Jump to content

Ethical Atheist


AK-Stoic

Recommended Posts

it's Condescending to hear statements about atheists being unethical. ethics is a human construct that can be objective or subjective, it depends on the situation in question. we humans are not inherently good or evil, it all depends on the context and personal choice. using religious dogma to deny the legal rights of certain people is unethical and hypocritical. case in point. luke 19:27 but those mine enemies,which would not that I should reign over them,bring hither, and slay them before me. history is plagued with religious intolerance like that. atheists didn't kill millions of people because of beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get what you mean, it's not because I don't respect a written moral in an old book that it makes me immoral. In fact, I think atheists actually have to find and design their own moral which makes them more prone to questionning than those who just follow rules given to them.

Some religious people are moral and some are immoral. Same goes with atheists. I just don't like when they get all holier than thou about it.

I created my own moral through my own feelings and perceptions and I'm quite happy with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some religious folks assume atheists are amoral because we have rejected their god, their moral center. I for one am obsessed with ethics and morality, that is what led me to shun religion and organized thought in general. I have studied religion and I take moral lessons and ideas from all the biggies. I was confirmed in the Presbyterian church by a pastor who was also a Taoist. That specific church exposed me to many different faiths, even taking us kids to different places of worship. My pastor asked if I would take Jesus as my lord and savior. I said "no, he's a teacher at best." My pastor was happy with that, the moral lessons were all that mattered. My church at that time had not just atheists and agnostics but Muslims and others mixed into our Sunday gatherings. I saw the beauty in that, the true Christian spirit of love, tolerance and community. I was ordained as an Elder in that church. I don't believe in any deity because I don't see a need for one. My main goal in life is to appreciate the world and every moment I get to spend here. That means loving even those who don't like or even hate me. The lessons I learned early in life are my moral center and there is always room for improvement. Many people of all ethical structures see the world as an evil place and they chastise anyone who won't follow their code. I'm certain that this world is good and so my experience of it is a positive one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i also believe that the world is good. I know there are some religious people that are exceptionally good, but there too few in numbers to actually make a difference. blindly following anyone persons or group has negative consequences. cult leaders excels at targeting susceptible persons to blind subjugation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SorryNotSorry

Some religious folks assume atheists are amoral because we have rejected their god, their moral center.

Agreed. My religious aunt actually feels sorry for me because I don't agree with some of God's rules... though I haven't exactly been living my life like it's one big, fun crime spree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's silly. It's as if embracing a religion was the only way to be a moral person. I can think that killing and stealing are wrong in principle even if I'm not a Christian (although in reality I admit exceptions to these rules, such as killing for self-defence and stealing food to survive, which is still "wrong" but humanly understandable).

Religions don't define ethics, nor the other way round. If you compared various religious beliefs from all over the world, you'd find they're clashing on various points. Just think of how much Catholics value monogamy, whereas Muslims allow polygamy for men (not for women though). And that thing about earning seven virgins in paradise if you die in a kamikaze attack that kills infidels? Says a lot about how morality can differ from person to person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't have said it better then that. morality does change with different geographic regions of the world. almost every religious persons doesn't like to admit that all people are born atheist and that which ever religion is an entirely learned behavior. the use of violence and stealing is wrong, but it does depend on the circumstances involved. using written scriptures as an excuse for violence is convoluted tactic to get people to sacrifice the only life that they have. it would be better to start a dialog to understand the political and ideological differences rather then dogmatic violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

almost every religious persons doesn't like to admit that all people are born atheist and that which ever religion is an entirely learned behavior.

Just a note - that's not really a strike against, because morality is a learned behavior, too. And, honestly, having grown up in Religious circles, I don't actually know of any who'd deny what you said. Modern Christianity explicitly acknowledges that fact, which is why you have christening/confirmation/baptism.

All that said, there's every possibility for an Atheist to choose to as ethical as anyone, and to train their children in the highest standards of ethical behavior. Being Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu) does not give you superpowers, even in the field of ethics.

The only thing Atheism lacks is a build-in Normative system. If I know someone's Christian, that gives me basis from which to criticize their behavior biblically. An Atheist who disagrees with another Atheist on ethics might well resort to one of the secular normative ethical philosophies, but there's no guarantee that who they're talking to shares that particular ethical philosophy.

This is a fairly weak objection though, because there are those other ethical philosophies, and you can divide along those lines instead. Instead of Ethically Christian and Ethically Athiest, you instead have Ethically Christian, Ethically Utilitarian, Ethically Deontological, etc. And of course Ethically Unaffiliated, who can still conform to the highest standards of behavior if they so choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember being in many religion based arguments. They're my least favourite and I tend to steer well away from them. The ones I have had, all with Catholics, were mainly spent with me telling them that they shouldn't feel sorry for me, that there really wasn't any need to prey for me due to my lack of belief. I have been told umpteen times that my moral compass is dodgy, but it's never been questioned in any of these situations. I hadn't really thought about it. I don't tend to think too much about religion. I found all this to be quite fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

almost every religious persons doesn't like to admit that all people are born atheist and that which ever religion is an entirely learned behavior.

Just a note - that's not really a strike against, because morality is a learned behavior, too.

Feelings that are at the basis of moral behavior aren't learned, animals that had not learned them have them as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0InWq4fZ4

It also makes perfect evolutionary sense for behaviors, and feelings that are basis for morality to be coded to some degree. (game theory applied to evolution)

Feelings of disgust are learned, and some people think that disgusting = wrong = immoral. (not disgust itself but you can attach the feelings of disgust to anything). It is arbitrary, and I don't consider it to have anything to do with morality.

The only thing Atheism lacks is a build-in Normative system. If I know someone's Christian, that gives me basis from which to criticize their behavior biblically. An Atheist who disagrees with another Atheist on ethics might well resort to one of the secular normative ethical philosophies, but there's no guarantee that who they're talking to shares that particular ethical philosophy.

If that would be the case then various religious groups wouldn't disagree with each other. One sect will point to one thing in the holy book, and ignore some other parts, the other sect will do the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feelings that are at the basis of moral behavior aren't learned, animals that had not learned them have them as well.

{snip}

It also makes perfect evolutionary sense for behaviors, and feelings that are basis for morality to be coded to some degree. (game theory applied to evolution)

Feelings of disgust are learned, and some people think that disgusting = wrong = immoral. (not disgust itself but you can attach the feelings of disgust to anything). It is arbitrary, and I don't consider it to have anything to do with morality.

Classical conditioning demonstrates that feelings can also be taught. And animals learn behaviors too. Demonstrating ethical sensibilities in animals doesn't prove much, especially since counterexamples are just as plentiful.

If you really believe ethics are innate and fundamental in humanity, I recommend you take some opportunity to observe a group of kindergarten students (or any elementary grade really) at play for a day, and try holding them to adult ethical standards.

If that would be the case then various religious groups wouldn't disagree with each other. One sect will point to one thing in the holy book, and ignore some other parts, the other sect will do the opposite.

It still fits the definition of "Normative Ethics". Just because a person subscribes to an ethical framework that's Normative does not prevent them from being self-deceiving or outright hypocritical. Normative Ethics do not guarantee good behavior, in the same way that their lack does not guarantee bad behavior. Individual agency is paramount. Still, Normative Ethics provide a framework from which to critique and correct a person's actions. Within religious examples - the (eventual) success of Luther's 99 Theses in producing sweeping change in the Catholic Church would not have been possible had both Luther and the Church not been working within the same Normative framework. They could prevaricate and deny, but in the end he did have a point, because there was a foundation for both of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...