Atheism , religion , ID etc
-
It might be more accurate to say that religion is institutionalized superstition; not really a step towards enlightenment, just more organized ignorance.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not really a step towards enlightenment
I think enlightenment is a subjective term. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not really a step towards enlightenment
I think enlightenment is a subjective term. "You get that which you tolerate"
I intended the word enlightenment as in "furnished with increase of knowledge", and not in the spiritual sense. If it'll make you feel better, you can substitute whatever term you feel is a more suitable and objective opposite.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Care to cite some authoritative source for that opinion? I think you meant to say that atheism does not recognize a supernatural supreme being as the source of moral authority. Atheisim, in fact takes NO position on moral authority, it only takes a position on the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. Athiests as a group have a very diverse set of opinions as to what is moral, not all are hedonists (relatively few, in my experience), nor are all unequivocally supportive of abortion. (as you suggested in an earlier post).
You're in complete agreement with me. I said there is no moral authority... as in it "takes NO position on moral authority". That means that atheists do not recognize any authority as delegating moral responsibility. The result is, again as you said, "a very diverse set of opinions". What that means (moral relativism) is that nobody's moral stance is necessarily "right". In other words, hedonism is OK (even if it's not practiced by most atheists). Eventually the definition of "OK" expands indefinately as moral sensibilities are slowly chipped away. History has shown that to be true.
espeir wrote:
History has shown that to be true.
Proof? Or at least a credible cite? And no, I'm not at all in agreement with you. You argue that Athiesm -> No moral basis. I argue that the two are unrelated in any causal fashion. To equate Atheism and Moral Relativism is a non-sequitur, as it is to equate Religiosity with Moral Authority, they are simply not related topics in any logical sense. I can as easily cite many instances where the Pious have committed outrages agains any reasonable standard of Morality as you can cite immoral behavior by Atheists. That alone suggests the absence of any meaningful relationship between morality and religion. Christian during the Crusades committed outrageously immoral crimes against Muslims. Christians during the Inquisition committed morally repugnat crimes agains Jews and non-believers, Muslims today commit morally outrageous crimes agains Christians (and their own). All in the name of their Religion with it's precious "Moral Authority". Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
Richard Northedge wrote:
And this statement of faith (the one about life and matter etc.) doesn't provide you with any means to enable you to decide whether a given action is right or wrong.
Nor does it need to. Man (over time) has developed societies, government and the rule of law. Through these we establish basic human rights and sets of laws and principles about what is right and wrong. These are human constructs - no theistic or atheistic "faith" is required. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov -- modified at 12:10 Friday 7th April, 2006
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Through these we establish basic human rights and sets of laws and principles about what is right and wrong. These are human constructs - no theistic or atheistic "faith" is required.
You've bascially hit one of the hearts of the matter. Many (most?) people confuse morality and law. Law is about ethics and not morality. It's a way in modern society to allow people of differing moralities to peacefully coexist. This is why the fewest laws necessary in this area, the better. Then no group feels too badly put upon and feels the need to lash out. This is one problem with the religious right (any religious right) which wants to enshrine their particular morality on everyone by force of law.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
but it seems to decline as the rule of law (and the trust in that rule of law) increases.
I find that problematic though. Religion, as the fundamental framework for social organization, originally was the law, and the state enforced it as the law, which is why societies finally envoked the principle of separation of church and state. If we are now saying that athiesm, in lieu of religion, is the basic organizing principle for our society, and that the law enforces those principles at the behest of the state, what has really changed? In a sense, we are right back to square one - the state enforcing the moral organizing framework by means of the law - by force. I see that as a violation of the true spirit of separation of church and state. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we are now saying that athiesm, in lieu of religion, is the basic organizing principle for our society, and that the law enforces those principles at the behest of the state, what has really changed? In a sense, we are right back to square one - the state enforcing the moral organizing framework by means of the law - by force.
There's actually a great basis for morality even without religion. You don't have to believe in any religion to see that murder should be a crime. I think that the state should enforce a basic moral framework, independent of religion. Laws should be based on preventing harm, rather than enforcing social customs.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we are now saying that athiesm, in lieu of religion, is the basic organizing principle for our society, and that the law enforces those principles at the behest of the state, what has really changed? In a sense, we are right back to square one - the state enforcing the moral organizing framework by means of the law - by force.
There's actually a great basis for morality even without religion. You don't have to believe in any religion to see that murder should be a crime. I think that the state should enforce a basic moral framework, independent of religion. Laws should be based on preventing harm, rather than enforcing social customs.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
I think that law should ultimately be a reflection of the underlieing moral will of the people, religious or otherwise. But the law should never be leashed to any given source of moral authority, religious or otherwise. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I think that law should ultimately be a reflection of the underlieing moral will of the people, religious or otherwise. But the law should never be leashed to any given source of moral authority, religious or otherwise. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think that law should ultimately be a reflection of the underlieing moral will of the people, religious or otherwise. But the law should never be leashed to any given source of moral authority, religious or otherwise.
Where do I sign up? :) I don't think that atheism should be the basis for laws, just that religion should not be.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
espeir wrote:
Obviously it can because atheism has adopted aspects of morality which have never been considered moral by most religions. For example, Orgies and abortion are not considered immoral by atheists, but are by pretty much all religions.
do you have an link to the official Atheist Moral Framework ? i want to verify things for myself - i'd hate to learn i've been believing the wrong things all this time.
espeir wrote:
because it lacks a specific source for that morality
the source is within us all. i don't believe people are morally hollow. i believe that there is knowledge of a set of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" within all of us. i don't think we need irrational beliefs to recognize or to make use of that knowledge. however, i will credit orgainized religion with being a workable way to unify a community on some things that fall outside that core set of rights and wrongs (since pretty much everyone who isn't insane agrees on the big stuff anyway no matter what their religion). since unity on smaller matters of morality makes for a more homogenous community, and that generally makes for a happier community, it's not all bad. in fact, i believe that's organized religion's basic purpose: a way to enforce community norms. but then, as you'd expect from human institutions, individual religions claim in their own name that which is fundamental to all of us, and then tell the big lie that non-believers don't share those same core values (in effect, making them in-human, as i see). and then they encourage followers to give in to that base a-moral tendency we all share: to persecute non-believers.
espeir wrote:
That's what happened to Rome.
you just said moral relativism arose in the 20th century. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
i believe that there is knowledge of a set of fundamental "rights" and "wrongs" within all of us. i don't think we need irrational beliefs to recognize or to make use of that knowledge.
-
yes but isnt that beleif ("*just somehow* exist") pretty weak? if the atheist main argument against other beleifs is that you cant prove or test them , and in the end atheism turns out the same way if we look at this aspect. "i beleive the rules just somehow exists" dont seem more valid to me than "i beleive that god created everything" everything was so much simple as an atheist when I just ignored/didnt think of that part :P now I just feel like a confused darwinist :P
-
What do you mean by "fundamental human behaviors" - are you thinking of instincts that are programmed into us as part of our genetic makeup?