Sojourner553

All of you,

A sizeable number of atheists are also SECULAR HUMANISTS.

This is a philosophy that extols the value of humans over that of dogma -- including God.


Humanist Manifesto

"*We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

*We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain
the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

*We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the
betterment of human life.

*We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the
best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and
repressive majorities.

*We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.


*We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with
eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

*We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that
they will be able to help themselves.

*We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, or ethnicity, and strive
to work together for the common good of humanity.

*We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

*We believe in enjoying life here and not and in developing our creative
talents to their fullest.

*We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

*We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations to express their sexual preferences, to exercise
reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-
care, and to die with dignity.

*We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty,
truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational
guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral
principle are tested by their consequences.

*We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want
to nourish reason and compassion.

*We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

*We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to
be made in the cosmos.

*We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel
ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

*We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair
and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich person significance and
genuine satisfaction in the service of others.

*We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair,
learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than
guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred,
compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather
that blind faith or irrationality.

*We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are
capable of as human beings."


The above statement of principles and values was set down by the
organization of the Academy of Humanism--whose membership has included,
among others: Steve Allen, Isaac Asimov, Sir Alfred J. Ayer, Francis Crick,
Stephen Jay Gould, Paul MacCready, Sir Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, and
Andrei Sakharov.

===============================================
These principles were derived from a concept that humans -- both current and future generations-- should enjoy life to the maximum. To maximize the quality of living for future generations means one must be a good steward on the earth towards all people PLUS the environment.



Agreed: Humanism is an "arbitrary" moral system as others may choose fundamentalism (based on an authority) or hedonism (selfishness) as their main philosophical base.

But if one DOES choose a basis of humanism for their moral values, then basically all other principles CAN be logically derived.

Sojourner

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

jlowder

The point is that the person who makes a claim has the burden of proof. It would have been one thing if you had merely said, "No one has provided any reason to believe there are any valid moral principles." It is quite another to make the positive claim, "There are no valid moral principles."

Regarding atheism, I don't just assert that atheism is true. I argue for that conclusion. I have provided several lines of evidence for the nonexistence of God <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/products/video/lowder-fernandes.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>.

I don't have any problem with someone who doesn't have the time (or even the desire) to read moral philosophy books. I do have a problem with someone who doesn't read moral philosophy (for whatever reason), yet makes the sweeping claim that moral philosophy is "hogwash." Do you understand the difference?

From the fact that no one has provided you with a "reason for having any sort of morals beyond the natural self-presentation," it doesn't follow that there are no morals. In the absence of arguments for or against the validity of moral principles, you should be a 'moral agnostic,' someone who lacks belief for or against the validity of moral principles.

You seem to want a proof that some moral principle is valid where the validity of that moral principle is somehow derived from the nonexistence of God. I can't think of any valid moral principle derived from the nonexistence of God. But so what? Atheists don't base all or even most of their beliefs on the foundation of atheism. Just because theism serves as a sort of foundational belief for theists, it doesn't follow that atheists have to follow suit. For example, I am an atheist and I also happen to hold the belief that the United States was attacked on September 11th, but that doesn't mean I base my latter belief on the former.

It is the same way with atheism and ethics. That's why there's such a diversity of opinion among atheists, from nihilism (Nietzsche) to subjectivism (J.L. Mackie) to ethical egoism (Ayn Rand) to moral realism (Quentin Smith).

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Eudaimonist

A sizeable number of atheists are also <a href="http://www.objectivistcenter.org/" target="_blank">Objectivists</a>. Here is their <a href="http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp" target="_blank">ethics</a> in a nutshell.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonist ]</p>

Haran

Excuse me???


Did you mean Goody? We are not the same person if that is what you are implying.

Haran

Haran

Finally... Lot of assumptions in this here thread...

Anyway, on another thread, I recieved these comments:

I have, unfortunately, seen other Atheists make similar insensitive claims against religion.

Anyway, my main point here was to drive home a couple of things that I responded with:

I think this thread has made my point. As a matter of fact, I made nearly this exact same statement earlier in this very thread and an Atheist agreed with me.

Finally, because there is no ultimate judging of our actions here on earth (for the Atheist), "anything goes" as Goody pointed out.

Therefore, the main thing I wanted to point out was what I said on the other thread:

See, that was relatively painless and doubtfully earth-shattering to most.

All those assumptions and attacks on me. Geesh...

Haran

Haran

Let me go ahead and stir things up a bit though... I doubt I'll be able to contribute much more for time reasons, but here goes:

First, many Atheists I've met (including a good friend of mine) promote the idea that they do good because in helping someone or being kind to someone, it eventually comes back to them. The idea is that if enough people are kind to each other, eventually the world will begin to change toward utopia. Well, at least the idea is something along those lines.

There are some problems that I see with this experientially, however. I have given money to homeless people - they spent it on alcohol and drugs. I have talked nice about people - they stabbed me in the back. I have loaned money out to someone - they never paid it back. I have been nice to people on the road, daily - daily, I have been cut off by someone. I have opened doors for people - people have slammed them in my face. In fact, I have been a pretty nice person toward other people for many years as have many other people I know, yet nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, from reading history, it seems to me that the world has been this way and will continue to be this way. I think that the nice things you do make a difference to those closest to you, but those who do not know you do not necessarily care about you.

Why is this? Selfishness. Trying to honestly evaluate Atheism for myself, I see only selfishness. One wants what's best for oneself and makes life worth living and happy. Sure, one is nice to his inner circle of friends. Outside of them, there doesn't seem to be much reason to care, unless it will directly benefit oneself. It is doubtful, for instance, that feeding the hungry in Africa will benefit one, unless you enjoy the praise of others for doing it. In short, it seems that just about everything we do can be boiled down to selfishness.

Now, as I see it (at least currently), without out some "all-knowing force" (Santa Claus with his list of naughty and nice, if you please) that will punish people for their "unseen-by-other-human" wrongs, then as Goody said, "anything goes". If this "all-knowing force" does not exist, then anything that benefits you, even if it harms others, is ok...

Lowder mentioned that jail is the deterent to major offenses against others. People will mostly be afraid of jail and a possible death sentence, and this will disuade them from committing these major offenses, right?

I see a problem with this too. Why do you think extreme sports are such a big thing? One would think that the risk of breaking bones would be enough to keep people from doing it. Why do people climb sheer rock faces? Or, why do people parachute out of perfectly good planes? Or, for that matter, why do people fly planes at all? Don't they have a fear of death? Why would anyone attempt to climb Mount Everest? So many people have died up there. Aren't they scared of dying??? No... That same selfish drive will lead a person to risk death in order to do something thrilling and perceived to be beneficial. A case in point was a man I heard of who was blind and risked death, climbing mountains, despite having a wife and young child at home!

Obviously, people will risk injury or even death to do things that they think are beneficial to them in some way. Why, then, if someone who has no belief in some ultimate accounting for their actions against others by an "all-knowing force", would jail or the death penalty scare them away from attempting to get away with, perhaps, murder, if they felt it benefitted their selfish desires in some way (i.e. killing someone who had been cruel to them or some such thing)? Why be good or even nice except to those who are close to you?

Oh well, enough of my rambling... It's late, I'm tired, and I'm out of time. It's been interesting. I'll pop back in if I find the time.

Thanks,
Haran

Haran

Oh yeah, the statistics on divorce (among other things) that someone mentioned...or several people, I don't remember.

The Barna Group is, I believe, respectable. However, what do those statistics take into account? For instance, in the divorce survey, did they take into account how many Atheists lived with and separated from one or more people rather than getting married and divorced?

On the jail survey, did they take into account when the persons conversion happened? Did they take into account how closely the person followed the ideals of his/her religion?

Oh well, you see my point. I'm an Engineer, and I know that statistics are only as good as the data you put in them...

Haran

Vorkosigan

Sorry Haran! Misread Goody as being your sock puppet! My humblest apologies. I was absolutely infuriated with you for running out of a conversation like that, and for having a sock puppet. Just take the depth of my fury as a proxy for my high regard for you.

Once again, my humblest apologies.

Michael

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Vorkosigan

First, many Atheists I've met (including a good friend of mine) promote the idea that they do good because in helping someone or being kind to someone, it eventually comes back to them. The idea is that if enough people are kind to each other, eventually the world will begin to change toward utopia. Well, at least the idea is something along those lines.

Lots of people do that. I always believe you create the kind of society you want to live in by your own actions.

face. In fact, I have been a pretty nice person toward other people for many years as have many other people I know, yet nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, from reading history, it seems to me that the world has been this way and will continue to be this way.

Sure Haran, all over the world, and throughout history, all nations and cultures have had exactly the same civil sense, the same moral behaviors, the attitudes toward family, self, and society. Concepts of human rights, democracy, all the progress we've made over the centuries, it never happened....like I always say, scratch a Christian, find a nihilist.

Simple experiment. Go to a post office in Nairobi. Attempt to cut in line. Then go to a post office in Cleveland. Attempt to cut in line. Can you honestly say that progress is never made?

Why is this? Selfishness. Trying to honestly evaluate Atheism for myself, I see only selfishness.

Trying to evaluate religious belief for myself, I see only selfishness, brutality and inhumanity.

One wants what's best for oneself and makes life worth living and happy. Sure, one is nice to his inner circle of friends. Outside of them, there doesn't seem to be much reason to care, unless it will directly benefit oneself.

Like I said, Christians are nihilists. Every day, all over the world, millions of individuals give this statement lie.

It is doubtful, for instance, that feeding the hungry in Africa will benefit one, unless you enjoy the praise of others for doing it.

So why do people do it? Insanity?

In short, it seems that just about everything we do can be boiled down to selfishness.

This is a Christian talking? Please, Haran, don't give up your god, if this belief is all that stands between you and running amok.

Now, as I see it (at least currently), without out some "all-knowing force" (Santa Claus with his list of naughty and nice, if you please) that will punish people for their "unseen-by-other-human" wrongs, then as Goody said, "anything goes".

Anything went before! Hint: it's not freethinking atheists who crash airplanes into office buildings. It ain't the freethinking atheists who carry out genocide, suppress half the human race (women) and fight all forms of social progress. Have you bothered to sit down and read about the genocide in Rwanda -- practically everyone involved was a Christian of some flavor, and the tribunals have convicted numerous clerics.

Only people with authority beliefs --Communists, Christians, Muslims, Facists -- commit fabulous evils like genocide and religious terrorism. Christianity is a wonderful stimulus to evil -- you can justify anything in its name. Atheism, alas, is not so fruitful for misbehavior. Freethinking atheists are stuck using tolerance, persuasion, and like tactics to effect change in society. Fortunately human society doesn't work the way you and Goody describe it.

I can't help that Goody understands nothing about what he has read. But I doubt very much that goody behaves in the pathological way he advocates.

If this "all-knowing force" does not exist, then anything that benefits you, even if it harms others, is ok...

Have you ever lived in a society with other people? I'm just wondering, because you certainly don't write like it.

Obviously, people will risk injury or even death to do things that they think are beneficial to them in some way. Why, then, if someone who has no belief in some ultimate accounting for their actions against others by an "all-knowing force", would jail or the death penalty scare them away from attempting to get away with, perhaps, murder, if they felt it benefitted their selfish desires in some way (i.e. killing someone who had been cruel to them or some such thing)? Why be good or even nice except to those who are close to you?

I dunno, but if you look at prisons, they contain a disproportionate number of religious believers, and almost no atheists/freethinkers.

There's a lot missing from your analysis. Like, for example, experience of the real world.

Oh well, enough of my rambling... It's late, I'm tired, and I'm out of time. It's been interesting. I'll pop back in if I find the time.

Good luck. It's a big world out there, full of complex cooperating social primates. Why is that?

Michael

Vorkosigan

An atheists morals are adopted piecemeal, a little bit of this and a little bit of that. What ever fits your fancy.


I think this thread has made my point. As a matter of fact, I made nearly this exact same statement earlier in this very thread and an Atheist agreed with me.

Don't be silly. I told you an ad hoc approach was ok and you seem to assert it is not, although you have yet to put up any reason why not, other than your own tastes.....which come to think of it, is exactly what you accuse us of doing....

The first poster missed the boat. There are many different kinds of atheists. Some, like Buddhists, may offer well-thought out moral systems. Others may pick-and-choose, just as Christians do out of their mountains of doctrine and holy writings. In either case, the advantage, as I wrote, of an ad hoc approach is that you can change when it fails. As a Christian, you are stuck with the social views of a culture of sheepherders and proto-agriculturalists.

I do not understand why you think it is "insensitive" to claim that people acting under authority beliefs commit acts of suicidal terrorism. Communists, Christians, Muslims, Japanese Kamikazes, Tamil terrorists all produce suicide bombers. If it wasn't true, we wouldn't mention it....Funny, though, how I've never heard of a freethinker suicide bomber....while its common to see headlines like "Christians, Muslims, Clash, 500 dead" or "Muslims Burn Trainload of Hindus" we never read headlines like "North Texas Church of Freethought Bombs Austin Community Atheists; Six Dead, Scores Injured."

Why do you think that is?

Also, if Osama Bin Laden had been an atheist, do you think the WTC would still have been attacked?

Finally, why is it "insensitive" for us to point out the regularity with which god-believers murder themselves, each other, and innocent bystanders, but it is not "insensitive" for both you and goody to label atheists "selfish?"

Michael

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>