Morality Without Religion
Frans de Waal writes for The New York Times:
Reverend Al Sharpton opined in a recent videotaped debate: "If there is no order to the universe, and therefore some being, some force that ordered it, then who determines what is right or wrong? There is nothing immoral if there's nothing in charge." Similarly, I have heard people echo Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming that "If there is no God, I am free to rape my neighbor!"Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant -- I will get to this -- but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality.
Deep down, creationists realize they will never win factual arguments with science. This is why they have construed their own science-like universe, known as Intelligent Design, and eagerly jump on every tidbit of information that seems to go their way.
I think he's wrong about his ideas that people do good even if there's nothing in it for themselves. Here's a bit of it:
Psychologists stress the intuitive way we arrive at moral judgments while activating emotional brain areas, and economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative, altruistic, and fair than predicted by self-interest models. Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there's nothing in it for themselves.Chimpanzees and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to food, even if they lose part of it in the process. And capuchin monkeys are prepared to seek rewards for others, such as when we place two of them side by side, while one of them barters with us with differently colored tokens. One token is "selfish," and the other "prosocial." If the bartering monkey selects the selfish token, it receives a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner gets nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewards both monkeys. Most monkeys develop an overwhelming preference for the prosocial token, which preference is not due to fear of repercussions, because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous.
He doesn't say whether these monkeys have repeat interactions or one-time interactions with each other. Also, if you develop a habit of sharing because you are rewarded for it -- perhaps in brain chemicals, perhaps socially, or both, it's very possible you'll continue to repeat that habit even if you're around people (or monkeys) you have never seen before, and have no relationship with.
Sonja Lyubomirsky writes in The How of Happiness, and I echo in I See Rude People that research shows that one of the ways people can increase their happiness is to do kind things for others. It actually seems to feel good to be good. Perhaps feel-good brain areas are activated by doing kind acts. Not really an area I'm reading in right now, so I can only speculate.
I know, right?
My uncle was a holy roller preacher but he couldn't keep his hands off one of his parishioners, so it's God's fault or the devil's, not his? One of his daughters has AIDS and one got married, pregnant, at 14.
People who put all their faith in God instead of their own integrity seem to be the people who screw the rest of us.
nonegiven at October 18, 2010 11:08 PM
If someone thinks that if there were no God they would be free to rape their neighbor, I sure as hell don't want to be their neighbor! I mean what if they wake up one day and have stopped believing? Don't want to live next door to them that day!!!
NicoleK at October 18, 2010 11:19 PM
Well, here comes the defenders of your faith, all set to jump on you because you're an atheist.
You know, I'm not an atheist. But somehow, I'm not the least bit bothered by the fact that you are.
I must be some weird strain of Christian that doesn't give a rat's ass what religion anyone else is.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 12:22 AM
In an unrelated matter, this is still an important and useful blog. Those people predicted the recession,when everyone else was still playing around with balloons and champagne.
Crid at October 19, 2010 1:27 AM
They had social norms, but they were brutal, violent, and savage social norms before religion. By the time they GOT religion, they limited those brutal, violent, and savage social norms to strangers and outsiders, and kept the orderly and peaceful ones (relatively speaking) for their own people.
The advent of a universal moral law applicable to all people as a standard of behavior, be it a stranger, a neighbor, a brother, etc. is one of the great leap forwards for man kind. That universal moral law came from one single wellspring, and that is religion.
Robert at October 19, 2010 4:03 AM
Any person who claims that the only thing that keeps him from perpetrating barbaric acts is an artificial, externally-based set of constructs, set up by a "God" whose existence is unprovable, is admitting that he lacks the internal humanity, morality, and self-control to figure out these constructs himself and live within them. IOW, he's admitting that, in essence, he believes himself and his impulses uncontrollable from within, and thus no different from those of lower animals. As a human being, I refuse to believe that of myself.
cpabroker at October 19, 2010 4:39 AM
cpabroker: IOW, he's admitting that, in essence, he believes himself and his impulses uncontrollable from within, and thus no different from those of lower animals. As a human being, I refuse to believe that of myself.
Not "uncontrollable," since they're obviously controlling them, but they believe that the fear of retribution is the only thing keeping them from doing them.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 4:53 AM
I have a problem with Al Sharpton discussing any kind of morality after the Tawana Brawley hoax. He ruined people's lives. He exacerbated racial tensions. A man killed himself over allegations that proved to be false, allegations the Reverend Al Sharpton pushed and pushed and pushed to further his own agenda. If he has ever expressed any remorse or regret for his part in that fiasco, I have never heard it. So before the Reverend Al decides that he's a public figure worthy of respect, he should acknowledge his part in creating race wars in New York and apologize. And yes, there were racial tensions long before him, but he did nothing to ease them. He was all about inflaming them because that gave him his stage.
Kristen at October 19, 2010 5:19 AM
Am I the only one here tired of the absolute worst examples of "religion" being picked as representative for the purposes of this blog? We can find atheists who enthusiastically endorse moral relativism, and the euthanasia of all "sub-par" people, and thieving form some to redistribute to others. Do you think that has squat to do with you and your morals? No? Well the "good" rev has naught to do with mine, either.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 5:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/morality_withou.html#comment-1768025">comment from momof4The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2010 5:38 AM
The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?
I think it's possible. Probable, even. But the lines are blurred when it comes to treating others as you would want them to treat you. Take, for example, the bashing Nick S gave me on that other thread. He knows absolutely nothing about me, except for the fact that I got kinda PO'ed that da's insurance premium went up, and he lost some $$ in the market. He immediately ASSUMED that I was crying about it when in fact, I was just making conversation, and he attacked me and questioned my morality as concerns my parents. He has no idea about the kind of person I am and if it made him feel better about himself to pretend he was all superior to me and shit, well, whatever. You can't please everyone, so you just have to do the best you can with what you've got. Not everyone thinks along those lines. I haven't always thought of other people before I thought of myself. But by and large, I've always been kind to others because I'd like others to be kind to me. It doesn't always work out that way, so you learn who you can be kind to and who you can't.
Flynne at October 19, 2010 6:13 AM
"The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?"
Obviously. Christians don't worry about god smiting them. We know we're not worthy. We try to do right anyway.
momof4 at October 19, 2010 6:37 AM
Alone, we are bear chow; as a group we wear bear skins. Humans are only effective survivors in groups, and our instinct is to not screw over the people who gaurd us while we sleep. Once we started planting crops and brewing beer, we had cities large enough that the edges of our group became blurry: religion is a means of extending our natural co-operation insticts to strangers. Also, God told me to use more semi-colons.
vermindust at October 19, 2010 6:49 AM
Also, God told me to use more semi-colons.
God is a filthy, sweaty liar. Don't believe him.
MonicaP at October 19, 2010 6:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/morality_withou.html#comment-1768060">comment from MonicaPAlso, God told me to use more semi-colons.
Elmore Leonard says never to use them in dialogue, and I have proof Elmore exists.
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2010 7:00 AM
>>God is a filthy, sweaty liar. Don't believe him.
He so is not; plus, you're excommunicated MonicaP.
Jody Tresidder at October 19, 2010 7:27 AM
because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous
Not surprising. Gift-giving raises ones status. Which makes them even more dominate. They need to modify the experiment a bit: when one monkey gives the "prosocial" chip, then only the other monkey gets a reward.
It would be interesting to see who quickly things change, if at all. I suspect we'll see some monkey's "going Galt".
I R A Darth Aggie at October 19, 2010 7:35 AM
It's the same school of thought that liberals have - that people will only do good, right things that benefit the group if a more powerful force tells them to. It's a fucked up view of humanity whichever side you're coming at it from.
Elle at October 19, 2010 7:37 AM
"The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?"
Have you ever met a moral atheist? I have. Not a tough question, as far as I'm concerned. Now, I suppose one could argue that the moral code atheists embrace comes from whatever the prevailing religious doctrine is or was, but I'll let the kids in the dorm stay up late with that one.
"... I have proof Elmore exists."
All I have is Get Shorty, but I'll take it on faith from there (sorry, I couldn't resist)!
Old RPM Daddy at October 19, 2010 7:49 AM
Elle: It's the same school of thought that liberals have - that people will only do good, right things that benefit the group if a more powerful force tells them to.
Of course. We know that huge corporations will spend out of their own profits to clean up whatever damage they do to the environment. Keep the damned liberals out of it.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 8:10 AM
"It actually seems to feel good to be good. Perhaps feel-good brain areas are activated by doing kind acts."
It is called survival of the species. Humans developed in smallish groups. We cannot survive alone. It is hard wired into normal people.
Religion as we now it is a outgrowth of cities. Big groups of people are not the norm in evolutionary history.
David H at October 19, 2010 8:28 AM
Atheist morality (and pagan non-monotheistic morality) is inherently situational and contractual.
It's quite telling that those on this hread who love to peg human behavior to our chimpanzee ancestors immediately began talking about "dominance" and pecking order.
When morality is situation and contractual - governed by the questions "what have you done for me" and "what can you do for/to me" - what happens to the weak and untalented?
The Nazi's first gas chambers were created for infirm Germans - whom the propaganda labeled "useless eaters".
Now it's called "euthanasia" or "death with dignity" - how merciful!
Only monotheism leads to a morality based on some
The advent of a universal moral law applicable to all people as a standard of behavior, be it a stranger, a neighbor, a brother, etc. is one of the great leap forwards for man kind. That universal moral law came from one single wellspring, and that is religion.
Ben David at October 19, 2010 9:49 AM
The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?
Possible? Sure. All that is required is that one take the time to analyze the logical repercussions of everyone following their own self-centered impulses.
Now, what percentage of people are likely to do that? How many aren't even CAPABLE of doing that? Isn't it better that some of them believe that there WILL be retribution in the afterlife?
WayneB at October 19, 2010 9:50 AM
Atheist morality (and pagan non-monotheistic morality) is inherently situational and contractual.
It's quite telling that those on this thread who love to peg human behavior to our chimpanzee ancestors immediately began talking about "dominance" and pecking order.
When "morality" is governed by the questions "what have you done for me" and "what can you do for/to me" - what happens to the weak and untalented?
And if they're not protected, why are we using the word "morality" for what is basically one big game of "let's make a deal"?
The Nazi's first gas chambers were created for infirm Germans - whom the propaganda labeled "useless eaters".
Now the "progressives" call it "euthanasia" or "death with dignity" - how merciful! At least the Nazis were honest about their selfish motives.
Only monotheism leads to a morality based on something other than material utility.
As Robert said above:
The advent of a universal moral law applicable to all people as a standard of behavior, be it a stranger, a neighbor, a brother, etc. is one of the great leap forwards for man kind. That universal moral law came from one single wellspring, and that is religion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
More specifically - the monotheism of Abraham and Sarah.
Belief in one Creator leads inevitably to the fundamental worth of the individual, whether or not they are useful to the rest of us.
Belief in no creator - or in many forces - leads inevitably to "morality" based on power and utility.
And the brutal outcomes of THAT "moral code" are nothing for atheists to crow about.
Ben David at October 19, 2010 9:55 AM
The problem is that no matter how far back you go in history, you will never be able to separate religion from nature as an influence on human behavior. For instance, some of the 80,000 year old Neanderthal skeletons found in the Shanidar Cave were from seriously handicapped individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar_Cave
One in particular had suffered such severe injuries that he was half-paralyzed & half-blind. Yet he managed to live to a very ripe old age (50 or so), and his wounds were inflicted well before his death & showed clear signs of healing. So his fellow Neanderthals must have spent many years looking after him, instead of leaving him behind to be scavenged by hyenas. There is also some evidence of ritual burials at this site & elsewhere. But you can't point to this and say "Look! Even Neanderthals were nice to each other without religion!", because there is no way of knowing what religious or spiritual beliefs Neanderthals had, or how these beliefs affected their behavior towards one another.
Martin at October 19, 2010 10:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyt6byJP3Ac
Change "dog" to "god" and "he gets k nel ration" to one god, wrote the bible/koran etc.
David H at October 19, 2010 10:06 AM
Ben David: Now the "progressives" call it "euthanasia" or "death with dignity" - how merciful! At least the Nazis were honest about their selfish motives.
The fundamental difference, of course, is that euthanasia is done with the consent of those euthanized or those appointed to make those decisions for them should they be unable to speak for themselves...I don't believe the Nazis concerned themselves with whether or not those to be put down actually wanted to be put down.
Kudos to you, Ben David, for actually making a post without a mention of homosexuality. Apparently, the psychiatrist who is treating you for your monomania is doing a good job.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 10:27 AM
"Belief in one Creator leads inevitably to the fundamental worth of the individual, whether or not they are useful to the rest of us."
That is a sack of crap. The belief in one god is a rallying cry for the value of an individual AS LONG AS he believes as you do. When someone breaks the egg on the small end(or maybe the large end) he gets shunned or killed.
"Belief in no creator - or in many forces - leads inevitably to "morality" based on power and utility."
The crusaders and the jihadists must not have believed in a monotheistic god.
I am in the God/Goddess of the month club. The Advice Goddess is due for her turn soon.
David H at October 19, 2010 10:31 AM
I've actually thought of establishing an "agnostic morality" via books, blogs and discussion. Just because this question is so contentious. I've seriously considered assembling a moral code that has no religious tenet, and yet embraces the human ability to discern right from wrong.
Yes, I think it's a human ability. (I don't want to use 'believe' because religious people pounce on that word.) I also think that some of us don't have or listen to that innate morality, and it's the job of the rest of us to keep it intact.
Compassion. Logic. Reason. Biology. Psychology. History. Human morality has shaped, and is shaped by these things.
FYI: Yes, I'm agnostic. My morality is firmly intact. Has been for many years. I consider religion a fear-based moral trap, not a human-based moral code.
Chris at October 19, 2010 10:32 AM
Since this post mentioned sharing and whatnot, I clicked on the "share" button on the bottom of the post and was dumbfounded by the number of networking sites. Thinkfinity? Surfpeople? Youmob? Worio? Facebook?
Who would name a company "facebook"? Probably some Neanderthal. Pffffft.
Seriously, this is curious. I remember reading something in your book about how we tend to falsely romantacize our primitive past (living in harmony with nature, organic food, community morals, etc.) when, in fact, our ancestors were often horribly brutal towards each other. Yet there's also this tendency to point out that our wonderful ancestors cultivated empathy before they had any notion of spiritual compass points.
I'm probably missing something, but it looks like cherry picking to me.
Jason S. at October 19, 2010 11:13 AM
I'm interested in the nature of Moral Absolutes. I believe that certain behaviors are absolutely "good" or "bad" and I get a certain rush out of advocating them - like that little thrill you get in the movies when the villain gets what's comin' to 'em. Something primal about that.
OTOH, I know that certain societies have values I find abhorrent, yet how can I say that they're inferior? For example, I've read that ancient Spartans would discard imperfect babies. Harsh? You betcha. But they were living their values, and it's nothing different than many animals do (or so I've read / seen on the tube), perhaps dispassionately.
Bottom line is, what's the nature of the little gut-tug you get when you associate with archetypal behaviors? Is it hard-wired or inserted into us by learning?
DaveG at October 19, 2010 11:21 AM
Jason,
Our ancestors were brutal. No surprise there, life probably sucked big-time. But we also know they could be very caring. And although I think cruelty hit its disgustingly creative peak with the torture engines of the Middle Ages and later, even the 20th century brought its horrors on massive scales. So yeah, we're still dicks.
DaveG at October 19, 2010 11:26 AM
to clarify: we are arguably crueller now, and more capable of mass destruction, than ever before, but I think possibly more altruistic than ever before. I don't have hard facts, but I think we've always been nice, and mean, in similar ways over time.
DaveG at October 19, 2010 11:29 AM
"Deep down, creationists realize they will never win factual arguments with science."
Actually, it's the other way around.
Is it more bizarre to believe the scientists and mathmeticians who tell us that our reality depends on the existence of many more spatial dimensions than we are capable of ever perceiving, than to believe that the universe - which came from NOTHING according to the scientists - was originated and ordered by that which we call "God"? That "God" is our unknowable creator seems to be obvious, not mysterious, to the scientifically informed - who know the limits of scientific knowledge.
In light of what science tells us, it is atheists who have the burden of proof. Unfortunately for them, the MORE one knows about science, the MORE difficult it is to maintain an atheist mindset. Maintaining that mindset only becomes possible by diminishing the concept of "God" to a bearded guy sitting on a cloud -- a strawman that is easy to attack -- and by criticizing cherry-picked aspects of the man-made belief systems called "religion."
So, IMO those who proclaim themselves "atheist" rather than "agnostic" reveal themselves to be just as much faith-based zealots as anyone motivated by religious fervor -- and also scientifically ignorant, to boot.
Finally, it is semantic and historic sleight of hand to dismiss the fact that, according to anthropologists, before the establishment of today's religions, some belief system concerning the intersection of every day life with the supernatural and the "hereafter" has been a hallmark of EVERY society that can be called "human." If religion is nothing more than an artifact, it is astonishingly ubiquitious and durable, isn't it?
Jay R at October 19, 2010 11:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/morality_withou.html#comment-1768146">comment from Ben DavidAtheist morality (and pagan non-monotheistic morality) is inherently situational and contractual.
How utterly dimwitted. There's a great deal of evidence of evolved human morality hardwired into all of us -- cheater detection and ire at cheating, reciprocal altruism, guilt, etc.
Atheists are not monolithic, and some are jerks and some are very good people. To say there's "atheist morality" is just idiotic. People who believe, sans evidence, in god are also human and have the same evolved morality as people who don't. Religion just adds fear -- if you don't behave well you'll go to hell. And then there were all those nice children who told me I was going there because I don't believe in Jesus.
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2010 11:41 AM
Would it have been so bad, riding along in Genghis Khan's thundering herds, and raping village girls along the way?
From the atheist viewpoint, much to recommend.
BOTU at October 19, 2010 11:56 AM
Darn. I misspelled "ubiquitous."
Jay R at October 19, 2010 11:56 AM
That "God" is our unknowable creator seems to be obvious, not mysterious, to the scientifically informed - who know the limits of scientific knowledge.
I don't presume that just because I don't understand how it all works that some divine intelligence must be responsible for it. That's a leap of logic that's unsupported.
In light of what science tells us, it is atheists who have the burden of proof.
No. People who believe in God insist there is something there, so they need to prove it. People who insist there is a giant purple bunny in my closet need to provide solid evidence before I will find any compelling need to prove that there ISN'T a purple bunny.
IMO those who proclaim themselves "atheist" rather than "agnostic" reveal themselves to be just as much faith-based zealots as anyone motivated by religious fervor
The atheist position is entirely supported by reason. I think where people get confused is that there are two camps. Saying "There is no God" is not the same as saying "I see no reason to believe there is a God." For people with the latter view, arguing the nonexistence of God makes about as much sense as arguing the nonexistence of monster bunnies.
MonicaP at October 19, 2010 12:00 PM
How is it anything but our belief systems standing between us and rude and repulsive behavior?
You don't want the punch in the nose, or you want to feel good about yourself, or you feel the big man is watching and you will be punished later, or you just want to feel superior to the masses. Those are just feedback mechanisms. The behavior is the output.
Motives don't matter. I don't live in your mind, but we share the same reality.
MarkD at October 19, 2010 12:03 PM
The question is, do you think it's possible to be moral without the notion that god will smite you if you aren't?
Yes. I know too many people who are not religious, do not belong to organized relgions, or do not even believe in God who are very good people that consistently live a life in which they are good to others. I also know some very religous people who have "found God" who are some of the biggest liars and hypocrites I've ever met. Not that only God lovers are liars and hypocrites or that atheists are only good, just that neither one is mutually exclusive.
Kristen at October 19, 2010 12:56 PM
..."we share the same reality"...sure,why not? Personally, I'm a deist. I'm a deist I'm a deist, rock me, I'm a deist!
Anyway, I think, believe, feel, that we pick and choose what we're comfortable with. I'm a lapsed Lutheran, and both my best friend and my husband are lapsed Catholics. When I was growing up, that kind of interfaith mucking about was a big no-no.
According to the Bible, I'm already damned on several counts, so what the hell.
I do believe in something after death. Maybe it comes from having a fairly devout family which nevertheless encouraged me to read anything I wanted, which was pretty much everything.
After seeing the pictures from the Hubble, my unfocused faith in a life beyond this one only got stronger. All that out there and I don't get to experience any of it? No way.
Oh yeah, the topic: I used to assist with the little kids in Bible School. I would see acts of sweetness and meanness both. Seems like sharing came easier when there were plenty of cookies to go around, but if you had a greedy kid and a kid who hadn't eaten his cookie yet, watch out! Little amoral animals. Cute,though.
Pricklypear at October 19, 2010 1:00 PM
"That universal moral law came from one single wellspring, and that is religion."
I must quibble with this - it's arrogant. Universal moral law is inherent within natural law and it exists with or without man. We are insignificant and irrelevant to this law - yet with human logic we can learn to apply it, and you need not have a religion enforce it for you.
Man did not create this. Man created religion and then religion had a part in its *discovery*, by way of their own interpretation and given perceptions. But Universal Moral Law did not come from religion. Universal Moral Law came from Natural Law.
Religions have interpreted it (from different perspectives, according to the culture, sect, tribe, whatever) but they did not *create* it.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 1:25 PM
I find it interesting that the posts attacking people, swearing, mocking others, and provoking them are all from the athiest camp. Interesting commentary on the morality of the religious vs. the athiest (and I do note that several athiests posted gentle and well reasoned arguments):
"[faithful] seem to be the people who screw the rest of us"
"I sure as hell don't want to be their neighbor!"
"God is a filthy, sweaty liar. Don't believe him."
"It's a fucked up view of humanity "
"Keep the damned liberals out of it."
"Kudos to you, Ben David, for actually making a post without a mention of homosexuality. Apparently, the psychiatrist who is treating you for your monomania is doing a good job."
"How utterly dimwitted."
"That is a sack of crap"
Lesley at October 19, 2010 1:27 PM
"Kudos to you, Ben David, for actually making a post without a mention of homosexuality. Apparently, the psychiatrist who is treating you for your monomania is doing a good job."
Why must we be subjected to your open festering wounds in every post, Patrick?
Feebie at October 19, 2010 1:27 PM
Pricklypear,
I call myself an atheist, but I think the universe is grand and wondrous and must exist for a reason, so 'tho I don't believe in an afterlife I can see why you're inspired to. Certainly seems a crime we're stuck on this ball of mud, and we might be the only people in all of creation.
I think if anything [not anyone] earns the label God, it's our ability to feel awe.
My comment would give PZ Myers hyperglycemic shock, but I stand by it.
DaveG at October 19, 2010 1:34 PM
Lesley,
We atheists may be a rabid bunch; it's our weak human natures that lead to ad hominems against the raw idiocy of religion. Yeah, I said it.
Feebie,
Yes, Robert's arrogant, but he's also just wrong, but that's better than being not even wrong.
DaveG at October 19, 2010 1:42 PM
@Jay R: "That "God" is our unknowable creator seems to be obvious, not mysterious, to the scientifically informed - who know the limits of scientific knowledge."
I think you should do a little more research before claiming something like this. See:
http: // whyevolutionistrue.wordpress. com/2010/06/28/ecklund-is-framing-again/
(spaces added to prevent spam-filter languish-ment)
The scientifically informed (you know - the scientists) seem to be overwhelmingly atheistic in their lack of beliefs. And the more informed the less belief there seems to be.
"In light of what science tells us, it is atheists who have the burden of proof."
How so? This claim/argument does not make any sense. You, as a Christian (assumption on my part, apologies if incorrect, just insert correct religion in that space) believe something to be true. Why is it my job, as an atheist, to prove that you are wrong? The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not those that forebear to believe said claim. Science does not tell us that there is no god, but science often lets us know when specific religious claims are not correct. As an example: the flood claimed in Genesis.
"...reveal themselves to be just as much faith-based zealots as anyone motivated by religious fervor -- and also scientifically ignorant, to boot."
See link above. Same argument, different paragraph.
"...[religion] has been a hallmark of EVERY society that can be called "human." If religion is nothing more than an artifact, it is astonishingly ubiquitous and durable, isn't it?"
So what and yes. Belief that the sun revolved around the earth was ubiquitous and durable too, until Galileo shat on the world's parade. Publicly. Ubiquitous and durable, even is astonishingly durable, are not arguments for being correct. They may add circumstantial inference that said arguments should be closely examined but those qualities do not infer apriori that one is correct.
If you want to claim that your religion, or some religion, is the correct perspective then first you need to define what you mean by "religion." The big handwave followed by the declaration of god is not an actual argument. You are just stipulating that you are right based on your inability to comprehend whatever you are waving your hand at. And the inability to comprehend how an atheist does not, in fact, have faith in a god does not mean that atheists must then have faith. Afraid that this is also not an argument.
I tried to be nice here - limiting or eliminating ad hominem arguments/comments, etc - not because I am a nice person but because I would like it if you actually read what I have written. Truth be known your post really pisses me off. Why? Because all of the points that you raise have been addressed so many times across a broad spectrum of publications that the only way I see of someone not being aware of the fallacies inherent in what you claim is if that person is purposefully ignorant, i.e. just does not want to hear or listen to anything that does not conform with their beliefs. Perhaps this does not describe you. Perhaps it does. But if you are serious in your beliefs then I would assume that you would want to examine the other side of the argument, not the other side as paraphrased by those that you agree with. In other words, stop reading Behe and start reading Dawkins.
Gareth at October 19, 2010 1:50 PM
"I think if anything [not anyone] earns the label God, it's our ability to feel awe."
Thanks for mentioning that DaveG. Mainly because it's a personal bug up my butt when I hear the term "awesome" used to the point of nausea by people who are apparently utterly stunned by absolutely everything that comes their way.
Yes, I can believe in an afterlife that makes all this bickering meaningless, and yet I can still froth at the keyboard if I feel like it. And it would seem that I feel like it at the moment. But just a little.
Pricklypear at October 19, 2010 1:56 PM
Lesley, you're quoting me twice when you say that all the attacks come from the atheist camp. I'm not an atheist. I'm a Christian. However, my morality/religion dictates that all are entitled to believe as they see fit. I'm not the least bit bothered by religions that differ from mine. In fact, I find them interesting. And I would never dream of telling someone their heartfelt religious beliefs are "wrong."
Someone wrote: "Religion just adds fear -- if you don't behave well you'll go to hell."
Which makes no sense to me. Okay, heaven is perfection so that those of us aren't perfect don't deserve to get to heaven. Fair enough. I get that.
What I don't get is the idea that the things we can do in the space of seventy-seven years merit everlasting punishment. Really? So, apparently, the standard of perfection is consistent. I'm not perfectly good, so I don't deserve perfect bliss. But I'm not perfectly horrid either, but I do merit perfect agony for all eternity.
Huh.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 2:03 PM
@ Lesly
The "fucked up view of humanity" comes from my post. But I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I'm a Christian.
Humans understand what it takes to live and play happily and cooperatively in their tribes. Humanity comes equppied with empathy (at least after toddlerhood). As a Christian I think it's something God hardwired into us. As an atheist, I'll guess our hostess Amy believes it developed as a way to keep our proto-human tribes together and cooperative. But to assume that people will only be good or do the right thing because there's an outside force making them do so (church, religion, peer pressure, laws, Big Brother) . . . like I said, I think it's a pretty fucked up way of looking at humanity.
Elle at October 19, 2010 2:13 PM
"God is a filthy, sweaty liar. Don't believe him."
You'll note this was in response to vermindust saying God told him/her to use more semi-colons. Hardly evidence of atheists in attack mode. Also, I'm not an atheist. Not a believer, either.
MonicaP at October 19, 2010 2:15 PM
Patrick:
The fundamental difference, of course, is that euthanasia is done with the consent of those euthanized or those appointed to make those decisions for them should they be unable to speak for themselves
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
But that is no longer strictly true.
In Holland and other euthanasia-embracing countries, there is already a disturbing increase of involuntary murder of disabled infants - by delivering physicians or medical staff, without consulting parents.
There are also well-documented cases of elderly people being pressured into going along with suicide when they express second thoughts.
Anyone studying this subject can trace a long-running cat-and-mouse game between Dutch authorities and doctors who think they can play god.
Once human worth is related to utility rather than transcendent value - abuse of the weak is inevitable.
Other posters have noted your gratuitous slur - but I wanted to address this point.
Ben David at October 19, 2010 2:29 PM
The source of creation is beyond interpretation, as is our source of morality. Deal with it.
Sully at October 19, 2010 2:31 PM
Addendum:
This quote summarizes my feelings on the matter:
"I am unconvinced by ... tactics that ... leave people unperturbed from their comfortable positions of ignorance."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/underwhelmed_is_putting_it_mil.php
The quote is taken out of context and, essentially, cherry picked. My point has nothing to do with what Prof Myers was writing about, rather I am looking at the concept expressed by this quote. If your position cannot handle criticism then perhaps you need to reexamine your position. Religious or otherwise, if you only look at that which validates what you feel then you have no idea whether your feelings are valid.
Gareth at October 19, 2010 2:36 PM
But that is no longer strictly true.
It was never strictly true. Any good idea can be taken to an indefensible extreme. That doesn't mean it can't be valuable, and the ability to end our own existence when it becomes intolerable is a valuable one.
The source of creation is beyond interpretation, as is our source of morality. Deal with it.
Quitter.
MonicaP at October 19, 2010 2:39 PM
How utterly dimwitted.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Indeed:
There's a great deal of evidence of evolved human morality hardwired into all of us -- cheater detection and ire at cheating, reciprocal altruism, guilt, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - -
...none of which examples rise above my accurate "situational and contractual" description.... and what exactly IS "reciprocal altruism" - besides an oxymoron?
Further:
Atheists are not monolithic, and some are jerks and some are very good people. To say there's "atheist morality" is just idiotic.
Siiiiiigh.
In the obvious context of your post - "atheist morality" means "a moral code(s) based on something other than belief in god".
The heat of your anti-religious fervor seems to burn some of your fuses, my dear.
First you threw over the peer review process in the Children of Gays thread.
Then you asserted in the Shmuley Boteach thread that living *apart* was better for intimacy than a marriage that respects the wife's menstrual cycle.
Less heat, more light...
Ben David at October 19, 2010 2:41 PM
Well since so many Christians are defending their provocative/profane posts, I suppose I can say that we've proven that being religious does NOT automatically make you more moral than a non-religious person :)
Here's a fact - our behavior flows directly out of our hearts. Pure heart = pure behavior, rotten heart = rotten behavior. And we all fall somewhere below pure.
The situation that Christianity poses is the truth that God is holy, and no one unholy can be in His presence. So since none of us have pure hearts (much less pure behavior), none of us can be with God. The Jewish theology says that you can atone for your sins through faith in the practice God established in animal sacrifice. The Christian religion says the only good enough sacrifice was Jesus, and God saves you by grace through faith in that sacrifice.
If you live seventy times 77 years you can never be good enough to be with God. That's the whole point of Christianity. If you can be good enough to go to heaven, you don't NEED religion, you don't NEED Christianity. As the Bible says, even the unbelievers greet their neighbors (Matt 5:47) (meaning even unbelievers act with love and goodness).
My belief is not that the unreligious aren't moral/good. It's that *I* am not moral or good, deep in my heart. My only hope is God's grace.
Feel free to hope, or not, in whomever or whatever you wish. But I'd prefer not to be flamed for gently explaining my theology.
Lesley at October 19, 2010 2:56 PM
"Well since so many Christians are defending their provocative/profane posts, I suppose I can say that we've proven that being religious does NOT automatically make you more moral than a non-religious person :)"
Oh don't weasel out on me with passive aggressive smilies. Having a foul mouth makes me fucking classless and tacky. It doesn't make less moral. Provocative arguments have nothing to do with morality either.
And you didn't come in here gently explaining your theology. You came in here and tut-tutted and made ad hominem attacks without bothering to ascertain if you werre even right about the homnims in question. Next time try like I do, explaining your theology while throwing a few elbows instead of some half-assed "you can't take offense because this means I'm joking" smilies.
:)
Elle at October 19, 2010 3:31 PM
I think the capacity for empathy is hard-wired in, but empathy itself has to be triggered--by, say, a parent or sibling. As in, "How would you feel if somebody did that to you?" I feel the same way about narcissism and self-esteem. It's all optional equipment, waiting for the right button to be pushed.
I recently read an article about empathy declining as narcissism is increasing. I can believe it, if I go from the amount of both the "Hey look at me!" videos, along with the "Hey look at this shot I took of someone else's tragedy!" ones.
Pricklypear at October 19, 2010 3:38 PM
One more thing, sixty something comments so far and no one has yet mentioned that the black guy defending religion worships a god which not only condones, but indeed endorses slavery??
Am I really the only one who wants to go there?
lujlp at October 19, 2010 4:32 PM
Luj, that is the religion, not the God.
Feebie at October 19, 2010 4:37 PM
Damit lost my original post.
Patrick the kind of christian that doesnt care that others arent christian as well is called "hell bound"
Ben - you got links for you claims of murder?
Also please explain how monotheism lead the jews down the moral path of murdering, enslaving,and raping the lawful land owners after their invasion form the siani desert.
David H - nice call on equating the war between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudians as pointless as the divisions between the 'moral' people and the wars they engage in
Lesly - which of the 3000+ version of chrisitanity are you beacuse they all have differnt beleifs and 2999+ versions of them calim you are going to hell
And finally Robert and his universal law discovered by religion.
I was asleep most of the weekend so I must have missed this amazing discovery.
What is this universal law, who discovered it, and which religion premotes it?
lujlp at October 19, 2010 4:51 PM
Luj, that is the religion, not the God.
Posted by: Feebie
And that right there is the problem with religion.
Its a great argument mind you, just not very effective. First the religion claims to get is authority on how to tell us to behave from god - how can it not? If the church leaders admit they dont have authority from god then there is no church. Just a bunch of people with a book sticking their noses into other peoples business.
So what happens then? The church can either violently suppress all oposition, or claim that the bible was inspired by flawed men who got things wrong(which leads to questions about how ineffectual our 'all powerful, all knowing, all seeing' god acctualy is) or people break off to form a new church with sliglty different teachings.
Option one only works for limited spans of time
With option two people jump religious tracks entirly to a differnt religion or go agnostic(a pit stop on the road to athiesm)
With option three the cycle repeates itself until we have what we have today, thousands of unique variant ofs shoots the original basic premis - some with wildly different beliefs, such as calvinists beliveing salvation was preordained and mormons beliving EVERYONE goes heaven. And some with only small differences n chuch cerimonies and titles.
But thus far I have never found a single relgion which does not in some way invalidate its entire existance with your statment Feebie.
Catholocism venerates saints which violates gods commandments to pray only to him. Most churches have rote prayrs a practice Jebus himself spoke against. Add to that not one religion can trace itself back to the begining of humanity, mormonism does an end run around that problem but opens itself up to a buch of others in the process -
and it seems to me if there were a god who cared about the way we inteacted with each other and occasionally intervened in our affairs that we would have at least ONE religion out of all these thousands that could be traced back as far as the oldest human civilazations and would have had the same moral laws 12,000yrs ago as we do today, if not to even a higher stanndard.
I mentioned slavery, you said it was the religion and not god. If that were tru why did god let his proxy endorsment go so easily? Why has there never been a relgion in the history of the earth that was better than its time? Why wasnt there a religion from 10,000 yrs ago that esposed BETTER then what we expect of oursleves today?
If there is indeed a god who cares for us and wants us to behave in a certain manner then why do more than half the edicts in his religiuos texts have to be igonred?
This is just one of the major flaws the religion cant address.
lujlp at October 19, 2010 5:23 PM
Yeah, 60-something posts, and no one wants to talk about whether atheist women are more likely to take it up the ass?
WTF?
BOTU at October 19, 2010 5:27 PM
I think morality came first, assuming humans evolved out of "lower" animals and the primordial slime. Religion came later on, partly to justify the moral codes that became more complex as societies also became more complex. Not larger - more complex. Even "primitive" villages with fewer people can have very intricate codes, and abstract concepts, and somewhere along the line transgressors needed to have that "fear of God" (or spirit world) put into them.
I think religion, along w/other social and psychological structures, has its own evolutionary development. If so, the early forms of religion - superstition and ancestor worship - probably gave way to more sophisticated, abstract forms, elaborate dogma etc.
Atheists may argue that we have now evolved beyond the need for religion or perhaps that we NEVER NEEDED religion in the first place. That point is moot because we can't go back over the millennia to try to convince the Babylonians and Egyptians to just ditch all those temples.
Also - off topic but can't resist atheist baiting - atheism will never take hold because they don't have any good festivals or feast days. Atheism is just not FUN. And you don't get any days off from work for it, either.
vi at October 19, 2010 5:59 PM
When I was first exposed the this idea, that if there was no God, I would do all kinds of harm to other people, I was aghast. I was also an agnostic and a college freshman. A fellow student said it to me. I thought, I don't need a threatening God to make me a moral person, it's part of who I am.
However, as I grew older, I found that I hurt people without meaning to, frequently, pursuing my on desires. I also found that when other people harmed or insulted me, I was perfectly capable of inflicting serious harm on them intentionally. Sometimes my being too drunk to carry out my intentions was the only thing that saved us both. Without the help of God it is not possible for me to be the kind of person I want to be.
I'm not a reformed drinker. I still drink, but I now know I need God's help to treat others as I would want to be treated. It took long experience to find this out. I'm 63 years old.
ken in sc at October 19, 2010 6:00 PM
lujlp: Patrick the kind of christian that doesnt care that others arent christian as well is called "hell bound"
The kind of Christian that does care whether or not everyone else is a Christian makes hell right here on earth.
I lived in North Carolina for seven years, and I've had my fill of proselytes who have more than convinced me they care less about my salvation than looking down their nose at the rest of Christendom with their "holier-than-thouism."
Few things can match the sanctimoniousness and affected concern for the well-being of others than a proselyte. Keep your Chick tracts to yourself, do not disturb me when I'm sitting in the park by myself to talk about religion, and mind your own business.
I've come to realize that if I'm going to Hell and the proselytes aren't, Hell just couldn't be that bad. And if I'm going to catch up with them in Heaven, I'm not so sure I'd want to go.
Sweet Jesus, protect me from your followers.
Patrick at October 19, 2010 7:22 PM
> Atheism is just not FUN.
Dood! Tell it to the Irish.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 8:20 PM
Can someone explain to me how having a god eliminates moral relativism?
1. Christians believe in an all powerful god.
2. It is also all knowing.
3. It is also unknowable - how could it not be, given it's infinite abilities versus our puny understanding?
Given the above, how can anybody state that what has been put forth by this god is a final answer? It may have stated things the best way for us to understand at the time it stated them. That doesn't mean that as things change that this god would not restate something in a different way, or that what was right at one time may no longer be right. 'Go forth and multiply' comes to mind.
This thing is supposed to be infinitely wise and we dense humans are deciding that we know that what god's will is, and that it can't change it's decree as it sees fit? Sounds arrogant, to say the least.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at October 19, 2010 8:29 PM
Just too many comments to read tonight.
The advent of a universal moral law applicable to all people as a standard of behavior, be it a stranger, a neighbor, a brother, etc. is one of the great leap forwards for man kind. That universal moral law came from one single wellspring, and that is religion.
Note that there is no universal law. A lot of it is situational for the current generation(s).
How do you handle it?
Jim P. at October 19, 2010 9:39 PM
I rather have the word freethinker labelled on me rather than atheism. Anyway, I agreed with Crid that 'atheism is just not fun'. Perhaps, a freethinker club(where freethinker people can socialise and discuss about various spiritual related matter) will make it a less solitary kind of thing and more interesting.
WLIL at October 19, 2010 10:32 PM
When some people can't even behaved decently when they seems to be so obsessed with their god, then I think it is immoral of them to push their god to us freethinker.
I think it is unfair of certain god obsessive person to use a nonexistent being to inflict fear on us, freethinker, who have a very high standard of morality, out of our own free will.
WLIL at October 19, 2010 10:48 PM
> Anyway, I agreed with Crid that 'atheism
> is just not fun'.
Dood, you took the meaning backwards. My point was that a lot of religious "fun" has involved the most repellent conduct in modern times.
> Perhaps, a freethinker club(where freethinker
> people can socialise and discuss about various
> spiritual related matter) will make it a less
> solitary kind of thing and more interesting.
Call me fussy about language, but I think the word "spiritual" means God, period. When someone says "I'm a very spiritual person" but they aren't concerned with churches or any philosophical insight from any other human being, they're usually just California dope-smoking, TV-watching idiots. (There are exceptions to this, but those exceptions are people who're very close students of human nature.)
Listen, sociability counts for something in life, something big. But it's church-going rather than church-believing that earns a place on this list.
If your life is unpleasantly solitary, it's not because all the good people have become confused and gone to church, where you can't reach them.
First of all, if you're a big boy and have taken your "freethinking" seriously, you ought to be able to go to church anyway. People close their eyes when they pray... They'll never know that you're spending those moments admiring the woodwork on the apse. Most of the people who go to church are fine company in all settings. They'll be glad to have you in their lives, and we've already established that you'll be glad to have them in yours.
Secondly, you could always make friends elsewhere. I do that all the time. So do religious people!
Blaming the churches for your isolation reminds me of people who blame the supermarket for their bad diets. Choices are being made.
Be true to your school. If your school is bitter loneliness, consider a transfer.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 19, 2010 11:29 PM
Few things can match the sanctimoniousness and affected concern for the well-being of others than a proselyte. Keep your Chick tracts to yourself, do not disturb me when I'm sitting in the park by myself to talk about religion, and mind your own business.
I've come to realize that if I'm going to Hell and the proselytes aren't, Hell just couldn't be that bad. And if I'm going to catch up with them in Heaven, I'm not so sure I'd want to go.
Sweet Jesus, protect me from your followers.
Posted by: Patrick
I've started answering the door naked - most of the missionaries never came back
lujlp at October 20, 2010 1:10 AM
This thing is supposed to be infinitely wise and we dense humans are deciding that we know that what god's will is, and that it can't change it's decree as it sees fit? Sounds arrogant, to say the least.
Posted by: William
Great point william, and since god has yet to be recorded by anyone changing any of the laws he set down in the old testement, could you please tell me where you live?
I'd like to kill you and take you wife and daugters as sex slaves and sell your sons to a farmer I know - its ok he isnt the same religion as you so its all perfectly moral according to your gods laws! Isnt that great?
lujlp at October 20, 2010 1:13 AM
Well, I was trying to say that I do not know any freethinker base organisation, like those many churches that organised various social events in their various church organisation.
WLIL at October 20, 2010 2:37 AM
lujlp: I've started answering the door naked - most of the missionaries never came back
What about the ones that do?
Patrick at October 20, 2010 4:37 AM
It's almost impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on people to prove a positive. If they want to.
Personally, I do not need to feel the need to prove anything divine to anyone. You either have the beliefs, feelings, and experiences or you don't. They aren't something that can be vocalized to anyone else. They have to feel it for themselves, or not. If they don't, nothing you can say will make them feel differently, so there's no point.
As for Abrahamic Bible-based religions... well, everyone cherry picks. Anyone taking everything in it literally would lead a rather insane life. Not to mention an illegal one. Evangelicals cherry pick different things than Quakers, but they all cherry-pick. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Humans were given logical facilities for a reason.
NicoleK at October 20, 2010 5:28 AM
A woman I knew a long time ago once told me, "Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there."
Flynne at October 20, 2010 7:06 AM
A woman I knew a long time ago once told me, "Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there."
Flynne at October 20, 2010 7:06 AM
While he is defending Christianity, I think Vox Day expresses very clearly my problem with a morality based on obedience.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
parabarbarian at October 20, 2010 8:16 AM
Atheism is just not FUN
After writing that I thought of the times when atheism was the official state religion (Communist states) and it REALLY wasn't fun. Of course when Xtianity, Judaism, Paganism, Islam are official state religions, they all become tools of destruction.
But there is one other thing atheism is missing besides the pageantry and feast days, and that is a sense of awe. Perhaps that too grew out of primitive fears of the forces of nature, but the lack of it seems to leave us all with nothing but dry "rationality".
Fun itself is irrational. Can't be easily quantified, explained, or reduced to measurable data. Yes some behaviors can be, but not the experience itself.
And don't ever confuse me with Crid. Our viewpoints are almost never the same.
vi at October 20, 2010 8:45 AM
Again, sensitivity to language is a powerful tool:
> You either have the beliefs, feelings, and
> experiences or you don't.
You PROBABLY didn't mean it that way, but that's incredibly condescending. Lady, everyone has "beliefs, feelings and experiences", and there ain't done be nobody who don't.
The casual reflex to make arguments like that nourishes my belief that religious faith is mostly about ego, and about making social distance from others.. Specifically, elevation. It says 'My life is SO much richer and more special than those of normal people....' God isn't convincingly argued to have made his presence felt in the lives of all of us; Instead, from these defensive little souls we hear 'God loves ME in that very special way'.
And I'm all like, riiiiiiiiiight.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 8:53 AM
> there is one other thing atheism is missing
> besides the pageantry and feast days, and
> that is a sense of awe.
Says who?
> the lack of it seems to leave us all
> with nothing but dry "rationality".
Inappropriate quotation marks indict your sincerity. Did you mean rationality, or did you mean "rationality"?... And what, exactly, is the difference?
Either way, it's just not true. There are plenty of workaday non-believers out there whose works are moist 'n chewy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 9:00 AM
"But there is one other thing atheism is missing besides the pageantry and feast days, and that is a sense of awe. Perhaps that too grew out of primitive fears of the forces of nature, but the lack of it seems to leave us all with nothing but dry "rationality". "
When I visited the Grand Canyon, I said "Holy crap! That is one HUUUUUGE hole in the ground!"
I was in awe. I never thought "God done good here." Neither did I drearily consider the slow passage of years and the effect of the water cycle on sandstone.
Get a grip.
LauraGr at October 20, 2010 9:04 AM
LauraGr is a sister.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 20, 2010 9:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/morality_withou.html#comment-1768475">comment from viAtheism is just not FUN After writing that I thought of the times when atheism was the official state religion (Communist states) and it REALLY wasn't fun
As Roman Genn, who grew up in Russia will tell you, communism was the state religion. Atheism is neither fun nor unfun. It's not believing in things without evidence. Atheists are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They disagree with each other on myriad things, except that there's no evidence for the existence of god. And frankly, even you religious people have to admit that, if you're truthful.
Amy Alkon at October 20, 2010 9:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/19/morality_withou.html#comment-1768477">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]"LauraGr is a sister."
What Crid said.
Amy Alkon at October 20, 2010 9:10 AM
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around rationality being considered negative.
It beats the alternative, IMHO.
LauraGr at October 20, 2010 9:47 AM
Forgive me, Luj. I wasn't too clear on some of your questions. But this one I think I understand:
"If there is indeed a god who cares for us and wants us to behave in a certain manner then why do more than half the edicts in his religiuos texts have to be igonred?"
I know I take heat for this, but it is my own personal belief...that the God described in the Bible was written by humans, in a language that is no longer in use. There can be huge gaps in our understanding now days of what the Definition of God was in terms of context, meaning, application and translation...etc.
Also, if humans are imperfect (which I don't think too many sane people would deny) then how exactly could there be just one right religion...as humans have then interpreted (supposedly) God's thoughts, ideas, principles, etc...into their own perspective. They've essentially made this God, like them.
This is why religion cannot, nor will ever work for ME. I think somethings, some principles eschewed or adopted in practice by religions are noble, and kind, and certainly could benefit many from following them. But just because I don't belong to a religion doesn't mean I don't have access to such ideas or principles, intrinsically or intuitively within myself.
IMHO are higher things at work, like natural laws or nature for instance. There are laws that are definite and unwaivering. Some call them life lessons. You get what you give... Religions have interpreted these and then used them for power and money. But just because they've discovered or found them, adopted them - in sometimes a corrupt or misguided way doesn't mean that these very laws or this source does not exists or exists in any other way then the fact it just IS. Regardless of how or in what way us humans choose to participate.
Yes, I am agnostic and could be well on my way to your definition of atheism...however, I choose not to label it. I learn more and I get to experience the positive side of life when I look at it in terms of my own discovery. It also allows me to accept other peoples way of walking in the world as they see it. And as long as they don't blow me up, I don't give a rip.
(On Catholicism and veneration of the Saints, Rome and much of that area was pagan before Christ and Churches. When Catholicism took over, pagans were burned at the stake if they did not convert. Therefore, many took their cultural and ceremonial practices and integrated those into Catholicism to escape persecution... I may not have the exact history of that correct, but I think its the general concept)
Feebie at October 20, 2010 10:16 AM
"Atheism is just not FUN"
"Yeah, 60-something posts, and no one wants to talk about whether atheist women are more likely to take it up the ass?"
If I understand missionary position correct, I think the atheists are having more variety of fun.
Chang at October 20, 2010 10:37 AM
Aaaaaand Chang drops a conversation-stopping turd in the punchbowl @ 10:37am.
LauraGr at October 21, 2010 8:01 AM
You're still a sister.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 21, 2010 1:21 PM
Leave a comment