The Atheists Moral Pledge

Atheists love to say things like critical thinking, facts, or scientific proofs are their basis of morality and so on, but it is unfounded. This question you pose will reveal two types of Atheists, Atheists that truly are Atheists, and Atheists that are actually to some degree "religious". I think people love to associate with the term Atheist, because people often associate said attributes to it as though they belong to Atheists. These types of Atheists are ones that to some degree are religious or have some after-life beliefs, and these are revealed to not be true Atheists.

So this is where your topic of question the OP comes into play with, the true Atheist. The "moral pledge" of the Atheist does not exist, because the true Atheist believes humans are the same as animals, and anything referring to a belief in the after life or any form of morality is delusional and meaningless, if you disagree with this then you are the other kind of Atheist described above. So what could one really say is the Atheist's moral pledge? Their pledge is themselves, because to the true Atheist, they are their own god, and their moral foundation is themselves. And this is the truth few Atheists actually believe or will admit, they will only hide behind the claimed attributes of science and logic as though they belong to them.

Either you are borrowing from other religions and not being honest with yourself, or you are your own god. Atheism is a religion.

honested3
Atheists love to say things like critical thinking, facts, or scientific proofs are their basis of morality and so on, but it is unfounded. This question you pose will reveal two types of Atheists, Atheists that truly are Atheists, and Atheists that are actually to some degree "religious".
...
Either you are borrowing from other religions and not being honest with yourself, or you are your own god. Atheism is a religion.

"re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

You're confusing religion and philosophy. Atheism is the philosophy of non religious practices, therefore its the exact opposite of religion.

So by this rationale, a person can be spiritual to some degree, but not religious, and still be considered an atheist.

honested3
Atheists love to say things like critical thinking, facts, or scientific proofs are their basis of morality and so on, but it is unfounded.

Only to Biased, Closed Minded Christian Fundamentalists who choose to ignore what anyone else has to say. Evidence for that can be shown by reading post after post within just this one thread not to mention the massive amounts of other threads, blogs and other media out there in which people try endlessly to explain how they think and feel about such topics. But since you absolutely refuse to pay attention to any of it and find it easier to just keep your current ignorant opinions without even bothering to listen to anyone else, any possible conversation with you is pointless.

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
-Einstein

reply to post by Specimen


Exactly. Mankind exists to explore, learn, and grow as a result of that knowledge.

I am not like the other Christians you have dealt with on here, because I am like you.

""re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

What Atheist does not want to govern his own life? As bolded above. The true Atheist worships himself, and his morality and philosophies are of and about himself. Lets get real, does the true Atheist have any founding or basis in morality? And how is this not considered religion? Even the simple faith in humankind is just that, faith.

If it is believed that Science and Christianity do not go together, then Atheism and Morality do not go together either. Can an Atheist be moral, Yes, can a Christian be scientific, Yes. Then why is the first sentence so easy to swallow, but not the second one in this paragraph. I am not looking to make this thread another battlefield, but my problem is when you ask Atheists where their morality lies, they say it is within their logical minds, as though it belongs only to them. Does it really? Does morality belong only to the religious?

honested3
I am not like the other Christians you have dealt with on here, because I am like you.

""re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

What Atheist does not want to govern his own life? As bolded above. The true Atheist worships himself, and his morality and philosophies are of and about himself. Lets get real, does the true Atheist have any founding or basis in morality? And how is this not considered religion? Even the simple faith in humankind is just that, faith.

If it is believed that Science and Christianity do not go together, then Atheism and Morality do not go together either. Can an Atheist be moral, Yes, can a Christian be scientific, Yes. Then why is the first sentence so easy to swallow, but not the second one in this paragraph. I am not looking to make this thread another battlefield, but my problem is when you ask Atheists where their morality lies, they say it is within their logical minds, as though it belongs only to them. Does it really? Does morality belong only to the religious?

edit on 10/13/13 by honested3 because: grammar

Wow!
What a load of self-delusional nonsense.
Go back to you dictionary and look up a couple of things, namely what self-sanctimonious and pomposity means.
I'm also guessing that when you ask an atheist a question you don't actually listen to the answer....

Easy OP, 1 word, EMPATHY!

honested3
when you ask Atheists where their morality lies, they say it is within their logical minds, as though it belongs only to them. Does it really? Does morality belong only to the religious?

edit on 10/13/13 by honested3 because: grammar

Of course they say it's within their logical minds, where else would it be?? In their pocket or in a shoebox at home?? You see when you think about things and use your own reasoning skills to figure things out, you use your brain or mind to do so. So when they say their morality is within their logical minds, that's exactly what it means. It means that they are actively working through and thinking about what their morals are which they attribute to their minds in the act of thinking. How is that difficult to understand??? You also think sometimes too don't you???

And why does that include it belonging only to them?? They aren't saying that morality is some kind of objective thing which is trapped solely in their mind, they are saying that their morals are their own personal ideas, not that they somehow have ownership of those ideas. Morality doesn't belong to anyone nor does any other concept. How could they, they aren't even objective things that can be owned, they are ideas.

homeskillet
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Believing there's a divine set of ultra tight parameters outside of us is not logical.

It makes more logical sense that we have built up a natural inherent trait of altruism to insure survival.

Going by the research being done at the Yale baby lab, it looks like most of us are born with a sense of morality to begin with, not a bible in our hands.

I understand to a certain extent what the OP is asking- he is refering to a code of ethics, or morals, that is static and unchanging. A code one can count as being sort of an objective reference outside of self.

I think many of us desire such references-- they provide a sense of security in a world that is always in movement, and where internal processes are always changing. We call them Principles, Morals, Values...

In some cases, they provide a sense of power over events and things, in others they simply provide a way one can extract themselves from engagement with the environment and others around them- like a tall tree one can just scramble up and watch the events from above. Self rightiousness provides insulation from the troubling feedback we get through our emotions and empathy.

Sometimes it is just a soothing background sense of something staying reliable and consistant.

I don't feel this too much any more, but I remember the day the floor dropped out on me and it made such and impact I remember it well.

I had been going through a lot of spiritual type of growth for a couple of years, as my status as a foriegner in another country I did not speak the language in, in a rural area, caused me to be living something like a hermit, very isolated. I did nothing but hike in nature and meditate. Any interaction with others was just a confusing mess of absurdity, as values, morals, cultural associations were backwards. I felt like Alice in Wonderland.

One day as I was backing out of my driveway, it just hit me, like a tsunami, and I braked. My eyes grew wide and I think I stopped breathing for a few moments. I had the realization that there is no inherent good and evil. The world is really meaningless. It is us, as individuals, as a collective, that give things meaning. It is relative, and subjective. It means that only in the moment, and according to the people involved, and the context, is there any sort of morals, and they might not be the same from one moment to the next, or one person or another.

It was like realizing the safety net is not really there. We walk the tightrope without it, always. There is no way to scramble up to a superior place, or to extract ourselves from the messy and sometimes uncomfortable reality of others. That is an illusion, which only causes us to be the ones making the messes and pains for others.

The only thing to do is to keep taking the next step with an open heart, from moment to moment, listening to the constant feedback we get through our emotions about the other entities around, and in conscious interaction to reach some sort of cooperation and merging of our differing values, morals, intents and concerns.

The only way to know what is good or right, is to be here, now, with self and others, fully.
I guess that means a certain amount of faith that it is possible to walk that tightrope freestyle like that.

I found that a terrifying insight at first, but with time, as i saw I was capable of doing it, I gained confidence in our ability to do this, and got used to it. But I do understand how the concept of no objective static moral code existing is hard to embrace for some people.

reply to post by honested3


What a load of crap. You really expect to convince anyone with that gargled mess of holier-than-thou pompousness?

By saying that atheists worship themselves, you're implying that they're all egomaniacs. I guess it really is true: It takes one to know one.

Honestly, myself and others have already answered the questions the OP posed. If you don't like those answers, I suggest you return to your bible.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

I am saying, if there is not a perfect right or wrong, then morality, is illogical.

:-)

It’s enough to make you want to reach for something constant in an inconstant world...

Morality is logical. Nature is logical - even if you can’t see the logic at first glance. Some of us see other things as being arbitrary and artificial - but there you go

Depends on your point of view and your needs I guess

You are acting out and trying to bestow upon others your moral sense of right and wrong, yet in your heart, there is no such thing? It is again, illogical.

Acting out? Stepping out of line? Being bad?

According to who?

I never once said that in my heart there is no such thing - quite the opposite - and now I see exactly what is in yours

Whose point are you trying to prove?

:-)

If there is no supreme right or wrong, why should you have the right to say what is right? (This is not a moral question, it is a logic question.)

That’s just flat out dishonest - and manipulative

Why should religion have the right to say what is right - demand certain practices and behavior, then enforce it however it sees fit, whenever it chooses - based on a promise to something it cannot prove?

Morality and logic? Which of these do you think you understand?

Nice try

I'm a pacifist and a humanist Bleeeeep - and I also believe in letting others have their say and their way - so long as they don't ask everyone else to live their way or no way

Is that logical or illogical? Moral - or not?

:-)

reply to post by Specimen


If there is no factual right or wrong, can you justify their empathy and egotism logically? Does it not exist to emotionally feed itself that which is emotionally sensed to be good?

By removing right or wrong, their use of empathy and egotism cannot be right or wrong - it can only be an emotional desire for emotional stimuli - but this is not logic, it is only emotional attachment to good.

They believe it is logic which feeds their morality, when, in fact, it is the emotional sense of being logically sound, which creates a sense of "me good" that they are attached to - yes, no, maybe?

mOjOm
Are you saying that without your belief in God you have absolutely no logical reasons to act morally??? Is the only reason you choose to act in moral ways now based solely on you doing what the bible says???

Without morality, no perfect right or wrong, I would do whatever most pleased me. Without morality, I do still try to correct the bad in the world, but my corrective actions would not be limited to what others thought was just - I would make my own justice, which would probably be destroying all that I perceived to be bad at any given moment.

Try the other way around. Belief in a Divine Authority figure who is Demanding that everyone act in some arbitrary way based upon Belief and/or Faith is illogical. There is no need for logic or reasoning because there is no need for you to think since you already have your set of rules laid out for you. All you have to do is follow them.

Again, if their is no factual right or wrong, then the practice is still illogical, whether it is practiced by a god or an ant. Yet still, the only one who may set the moral code of what is most just or moral is a god or supreme being itself. If a god or supreme being(s) does not set the most moral thing then there is no most moral thing, and it is illogical to attempt to create such moral codes of conduct or follow them.

Kryyptyk
If you are referring to existential nihilism then yes, there is no 'higher' meaning to human life. Mankind is an insignificant blip on the grand radar of the universe. We would appear as ants. Though keep in mind that every creature has its part to play, even the ant.

This is not logic. It is an emotionally charged response to how you emotionally feel. If there is no right or wrong, then there is no insignificance or significance without a supreme thing to say so.

To assign 'higher' meaning to everything is a travesty of ego, and highly arrogant besides.

Again, your use of the word travesty is the use of your moral compass. You are trying to use morality to disprove morality.

It is not a travestying nor righteous act without supreme righteousness.

Thinking logically, doing good and taking care of each other is great humanitarian work.

How can it be great or terrible without supreme right or wrong? What if there is a god and he says it is terrible to do that? There is no logic there.

If someone is about to kill someone else, is it logical to stop the would be murderer by murdering them? Logically, if you stopped the would be murderer, you are only changing who the murderer is. Logically, the outcome is the same - a murderer murders someone.

honested3
Does morality belong only to the religious?

If it is to be logical, then logically, only those who believe in a factual right or wrong should practice it.

If, however, morality is not based on a true right or wrong, then no and it is just delusions brought on by emotional attachments to good.

Can you argue against this without saying: "well since there is a true right or wrong, it is logical for them to practice it, regardless if they believe it or not?"

Is it just for them to find something unjust if they do not believe in injustice?

reply to post by calstorm


Can you see the practice of empathy to be logical in those who do not believe in a supreme right or wrong?

Can you justify it, please?

reply to post by Evil_Santa


Your argument is similar to those who say "because I don't believe in a god, I am more moral for practicing morality", but in effect, you are actually saying "I am more irrational for abiding by delusional thoughts of right and wrong", since there is no true right or wrong.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


The deeper question here is whether ANYONE's morality is
valid, and if so, what is the basis for this so-called 'correct'
version of morality.

I'd say, and this is just my perspective, that until humans
know what they actually are and are not, that no 'absolute'
type of morality is possible.

I know that there are a lot of folks who think that by reading
a particular 'holy book' that justifies itself only with itself
and thus justifies nothing, that the reader can then make
grand pronouncements about all people everywhere.

This sickens me. (I'm not speaking about any particular
book.. I might be speaking about the Urantia book
for all that it matters).

On the other hand, pure reductive materialists can also be
guilty of beating people around the head and shoulders
with their evolutionary psychology-based, or other
scientifically based 'morality', which does not include
all relevant factors.

I myself admire people who can find value in the 'polar opposite'
of their position. For example a materialist who sees the social
cohesive value of religion. Or a religious person who sees value
in understanding that we are social mammals with organic needs
that are not sinful -- but simply 'ARE'.

I'd say that someday, when the veil is removed, that there will
be a greater consensus on a reasonable form of morality.

But for now... bleh* Humans are such a young species..

This is a great thread.

KPB