Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by joknoppix on January 5, 2009 at 12:45am

Our morality should not become static, but ever fluid.
We should remember to think Logically but never forget our Humanity.

...and mine the gold nuggets out of the pile of bull crap called religion.


I hope that made sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frink on January 5, 2009 at 5:58pm

So a utilitarian system with minority protection? Not bad, as long as the means exist and the greatest good is just (as opposed to the situation in "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas.")

But really, what's wrong with the Golden Rule?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on January 5, 2009 at 9:05pm

My statement was only to prove that there was a "lowest common denominator" for a non-subjective morality without god.
Though interestingly enough there are plenty of subjective moralities with god..eh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frink on January 5, 2009 at 10:14pm

I don't understand why they don't just take out the middle man.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on January 5, 2009 at 11:23pm

Because then they would have to take responsibility for their own decisions and actions. Anything can be justified or rationalized if "god gave you strength to do it" or if you "fell to sin because you're human and weak"
Religious morality is nothing more than a well-she-was-wearing-the-mini-skirt-so-she-was-asking-to-be-raped defense.
It takes the responsibility of right and wrong off of a persons shoulders. Even sadder still, it attributes all the good, right, caring, compassionate works to some deity that had nothing to do with the life struggle, realizations and hard work of those that sacrifice a whole lot just to do a little good.
It doesn't give credit where credit is due, and it neutralizes consequences where responsibility should be fessed up.
Isn't that a lovely state? All nice, secure and comforting?
Uh huh.
< /rant >

(can you tell my ex is in town? sheesh, even I feel bitchy for posting that!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frink on January 5, 2009 at 11:37pm

Actually, my remark was rhetorical, but I definitely enjoyed the rant. Kudos! :D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew on January 9, 2009 at 12:30am

I have found that my moral view point has grown stronger in alot of ways now that I no longer have the "gOd" influence. I see people as people instead of "sinners" and "saints". I see the crimes and just outright murders that are commited in the name of whatever gOd people who commit them are worshipping. I also found myself mental and emotional freedom that i didnt have as I would think before that i was beign sinfull in thinking some things...

i hope that made some sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rene Benthien on April 21, 2009 at 12:02am

Should Atheism really have a particular moral framework? I'm a utilitarian (as my pseudonym would suggest). But I cannot say that all Atheists subscribe to utilitarianism. Could we not just acknowledge that Atheism frees us to explore rational moral frameworks?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on April 21, 2009 at 1:31am

You can... right up until a theist asks (and believe me, they always do) "how do you know right and wrong without God to tell you?"
Basically one of the biggest arguments that theists have against atheists is that without a deity we have no moral compass,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rene Benthien on April 21, 2009 at 2:03am

To that argument I would hope that we reply by saying exactly where our morals come from. I get my morals from reason, my upbringing, my evolutionary instincts, my deeply entrenched love for humanity. my belief that moral laws are a natural extension of physical laws, and my desire to live in society with friends.

Not from a 2000 year old book that sanctions men to sell their daughters into slavery.

Then I would ask this Theist how I could trust him to make the right moral choices when he believes in such unambiguously immoral teachings, and fantastical space-gods.

I'm worried that if we start attaching too many other views and implications to Atheism then it would eventually be seen as a doctrine itself, and we would lose the necessary diversity.

Atheism needs to be the biggest of tents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 21, 2009 at 5:03pm

I pointed out to one person who asked me that that expecting all atheists to have the same ethical code because we are all atheists would be like expecting all theists to have the same code because they are all theists. So his (Baptist) should be the same as a Hindu, a Muslim, a Catholic, etc. I think the Catholic one irked him the most.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 21, 2009 at 5:02pm

Precisely, Rene. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. That's it. Different atheists can have different ethical systems. Utilitarianism, objectivism, secular humanism, naturalistic materialism, and so forth.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page