Post moved back to top for additional comments.
An answer to those who ask how can you be moral and teach morality without religion. Sounds like it’s pretty easy when you skip the fear and shame and other negatives used by some religions to enforce morality.
“When you have kids,” says Julie Willey, a design engineer, “you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on.” So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. “It’s important for kids not to look weird,” says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it’s O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.
It is an interesting presumption that morality can be taught from an atheistic framework.
Maybe some of you who consider yourselves atheists can shed some light on these questions because I’m very curious how this is handled.
If morality can be taught, who or what is the arbiter of that morality? In other words, who gets to decide where right stops and wrong starts?
If it is dependent upon each person or each situation, who can say lying in situation X was acceptable, but not so in situation Y?
I would like to propose this. The very idea of teaching morality disproves, or at least corrupts the essence of atheism. Here’s how:
To have a system of morality, one must be able to label right and wrong.
In order to label right from wrong, there must be some standard or moral law.
If there exists some moral law somewhere, then there must be someone or something that is the source of this moral law, the moral law-giver.
It seems rational, then to embrace the idea of God. I’m not arguing (necessarily) for the existence of the God of the Bible, as much as I am arguing against the absence of God.
To #121, Paul Copan has addressed issues related to your comment:
“The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (“God does not exist”) as theism (“God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.”
#122
“the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence”
Nope. The burden of proof lies with those making the unsubstantiated claim. It is up to the believer to prove that god exists. By Copan’s logic, I’d have to give a reason for rejecting an infinite number of non-existing things.
>>I’d have to give a reason for rejecting
>>an infinite number of non-existing things.
No explanation necessary. Just be aware that your belief is just that, a belief (and a religious one at that); no more, no less.
Anyone who only gives credibility to things that have been proven by science TO DATE is living a very impoverished life.
But that’s just my belief.
#124
“No explanation necessary. Just be aware that your belief is just that, a belief (and a religious one at that); no more, no less.”
Sure, it’s a religious belief. I’m OK with that. So what?
“Anyone who only gives credibility to things that have been proven by science TO DATE is living a very impoverished life.”
And those who spend their lives worshiping a fairy tale god, and do nothing with their lives, convinced that they will live forever in heaven are really wasting their lives. Life is here. Life is now. Make the most of it.
And you imply from your statement that science will eventually prove the existence of god. It won’t. Neither will it prove the non-existence of god. I’m not opposed to believing in things that science hasn’t proven (like love), and I’m quite open-minded. Yet the evidence that religious folk trot out and present as proof of god is never proof. Then they say, “Why don’t you believe this proof?” and think you’re a nutbar for not believing it. Sigh.
#121
I suggest you take a class in fundamental logic since you have more that demonstrated your lack of skill in the subject. Tell you what, let’s lay out your logic. As best as I can tell, it goes something like:
1. Atheists do not believe god exists.
2. Anything relating to god is a belief.
3. Therefore, atheists have a god belief.
4 If you have a god belief you are religious.
5. Therefore atheism is a religion.
Is that about the make up of your logic?
>>As best as I can tell
You’re going to have to try harder, Saint Tom. Your straw man argument begins with a false premise
>>1. Atheists do not believe god exists.
No. People who describe themselves as “secular/ non-religious” do not believe god exists.
Atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE that God does not exist. I know it’s a subtle difference, but think about it for a while. It’s key to the whole discussion. When you’ve mastered that, we can move on.
#127
You still don’t get it. What EXACTLY is THE word you use describe someone that LACKS a god belief? Do not rephrase that statement in any way. Let us start there.
Specifically, give me a noun that exists in the dictionary.
>>Sure, it’s a religious belief. I’m OK
>>with that. So what?
So that’s been my only point all along. You would be surprised at how many of your Atheist bretheren would die a thousand deaths before they admit to a religious belief. That is completely contrary to their self-image as being 1) rigorously scientific, mathematically and logically sound, and superior to those “sheeple” who believe things that have not been proven and 2) bohemian, counter-cultural, slightly dangerous, unconventional, cutting-edge, hip-and-happening dudes and dudettes. Instead, they’re not much different than Ward and June Cleaver, trudging to church every Sunday morning with Wally and the Beav in tow.
>>And those who spend their lives worshiping a
>>fairy tale god, and do nothing with their
>>lives, convinced that they will live forever
>>in heaven are really wasting their lives.
You have your opinion, I have mine. And truth to tell, I somewhat agree with you. However, outside of holy-rolling snake handlers, I don’t know many people who “spend their life” worshiping a god (fairy tale or not), or who do nothing with their lives. Those who do, are wasting it. My God doesn’t mind if I eat ham and cheese sandwiches, do a little work on Sunday, fornicate and smoke a little weed (hey, we’re all sinners, right?) and do most of the other things I want to do, regardless of His existence or non-existence. I don’t imagine he looks to favorably on murder, theft, adultry, rape, and espcially taking His name in vain (pay attention, Little King Georgie), but I don’t really want to do that anyhow. My religious beliefs complement and enhance my life, they do not restrict it.
>>And you imply from your statement that
>>science will eventually prove the existence
>>of god. It won’t.
Your inference was not my implication. I agree with you. God, love, the meaning of life, etc. are not within the realm of science as we know it.
>>Yet the evidence that religious folk trot
>>out and present as proof of god is never
>>proof. Then they say, “Why don’t you believe
>>this proof?” and think you’re a nutbar for
>>not believing it.
I don’t believe I have trotted out any evidence. I have my beliefs, you have yours.
I’m perfectly content to leave it at that. What rubs me a little the wrong way is the Atheist evangelists who proclaim “Quantum physics has not proven the existence of God” (of course they know nothing about quantum physics first-hand, just what they’ve read in USA Today) “how can you be such moronic sheeple, believing something for which there is no subatomic proof”? When all is said and done, there’s no more proof for their religious beliefs than there is for mine.
>>You still don’t get it. What EXACTLY is THE
>>word you use describe someone that LACKS a
>>god belief? Do not rephrase that statement
>>in any way. Let us start there.
How about “secular” as in the category “secular/ non-religious”, used in the link you posted earlier (alternative link SECULAR Not religious – http://www.jeansasson.com/glossary_of_terms.htm). Although you asked for a noun and I gave you an adjective, I hope that’s all right. If not, would you prefer “secularist”?
Don’t try to obscure the forest with the trees, Tommy. You are chafing under the bit of having your religious beliefs revealed for being what they are: religious beliefs. I can understand your frustration, but you ought to take a break. Go have another ginger ale. Your arguments are not getting any more compelling in repetition.
Mr. Mustard,
As I analyze your faulty logic, I think I now see the pattern in your mistakes.
What the entire rest of the universe calls atheist you are calling “secular/non-religious”. So, from now on, assume that whenever someone uses the word “atheist” they really mean what you are calling “secular/non-religious.” The rest of the English speaking world is quite content with the definition as it stands so try to refrain from using words to mean something they are not.
Now, as for your meaning of the word “atheist”, as best as I can tell, that would equate to “anti-theist” which really does not yet formally exist. Perhaps that will help you communicate with everyone in the modern era.
Therefore, would you agree that using Mr.-Mustard.-doubletalk, that the following statement is true:
“Non-secular/religious is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
hmm..better phrased as:
“Non-religious/secular is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
>>What the entire rest of the universe calls
>>atheist you are calling
>>“secular/non-religious”.
Well, not the entire rest of the world. The links you have provided distinguish between “atheist” and “secular/ non-religious”, the links I have provided distinguish between “atheist” and “secular/ non-religious”, it seems quite a common distinction. If you have no belief, you’re secular/ non-religious. If you have a belief (specifically a belief that God does not exist), you are an Atheist.
No amount of faux-scientific/ logical/ mathematical hocus-pocus can cover up that unpleasant truth.
Yes, Mr. Misguided. Everyone outside of your little world uses the word “atheist” in the way YOU are using “non-religious/secular”. You are getting wrapped up in the categories used in a survey.
Let me give you a map used by the rest of the universe:
Atheist : “I reject the claim that a god exists.”
Non-religious/secular: “I’m not saying but I don’t go to church”
To wit:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious
“It can not be said based on Zuckerman’s analysis that “1.5 billion people do not believe in God.” A large proportion of the people classified as “non-religious” expressly do believe in God or a Higher Power. The 750 million figure is already an attempt to estimate the total population of people who do not believe in God. “
#122 Brian wrote, “In order to label right from wrong, there must be some standard or moral law. If there exists some moral law somewhere, then there must be someone or something that is the source of this moral law, the moral law-giver.”
Various religions certainly claim to tap into this higher power or “moral law-giver” for these standards of right and wrong, but their presumed authority to make such moral and ethical pronouncements is undermined when those standards change over time. Maybe my earlier suggestion of a morality based on empathy is imperfect, but surely a rules-based morality that changes significantly as the years go by is even less perfect.
Take, for example, a man revered by three of the world’s major religions, a man named Abraham. He was supposedly a man so good that even God himself remarked “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” At that point in time, it was apparently quite OK with Yahweh that Abraham had an incestuous marriage to his half-sister Sarah, and then banged her servant to produce his son Ishmael. According to later revelations from this very same god, these actions became much less moral.
My point is that the very concepts of right and wrong projected by religions readily reveal their own gross imperfections. Just as God is often portrayed as an eternal, unchanging “Rock of Ages,” the notion of sin as an offense against God logically implies the same sort of constance. Instead we find that religious morality is actually quite a moving target, often moving just quickly enough to avoid becoming obsolete.
I just re-read my own comment and discovered that I used a word that’s as non-existent as the deity I was writing about. Substituting “constancy” for “constance” solves the former issue, while nothing can remedy the latter.
# 121 Mister Mustard said, in November 28th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
>>I am debunking the idiotic claim that
>>Christians, or religious people in general,
>>are “more moral.”
>Who the fuck claimed that? Jimmy Swaggart? Ted >Haggard? I certainly never did. You’ll have to >take it up with one of them.
Yeah, those guys do tend to make those claims. For the longest time, political conservatives like Newt Gingrich were claiming their own moral superiority. Of course, they were all boffing their own interns and hanging around men’s rooms at the same time they were making the claim.
I still have to ask (I didn’t see anyone answer my question) — what is the ethical framework in atheism for morality?
Social Darwinism is the closest I’ve ever heard about atheistic morality and the Stalinist purges showed us how well that works out!
#42, MM,
Call it peer pressure if you will, Scottie, but the only people I know who believe in gnomes, elves, trolls, fire-breathing dragons, the great pumpkin, mermaids, flying unicorns, and the like are fruitcakes.
Fruitcakes ??? So those who believe in beings capable of performing supernatural tricks are fruitcakes? I think that is the point against those who believe in a “god”.
What “proof” do we have for the existence of quarks, photons, neutrinos, and muons, other than that “smart people” tell us they exist?
I personally do not have the math skills to answer that and I have never witnessed an experiment demonstrating their existence. I can, however, talk to those who have seen the evidence of quarks, photons, and / or whatever. They have performed experiments that have demonstrated the existence of sub-atomic matter and can repeat those experiments any time you like.
On the other hand, no one can demonstrate the existence of a “god”. Sure, several people have claimed to have talked to “god”, but their experiences can not be verified. Nor is there, as far as I am aware of, any test or experiment that will demonstrate the existence of a “god”.
***
Every Christmas I dress up as Santa for the kids. It always gives me the warmest feeling to see their eyes and smiles as they tell me what they want for Christmas. I try to repeat what the child has said to me loud enough so the parent can hear just in case the parent is unaware of the kid’s wish list. I also tell the child that I make no promises BUT will try to leave him something special under their tree.
And you know what? Those kids believe in me. They think my sleigh is parked out back. They think I will leave them something if they are good. They will leave me some cookies and milk as an offering. They believe that if they are good I will reward them. If they believe in ME.
Their naive little minds believing they will gain something of value if they believe. I wonder how many others will see the resemblance between Santa and organized religions.
#138
Atheism makes no attempt to provide an ethical framework. It is merely a position with respect to the claim of the supernatural.
The real question you are asking is “How are we moral?” and for that I suggest reading a couple of books by Michael Shermer:
The Science of Good and Evil : Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God
>>Everyone outside of your little world uses the
>>word “atheist” in the way YOU are using
>>“non-religious/secular”.
Uh, I don’t think so. Why don’t you read the fucking link you posted. Even your own “evidence” does not agree with you. Even your Atheist bretheren do not agree with you. I thought this passage from the page you linked to was quite revealing
“For the purposes of this list, this grouping also includes more proactive or well-defined philosophies such as secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, freethought, etc., MOST OF WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS RELIGIONS (my emphasis) in the sociological sense, albeit secular religions. A minority among atheists are quite fervent in their beliefs and actively endeavor to proselytize atheism. ”
>>You are getting wrapped up in the
>>categories used in a survey.
Actually, I don’t give a flying fuck about the “categories used in a survey”. YOU are the one who’s so hell-bent on setting down categorical boundaries (those of your own invention), and then using them as lynchpins of your increasingly incoherent argument.
Give it up, dude. You’re in the same boat with the faith-healers and snake handlers.;)
#91 – And no more of that “not collecting stamps” shit, please. I just hope (and pray) that OFTLO never has to take the Miller Analogies Test. He’d flunk.
Bullshit.
The only way you can be right in this debate is by changing the known definitions of words to meet your agenda… and you damn well know you are being disingenuous…
I’m sorry some of our criticism of religion has hurt your feelings. But that’s just tough for you.
#139, I may not believe in Santa, but your comment makes me believe in someone so big-hearted and generous that he even resists the powerful urge to promise Republican children a lump of coal if they don’t mend their naughty conservative ways.
By the spirit of Clement Clark Moore, I believe in Mr. Fusion!
#82 – An you’re also failing to recognize (or admit) that many convicts who call themselves “Christian” (like Jim Bakker) are nothing of the sort. They are like the Kaposi’s sarcoma of society; opportunistic infections that prey on the weak and defenseless for their own personal gain. And that includes “born-again” assholes like Dumbya. If that shit-fer-brains is a born-again Christian, I’m Madalyn Murray O’Hare.
Okay…
I see your problem.
You are a bigot against Christians.
Oh yes… You are… And you don’t get to get off with this. Who are you to decide who is and who is not a Christian?
No wonder you feel like the brunt of the joke when folks like me defend our culture against the Christian attack. You’ve arbitrarily stripped everyone (Bakker, Bush, who else?) of their faith because you don’t approve of them. And I agree with you about the judgment, but those people ARE Christians because they get to decide and express their faith, not you.
I may have no moral qualms about calling those people morons, but I’d never sink so low as to say they weren’t Christians.
How they act doesn’t impact you. What we say about them doesn’t impact you. Quit being a crybaby and taking the wrong side on these issues.
#95 – No one is disputing the precentages of the population at large who are Christians, Atheists, and other religions. In fact, I have posted those same links myself in support of the idea that Atheism is, in fact, a religion (the sixth most popular in the world).
You already rewrite the definitions of words to suit your agenda. Don’t think you can get away with rewriting math. Thomas is right and you are simply doing the typical Christian thing… pretending the opposition said something different, then turning to the flock and inviting them to join you in scorn… That’s what Jesus does… apparently…
Besides… Math is the language of God…
What we’re talking about (the only relevant statistic for this discussion) is the percentage of Christians who are in jail vs. the percentage of Atheists who are in jail.
And a smaller percentage of atheists are in jail. We are are more moral than you. Live with it.
#100 – The notion that Atheism is a religious belief hardly started with me. In fact, it is fairly common among (non-Atheist) people who have given it any though.
When you consider the other things those people believe, there is no reason to take their musings on atheism seriously.
>>Fruitcakes ??? So those who believe in beings
>>capable of performing supernatural tricks are
>>fruitcakes? I think that is the point against
>>those who believe in a “god”.
Take your head out of your ass and look around, will you? Not everything you don’t believe in is “the same”, just because you don’t believe in it. People who believe in dragons, elves, an the Great Pmpkni are in the psych ward, medicated, wearing strait jackets. People who believe in god(s) have been the scientific, artistic, mathematical, and cultural leaders since the dawn of recorded history, from Abraham, Martin, and John to Chief Seattle to Leonardo da Vinci. Even the “optimistic agnostic” Winston CHurchill professed belief in a higher power.
I know it’s good for your ego to believe that you know something that great minds over dozens, if not hundreds, of millenia did not know, but to the objective observer, you just look silly an way too full of yourself for your own good.
>>I can, however, talk to those who have seen
>>the evidence of quarks, photons, and / or
>>whatever.
How groovy for you. If I were so inclined, I could talk to those who claim to be operating on explicit instructions from God, who have been cured of incurable illnesses by their faith, who speak in tongues (and understand what they’re saying), who have been protected from the bite of venomous snakes by divine intervention. Maybe they have. I have never experienced that first hand, just as you have never proven, first-hand, the existence of neutrinos and muons. You’re just taking the word of people you choose to believe that something YOU CAN NEVER PROVE TO YOURSELF does in fact exist.
Now, refresh my memory as to how this is categorically different from a religion??
>>Nor is there, as far as I am aware of, any
>>test or experiment that will demonstrate
>>the existence of a “god”.
Correct. That’s why I’m not in favor of teaching religion in science class. By the same token, there is no “test or experiment” that can differentiate a painting by da Vinci or van Gogh from a portrait of Elvis on black velvet. Or Beethoven from Brittany. Do you contend, based on an absence of tests and experiments to verify, that there’s no difference?
#116 – maybe Atheists just don’t like to fire up a doobie.
Okay… Now you are getting personal. You take that back!
# 5 – So basically you’re saying that you are a jerk, that if you didn’t have the “luck” of finding the beliefs credible you would have no morals, you would be killing people, raping, having sex with your sister?? I beleive not! You probably have values because you have instinct and there was a society that said that for you to fit it you have to obey certain rules. People fear not being accepted, its a evolutionary instinct that we developed. We need to be in a group otherwise we die alone.
We have exemaples of religious people doing evil things (09/11, Hitler, Inquisition) through a relegious beleif, and we had atheis doing evil things also. Its part of some people’s character doens’t matter if they beleive in God or not.
In my opinion, religion is out dated. It served a purpose for society in the medivel times. We have germ theory, DNA analysis, and the internet things that medival men never dreamed off. The explanations that the bible and other books have do not explain and in certain ways contradict what we consider truth.
If you want to beleive that a chill, or a feeling of warmth is God, thats your problem. Don’t come to me saying that because you felt moved by a sermon that you know without seeing of having any proof that there is an entity that is outside our universe, that can create or destroy anythings, that is listening to all things, that answers prayer, has a elite group of angels, fights the man called the devil and his army, and that if you don’t wear a damn burka you’re going to burn thoughout eternity!!! How do you know all of this if you don’t have any proof? If he can create anything and destroy anything why don’t we see it when we look and the background radition of the universe? Or why don’t we see it when we study physics (quantum machanics, entropy, etc…). If you know all this I also know that there is a Flying Spaghetti monster that created the universe. And I know that because there is a holy book that you can buy from amazo (The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If you have the premisse that you don’t need proof (or only need personal feeling that its there) then anything is true even the little mermaid and the Cinderella.
#121 – >>I am debunking the idiotic claim that
>>Christians, or religious people in general,
>>are “more moral.”
Who the fuck claimed that? Jimmy Swaggart? Ted Haggard? I certainly never did. You’ll have to take it up with one of them.
WE ARE TAKING IT UP WITH THEM! It’s just that they can’t respond because you are answering with your circular and ignorant bullshit about atheism being a religion. If I pretend it is a religion, cause really it ain’t no skin off my teeth, will you move on?
The only thing I or anyone else here has ever accused you of is not owning a dictionary. Quit acting like you’re wounded.
#138 gregallen wrote “Social Darwinism is the closest I’ve ever heard about atheistic morality and the Stalinist purges showed us how well that works out!”
Social Darwinism is also alive and well within the principles of free market capitalism, enthusiastically embraced by many religious folks, so it’s not at all unique to atheism. Many atheists prefer to follow the golden rule, another concept that’s unique to neither religion nor atheism. Atheists decide their own framework for morality, independent of what they consider the false foundations of religion.