hinduwoman

Infested Kerrigan, I do not understand why your choosing death neccessarily makes you more authentic atheist than others who choose to live.

demrald

I wonder what your teacher would think if you talked about Existentialism and "authentic persons."

Infested Kerrigan

Firstly, I want to thank all of you who have contributed their thoughts so far.

What I am understanding is that most of you think that atheists identify what is right from a variety of different sources, and this is why you get atheists who identify "good" and "bad" differently (and thus not necessarily consistently). This is probably what my teacher finds silly with atheists...the disunity. There are quite a few people out there that think atheism is just as organized as any other religion, huh?

Now my question is, do any of you think there could be a universal atheist morality? Is there one that could possibly incorporate all the reasons to be a positive moral human being?

I have an idea, but I'll see if I can try to convey it. Most religious are compelled to do good out of respect for the divine being that supposedly created them and Earth. But, since I am an atheist, I cannot accept this. I am satisfied with accepting this, because I find life without a purpose, life started by just a simple chance, more amazing and beautiful than any value a belief in a god could impart. Since life came from that chance, that chance is important enough to be respected since it caused the proliferation of advanced life all over the planet. So, I respect the reasonless beginning of our existence, and it's amazing to me because it IS reasonless (as far as we know, anyway ).

That's was actually part of my confusion about the label I received in the classroom. As I eluded to earlier, I think my teacher is for some reason under the impression that either most atheists follow a specific moral code like a religion and be consistent, or be weak and have no universal moral standard and be inconsistent. I don't think this is the case at all, hence my conflict. Does that clarify things...?

Once again, thank you all for your input.

ybnormal

Sorry, but I think there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in what these two factions are compelled to do.

There is only the assumption, based only on their word, that Most religious are compelled to do good.

I suggest that Most religious are compelled to want to believe that they are compelled to do good.

There is a difference. If they were actually compelled to do good, for whatever reason, why would we own the argument of how dreadfully awful "Most religious" have been from the absolute beginning of their belief system's history and rule book?

I think all too often, we forget that "Most religious" are totally unable to voice any doubts that they may have about their God, or even about being compelled to do godstuff. Admissions of doubt are pretty much non-existent. Is that realistically possible? I don't believe for a second that "Most religious" never have doubt. "Most religious" will sooner admit to being a pedophile than admit to doubt God, even to their spouse. It just ain't done much. Why? Because they are compelled to believe. Like they are compelled to believe that they are compelled to do good.

So, back to the beginning...

I think there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in what these two factions are compelled to do.

To me, it's like, if only the human species, or more importantly, only part of the human species can have a uniform standard morality, then why is it that even my old hound dog knows right from wrong? Otherwise, why does he always hide and sneak along the neighbor's fence, then get down low and belly crawl behind their hedge until he gets close enough to see that the coast is clear, and only then run up and steal Boozers big new bone?

Don't try to tell me that he doesn't know that he's doing something wrong. Don't try to tell me that he didn't learn right from wrong, just like every human on earth. Don't try to tell me that "Most religious" are any more compelled than my old hound dog to do good, and I reckon that goes for Atheists as well.

And don't try to tell me that anybody believes what I'm getting at, cause I probably won't believe it. Ha!

Peace!

Vorkosigan

Your teacher has basically an extremely confused and poorly thought out view of morality. Pomp and I and several other posters covered this exact issue in this thread, still ongoing. Read it carefully and you will see that your teacher's idea are quite silly.

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067" target="_blank">Mere Christianity</a>

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

To me, you miss an obvious point...

Wouldn't it be FAR more humane, to have planned parenthood (birth control, abortion, etc) so that we bystep the SUFFERING in the world caused from overpopulation (malnutrition, starvation, disease, destruction of the world's natural resources, pollution, wars...)

Killing people on the BACK END, does not prevent babies being born first (therefore not resolving the CAUSE of the problem -- overpopulation.) Nor does it resolve the natural resource problems of water shortages, pollution, deforestation, etc because this method reduces population AFTER the fact.

As an example: With all the media attention of AIDS epidemics in Africa, one might think that the continent is reducing its numbers. No, it is one of the FASTEST growing areas of the world because these AIDS victims usually have children before they die! [A major aspect of the crisis is the huge number of orphans in Africa from the wake of the AIDS epidemic -- spelling future overpopulation and with it poverty/suffering.]

It is generally (although not entirely) religious fundamentalist doctrines that prevent us from employing the very rational solution of planned parenthood to the #1 world problem of overpopulation.

That is where your focus should be as a rational atheist.

BTW: There are things I would die for -- but it would be for principles such as science and freedom/democracy -- ie principles that make the world a better place for future generations.

Sojourner

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sarpedon

I have been struggling with an atheistic system of ethics for some time. My view is that any such system must be first of all logical. Now the trouble with logic is that you must begin with premises. As people who are skeptical, we would probably have difficulty agreeing to what should be our premises. For the purpose of my code I begin with the following:

1. All people are equal.
2. All people have rights. (may choose)

I cannot prove either of these things. In fact, science is overwhelmingly against the second one. In fact, it seems that we may not choose at all. Nonetheless, we need some kind of basis for ethics, and these seem to be good ones. Does anyone else have any good premises that they might want to propose? I have taken the logic started here quite a ways, and if anyone is interested with my personal ethical code, let me know.

Amen-Moses

I would say that science is overwhelmingly against both! Science tells us that everyone (except identical twins) are different and "soft" sciences tell us that even twins are different due to different effects from nurture.

I used to start from "Everyone feels pain" then reduced that to "Everyone feels" but soon found that even that is incorrect!

Amen-Moses

Glory

Infested Kerrigan,

Your teacher sounds like an ass. How does not being abosolutely sure what the right thing to do in a given situation is negate atheism? The two are not inextricably connected. I don't know what I would do if faced with real moral dillema but I can be quite certain I would not look to God for answers. I don't beleive in God. Thus, I am an athiest. What has that lack of belief to do with moral consistency? Furthermore, who the heck is this guy to judge moral consistency. He doesn't know anything about you except that you would not fight the inexorable course of a disease. Does this mean that we should stop researching treatments and cures for AIDS in order to be morally consistent? Should you not attempt to halt such research if you beleive that a disease is the only viable method of population control? Does this not indicate that the anthrax mailings may have been someone's attempt to do the right thing? It gets more ridiculous at every turn.

Glory

Sarpedon

Thanks Amen-Moses, (good name by the way)

The point of this is that science is not much use to morallity. I didn't become an atheist because of science, but rather for moral reasons. Anyway, these are arbitrary premises, and in spite of their scientific dubiousness, they are acceptable to society, and in my ethics, I define morality as a system for functioning in a society. Also, as equal I of course don't mean identical, merely of having an equivalent value, as say a dollar and a euro. (I know they are not equal, but they are supposed to be) I think that the acceptance of society trumps the scientific factor, as society has rules of its own which have not yet been adequately rationalized by science.