parents, mentors, government etc.) to form a sense of morality that matches theirs.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Because it's based on fleeting emotions rather than a tangible thing. It is based solely on emotional thoughts of higher regard (since there is nothing spiritually higher) rather than an everlasting thing of higher regard.

Rules for something that doesn't exist makes no sense. If there is no moral divinity then moral standard makes no sense. Get it yet?

Really I want to know what people think about it. I did not intend on arguing back and forth like this. I am trying to figure it out based on what everyone says. I have this awareness and no good concept for it, so I am seeking replies to create a concept with. Morality for the nonspiritual is not a good concept - I need an answer that makes sense.

Surprising, I have already listed the best answer myself - survival mechanism. It is in the very first post. Everyone became defensive and did not want to address the perfectly logical question. Instead, they wanted to try to make the question disappear by saying "religious people this and that".

I know the question is sound. You want to argue the question, I want you to answer it.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

Because it's based on fleeting emotions rather than a tangible thing. It is based solely on emotional thoughts of higher regard (since there is nothing spiritually higher) rather than an everlasting thing of higher regard.

Rules for something that doesn't exist makes no sense. If there is no moral divinity than morals standard makes no sense. Get it yet?

Oh yes, I get it.


You've been so deeply indoctrinated that you actually believe the only path to true morality (ethical behaviour, thought process, and intention) is through belief in a god. No other form of true morality exists unless it's by way of divine inspiration.

FYI: Choosing to not run around murdering everyone you cross paths with is not a "non-tangible fleeting emotion". It's a very real and viable human instinct... and it also has absolutely nothing to do with established societal law(s).


So I guess this is where our discussion ends because, unfortunately, I can't help you break away from your indoctrinated false logics. That's a light bulb you're going to have to turn on in your own head, as thousands upon thousands of others before you have also had to do over the years.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

If you need it simplified:

Morality = natural.

Nonspiritial + morality = unnatural because it is illogical - I do not see the logic in it. Would you please explain how it might be logical? Maybe I missed something and it is logical?

Just because you fail to see (or acknowledge more like...) the logic in something does not make it illogical.
In reality being "nonspiritial" [sic] IS completely logical as it only follows rational coherence and that which is tangible.
Spirituality on the other hand is completely illogical as it's whole premise is intangible (and some would argue completely fabricated...).

Bleeeeep
Surprising, I have already listed the best answer myself - survival mechanism. It is in the very first post.

Sorry but I am just coming into this conversation. Basically, the following question is what you are seeking to answer. Correct?

BleeeeepI'm trying to get a better sense of what nonspiritual atheists pledge their morality to. That is, what do they ascribe to be the purpose of their morality?

In order to differentiate your sense of purpose for YOUR morality from my own, could you please specify exactly what the purpose for your own morality is? For example, why do you choose to be kind to a homeless person rather than mean? Why do you stop a kitten from being hurt by someone, or do you? If I can better understand what YOUR motivations for behaving "morally" are I will be better able to address your question.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

If you need it simplified:

Morality = natural.

Nonspiritial + morality = unnatural because it is illogical - I do not see the logic in it. Would you please explain how it might be logical? Maybe I missed something and it is logical?

I keep getting the impression that this isof a much a wider scope than moraltiy, that you are defining for yourself.

It seems to me that if religion is so implicit in your moral 'code' then it would also be a strictly observed tenet in a lot of your life. From what I read of your questions. They appear to tell a fair bit.

If the bible is the word of god, but the word of god was spoken by men, then the bible is the word of men. The moral code you hold so valuable, is the word of men. In other words, the words of men direct you in how you act, good or bad.

There is nothing divine in that.... a slave, either to a fallacy or another human being. Either way, you're refusing to acknowledge something within yourself.

You don't need to explain reality to people. you are explaining your perception of your own reality.. there is a huge difference. We appear to be in vastly different realities. I see nothing illogical about a human being able to follow a moral code as defined by the common concepts of good and bad.

Much like the law you tried to use, common law follows a simple premise. Don't steal, murder or vandalise. Statutes cover the rest. And they are made up by man, too, to cover intent, to cover desire and to cover crimes that are not crimes until a man in a presumed status of control over others, says they are.

Bleeeeep
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

Because it's based on fleeting emotions rather than a tangible thing. It is based solely on emotional thoughts of higher regard (since there is nothing spiritually higher) rather than an everlasting thing of higher regard.

I think the problem is you're expecting everyone to accept that religion/god is tangible.

It's a MAN MADE story. Those everlasting morals that are definied by god, are man made.

We say that humans who know right from wrong and acting for good, act with a moral ethic. You say that they have no tangible guide, no god... we say there is no god so you're not saying anything.

What is it? Where is god? How can I feel it. Tangible things I can touch.

I can't touch the imagined god any more than I can touch my idea of good. Yet you're saying one is proven, the other illogical.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


By looking at the empirical data from the last century and reversing extrapolation, its plausible to assume that the trend has been ongoing for much longer.

reply to post by jezebel5150

To please something higher than yourself. If a bunch of selves is all there is, the concept of a moral rule set breaks down. Moral people become bottom dwellers: case and point - reality.